| Dear Colleagues,
This is a response to a private communication related to my AGU comment regarding the problem with the term “climate intervention”.
“The term could include anything that humans do that impacts the climate and implies that cooling techniques are aberrational emergency measures. I see it as analogous to Neoclassical economists calling any form of planning a “market intervention”, implying that markets are normal and “natural” and all other forms of public policy are “market interventions”. I don’t doubt that they will not change terminology, but was hoping this terminology point would help focus attention on the more important point of the need to turn the table on the ethical question!”
Best, Ron
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2023, at 10:01 PM, Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
If you're so inclined, please comment (2000 characters or less) on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework by tomorrow 8/15/2023
The principles are IMO overly defensive. I submitted this comment (this version slightly fixed up!):
"These principles are a welcome development that I fully
support. However, I believe that they
have an overly defensive frame: A) The term “climate intervention” suggests an
emergency application of measures on a system that hitherto has somehow not
been “intervened into”. The truth of
course is that anything that affects the climate including GHG emissions,
reducing GHG emissions, and drawing down accumulated GHG, could all be termed
“climate interventions”. I understand
the usefulness of not using the more common term “geoengineering” as this
connotes even more all-encompassing and hubristic human manipulation of nature,
and tends to point to an exclusive focus on SAI and other high-leverage SRM direct
climate cooling methods. My own preference
(and that of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition of which I am a member) is for
the more positive, well-defined, but also general and inclusive term “direct
climate cooling”. B) Rather than seeking to explain and justify direct climate
cooling, it appears to me that it is long past time to put the ethical and
moral question the other way. The truth is that: 1) climate change is
accelerating and will continue to cause increasingly catastrophic harm to
humans and other living species, 2) there exist multiple direct climate cooling
methods that have the potential to reduce this
harm
(https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023), and 3) current global policy that relies exclusively on greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and removal to address climate change is incompatible with
responsible stewardship of the planet. C) Is there any feasible way forward other than a three-pronged strategy
that includes direct climate cooling along with emissions reduction and
drawdown (https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023)?"
Thanks to the PRAG thread on this (with other examples of comments) for bringing this to my attention!
Best, Ron
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9CqA0mv4%2BMok0EK1FuUkgdKo4SGAi-tH7zD_PhZCF3KfA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/31095FB3-ADD7-4667-9674-8A4B97A7A41C%40gmail.com.
|
