Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic
Point taken, Wil. Best, Ron On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 10:27 AM Wil Burns wrote: > It should be noted that many of signatories beyond the original 16 > represent many of the subject areas you indicate should weigh in, including > law, ethics, and science. I don’t think this should be used as a straw man > argument. wil > > > > > > > > > > > > *WIL BURNS* > > Visiting Professor > > Environmental Policy & Culture Program > > Northwestern University > > > > Email: william.bu...@northwestern.edu > > Mobile: 312.550.3079 > > > > 1808 Chicago Ave. #110 > > Evanston, IL 60208 > > https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html > > > > > > *Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: * > >- 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call >- 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min >- 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min >- 60-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min >- 30-minute Zoom session: >https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call >- 15-minute Zoom session: >https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call > > > > *I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the > Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands > Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on > this land today**.* > > > > > > > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:11 AM > *To:* Digest recipients > *Subject:* [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates > in 1 topic > > > > geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > Google Groups > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email/#!overview> > > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email/#!overview> > > Topic digest > View all topics > > · [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an > international non-use agreement <#m_5815659627215592359_group_thread_0> - 4 > Updates > > [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international > non-use agreement > <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/c696c33e7e483dc?utm_source=digest_medium=email> > > Clare James : Jan 31 04:07PM > > I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the > non-use letter - she addresses many of the vague statements and illogical > conclusions and was the peer review on the main article so perhaps someone > could reach out to her in relation to the draft response letter? > > One thing I have noticed is that almost all of the original 16 signatories > were governance scholars. Any kind of intentional cooling needs a properly > interdisciplinary approach to avoid silo preferences and ill advised > moratoria demands. Governance, atmospheric physics, ethics, Law, > engineering, risk analysis are just some academic areas that might > contribute to a more nuanced pathway to research and maybe deployment. > > Moral hazard is two fold as you say and too often used as a club to bat > away the uncomfortable truth that given the magical BECCS permeating the > IAMs, things are even worse than forecast. > > Clare (@clare_nomad_geo) > > > David Mitchell : Jan 31 05:51PM > > Here are some reflections I've been having concerning the anticipated > rebuttal letter: > > > 1. The real target audience of a rebuttal letter should be policy makers > and the public, and not the signatories of the non-use letter. Regarding > the non-use letter, it might be noted that decisions born of fear generally > lead to poor outcomes. > > > > 2. There is currently a lot of fear in society which makes people more > reactive. The non-use letter can be persuasive by provoking additional fear > about climate intervention technology and then offering a mechanism to > reduce this apparent threat. A rebuttal letter could be an opportunity to > educate the public about the myth of net zero carbon, the timescales of > CDR, and the likelihood over overshooting the Paris Agreement thresholds, > empowering them to act more wisely. Uncertainty and the unknown promote > fear, whereas knowing the facts and the options available may reduce fear. > > > 3. I especially like the comments made by Clare James and Herb Simmens. > > > > David Mitchell > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > on behalf of Clare James > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:07 AM > To: rpbai...@gmail.com > Cc: H si
RE: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic
It should be noted that many of signatories beyond the original 16 represent many of the subject areas you indicate should weigh in, including law, ethics, and science. I don’t think this should be used as a straw man argument. wil [cid:image001.jpg@01D81756.42995140] