Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Ronal W. Larson]

Professor Marshall:  cc list

This is to pick up on one of your sentences below on CO2 removal (CDR). 
 I understand that this thread and the Gunderson et al article have 
intentionally (up to now) only discussed the SRM half of Geo.  But perhaps 
getting your reaction to the biochar form of CDR will help clarify our recent 
extensive SRM-related discussions.

You asked (below):  “If we also need CO2 removal then will that 
suddenly be self-supporting too?”

I believe that the mere existence of Amazonian Dark Earth (ADE, mostly 
known as Terra Preta) easily answers your question.   This anthropogenic soil 
is certainly “self-supporting”.  Wiki does a good enough job on ADE/Terra 
Preta, but there are hundreds of cites.

Of course, your “suddenly” doesn’t qualify with ADE.  But can I ask for 
your thoughts on a recent similar “self-supporting” story.  I choose Australia 
for obvious reasons- perhaps near enough for you to visit,  The brief report is 
at:  
http://www.biochar-international.org/profile_Potatoes_in_Australia 
.  
(I place Australia as one the top three countries for understanding biochar,  
but perhaps losing out now to China)

To further justify this jaunt into “self-supporting”, I also recommend 
a (non-fee) 2018 paper with more of a science flavor, on biochar results in 
Nepal:
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718300226 
 . 
This has citations for even larger increases of NPP.  For instance a search for 
“pumpkins” in that list of references - will lead to 400% NPP in a 2015 paper.  
Clearly highly “self-supporting” - without even considering additional out-year 
economic benefits (we generally hear of 1000 year biochar lifetime).

I am NOT claiming anything like this for the average biochar program - 
but I hope this is intriguing enough to have a little attention on this list to 
this specific SRM “CDR-cousin”.

Ron


> On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Marshall  > wrote:
> 
> 
> If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water 
> droplets in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no 
> unintended effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I 
> personally do not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem 
> with them in principle.
> 
> But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so 
> that all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to 
> remove CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,
> 
> I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
> self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
> secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then 
> I imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
> removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?
> 
> Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing 
> the goal posts considerably
> 
> The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation 
> of our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in 
> my opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do 
> moderate those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.
> 
> jon
> 
> From: Stephen Salter >
> Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
> To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
> Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
> Technological Rationality in Social Context
> 
> Hi Renaud
> 
> Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
> attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
> geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing 
> it is zero.
> 
> I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values 
> without the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local 
> wind should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University 
> of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk 
>  >, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
> WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs 
>  >, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
> 
> On 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> I am interested by the article you propose.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Renaud de Richter, 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Indeed, that is why I 'blamed' developmentalism. But there are plenty of people 
who would argue that both the soviet union and contemporary China are State 
based capitalist societies. Ownership and control of the means of production 
certainly did not reside with the workers and China is pretty much run on 
profit seeking at the moment anyway.

But, its an almost irrelevant point because geoengineering in those countries 
would be embedded in their particular environmentally destructive tendencies, 
so the argument that GE can proceed without paying attention to those 
tendencies is still not supported. In the west we may face destructive 
corporate domination, there they may face something else.

jon

From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 9:25 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Soviet Russia and modern China aren't noted for their green policies...

On 22 Jan 2018 22:22, "Jonathan Marshall" 
> wrote:

Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer.

However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US 
and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison 
and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also 
removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for 
economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity 
(which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting 
coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the 
face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - 
so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and 
survival.

However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and 
developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon 
for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. 
There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental 
reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of 
despoliation in China)

The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen 
some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that 
this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive 
in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control.

You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you 
easier. I'm happy with other names..

And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that 
destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate 
power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some 
geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with 
social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things 
worse.  That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said.

It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this.

jon

From: Peter Flynn >
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water droplets 
in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no unintended 
effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I personally do 
not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem with them in 
principle.

But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so that 
all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to remove 
CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,

I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then I 
imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?

Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing the 
goal posts considerably

The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation of 
our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in my 
opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do moderate 
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.

jon

From: Stephen Salter 
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Hi Renaud

Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing it 
is zero.

I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values without 
the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local wind 
should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 
07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I am interested by the article you propose.
Thanks and best wishes,
Renaud de Richter, PhD

Le 22 janv. 2018 10:48 AM, "Stephen Salter" 
> a écrit :

Hi All

Jonathan Marshall writes about the cost of geoengineering proposals that  
'Nearly all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies . . ',Other people 
have written that they are so cheap that some private individuals could afford 
them.

We only need one cost-effective technology to remove the objection.  I hope 
that it will be possible to have one with the annual costs of reversing warming 
to date below those of international climate conferences. If anyone wants a 
paper  giving the supporting arguments, please contact me.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 
5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change
On 22/01/2018 00:42, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
--
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 post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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 post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer.

However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US 
and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison 
and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also 
removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for 
economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity 
(which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting 
coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the 
face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - 
so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and 
survival.

However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and 
developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon 
for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. 
There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental 
reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of 
despoliation in China)

The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen 
some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that 
this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive 
in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control.

You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you 
easier. I'm happy with other names..

And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that 
destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate 
power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some 
geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with 
social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things 
worse.  That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said.

It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this.

jon

From: Peter Flynn 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context


Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to 

[geo] A Model of Solar Radiation Management Liability

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/awi/institut/awlecture/dp644.pdf

A Model of Solar Radiation Management Liability
∗ Tobias Pfrommer† Heidelberg University
January 17, 2018

Abstract
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is a set of potential technologies to
counteract climate change. Liability regimes are one potential form of
governance institution to avoid global externalities caused by the SRM
”free-driver” problem. In this paper I examine the incentives structure and
welfare consequences of SRM liability regimes. Characteristics specific to
SRM impact on the incentives that liability regimes provide via the
definition of harm and the liability standard. Consequently, a liability
regime is defined as a combination of a definition of harm and a liability
standard in the model. Providing several interpretations of these two
dimensions adequate for the SRM context, I show that only one combination
implements the social optimum. A numerical implementation of the model
yields that the free-driver problem is moderate given a metric of mean
temperature and extreme given a metric of mean precipitation. Furthermore,
the implementation suggests that liability regimes are generally capable of
mitigating the free-driver problem substantially and that the choice of the
definition of harm is more consequential than the choice of the liability
standard. Keywords: Solar Radiation Management, Liability Regimes,
Externalities, Climate Engineering, Free-Driver Scenario JEL Codes: Q53,
Q54, K13

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination

[Alan Robock]

You can read it at http://rdcu.be/FhUG 
 



Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

On 1/22/2018 4:20 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Old, new to list. Got some hyperbolic coverage in WIRED

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0431-0


  Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar
  geoengineering implementation and termination

  * Christopher H. Trisos
,
  * Giuseppe Amatulli
,
  * […]
  * Brian Zambri


  * /Nature Ecology & Evolution/ (2018)
  * doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0
  * Download Citation

 *
  o Climate-change ecology

  o Climate-change impacts


Received:
11 May 2017
Accepted:
28 November 2017
Published online:
22 January 2018


Abstract

Solar geoengineering is receiving increased policy attention as a 
potential tool to offset climate warming. While climate responses to 
geoengineering have been studied in detail, the potential biodiversity 
consequences are largely unknown. To avoid extinction, species must 
either adapt or move to track shifting climates. Here, we assess the 
effects of the rapid implementation, continuation and sudden 
termination of geoengineering on climate velocities—the speeds and 
directions that species would need to move to track changes in 
climate. Compared to a moderate climate change scenario (RCP4.5), 
rapid geoengineering implementation reduces temperature velocities 
towards zero in terrestrial biodiversity hotspots. In contrast, sudden 
termination increases both ocean and land temperature velocities to 
unprecedented speeds (global medians >10 km yr−1) that are more than 
double the temperature velocities for recent and future climate change 
in global biodiversity hotspots. Furthermore, as climate velocities 
more than double in speed, rapid climate fragmentation occurs in 
biomes such as temperate grasslands and forests where temperature and 
precipitation velocity vectors diverge spatially by >90°. Rapid 
geoengineering termination would significantly increase the threats to 
biodiversity from climate change.


--
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination

[Andrew Lockley]

Old, new to list. Got some hyperbolic coverage in WIRED

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0431-0

Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering
implementation and termination

   - Christopher H. Trisos
   ,
   - Giuseppe Amatulli
   ,
   - […]
   - Brian Zambri 


   - *Nature Ecology & Evolution* (2018)
   - doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0
   - Download Citation
   
   -
  - Climate-change ecology
  
  - Climate-change impacts
  

Received:11 May 2017Accepted:28 November 2017Published online:22 January
2018


Abstract

Solar geoengineering is receiving increased policy attention as a potential
tool to offset climate warming. While climate responses to geoengineering
have been studied in detail, the potential biodiversity consequences are
largely unknown. To avoid extinction, species must either adapt or move to
track shifting climates. Here, we assess the effects of the rapid
implementation, continuation and sudden termination of geoengineering on
climate velocities—the speeds and directions that species would need to
move to track changes in climate. Compared to a moderate climate change
scenario (RCP4.5), rapid geoengineering implementation reduces temperature
velocities towards zero in terrestrial biodiversity hotspots. In contrast,
sudden termination increases both ocean and land temperature velocities to
unprecedented speeds (global medians >10 km yr−1) that are more than double
the temperature velocities for recent and future climate change in global
biodiversity hotspots. Furthermore, as climate velocities more than double
in speed, rapid climate fragmentation occurs in biomes such as temperate
grasslands and forests where temperature and precipitation velocity vectors
diverge spatially by >90°. Rapid geoengineering termination would
significantly increase the threats to biodiversity from climate change.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Hawkins, David]

Yes. Capitalism is a social construct; just as interventions to curb the 
harmful side effects of capitalism’s actors are a social construct.
Attacks on “capitalism” have their analogs in attacks on “government,” where 
government interventions are claimed to inherently reduce the benefits of 
capitalism. Unfortunately, this paradigm of government as something to be 
avoided, tends to shift the burden to require proof that a government action is 
needed before there is a strong enough consensus to license that action.  As we 
have seen in the U.S. especially, in the last half century, this makes it hard 
to act soon enough on problems like climate change.
But, as I said at the start, the answer is not to mount calls for an end to 
capitalism. It is to build support for more timely and effective government 
interventions and other social responses.
David

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Peter Flynn  wrote:
> 
> If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
> how does one explain the following:
> 
> -the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
> considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
> regulated) economies.
> 
> - ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
> compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.
> 
> - ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
> fuels.
> 
> And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
> with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
> border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
> was there, many years ago).
> 
> All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.
> 
> Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
> Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
> Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
> capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
> to regulate.
> 
> I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
> dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
> diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
> cell: 928 451 4455
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
> To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> Cc: geoengineering 
> Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
> Technological Rationality in Social Context
> 
> 
> Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.
> 
> The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
> capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
> prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.
> 
> GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
> to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
> system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
> that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
> may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
> could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate
> profits, while trying to do research in the hope of  some day being able
> to postpone the increasing cancer toll.
> 
> The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with
> problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which
> 'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and
> possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge
> established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully.
> I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world
> demonstrates that is very likely to be the case.
> 
> There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic,
> and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly
> unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing
> idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system
> than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm
> not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going
> to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable
> for them.
> 
> The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me.
> However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in
> their 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Flynn]

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context


Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate
profits, while trying to do research in the hope of  some day being able
to postpone the increasing cancer toll.

The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with
problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which
'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and
possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge
established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully.
I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world
demonstrates that is very likely to be the case.

There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic,
and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly
unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing
idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system
than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm
not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going
to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable
for them.

The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me.
However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in
their framework, they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which
are likely to destroy themselves completely. That is probably the result
of Marxist optimism, which I think is unjustified, and has been shown to
be unjustified by history.

All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The
correct answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal.
Personally I think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology,
which could be magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge
corporate power and investigate GE, particularly CDR.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or
copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the
views of the University of 

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Andrew Revkin]

On Peter's wise input, one other thought.

In ecosystems, there's some evidence that a lack of true "organization" -
meaning coordination, consistency - appears to be a source of resilience.
As Thomas Elmqvist captured as "response diversity"

in a remarkable 2003 paper. I cited it a couple of times in the context of
intense deep divisions over climate change solutions (sift to Elmqvist
mention here

).

Applied to human systems, the notion would be that our variegated responses
to environmental stresses - both at individual (
http://culturalcognition.net ) and societal levels (the difference
between China's
climate/energy planning and ours and Europe's etc.
)
- are adaptive in the best evolutionary sense. (There's only been one peer
reviewed paper
assessing
the social-resilience equivalent so far.)

The result looks disorderly and is full of tensions, but it's totally human
and got us through our mess.. so far..  The alternative - coordinated
planetary 'management' - feels necessary but seems implicitly un-human.


Of course we are entering what feels like uncharted terrain given how much
our environmental potency is outstripping our capacity to understand its
implications on time scales we're not set up to consider fully.. But that's
also the human way, it seems. .



On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Charles Greene  wrote:

> Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking comments Peter about
> the evolution of human organizations.
>
> On Jan 21, 2018, at 1:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger <
> peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth here is my 2 cts
>
> History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other
> living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased
> social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer
> groups, villages
> cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us
> more fit - face the cahllenges of the time.   The climate change issue is
> amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective
> impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the
> challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable
> globalization of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations
> with disdain rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical
> sense but ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better
> future is equally misguided .
>
> In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the
> challenges we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to
> implement them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves
> to address the challenges we faced.
> My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make
> us more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of
> nature , is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my
> opinion in the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it.
>
> Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large
> global  bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way
> to a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to
> be determined.
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've
>> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and
>> it's not motivated by publication incentives.
>>
>> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
>> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
>> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red
>> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.
>>
>> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in
>> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public
>> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life
>> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the
>> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as
>> inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
>>> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Jonathan Marshall writes about the cost of geoengineering proposals 
that  'Nearly all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies . . ',    
Other people have written that they are so cheap that some private 
individuals could afford them.


We only need one cost-effective technology to remove the objection.  I 
hope that it will be possible to have one with the annual costs of 
reversing warming to date below those of international climate 
conferences. If anyone wants a paper  giving the supporting arguments, 
please contact me.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 22/01/2018 00:42, Jonathan Marshall wrote:

--
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.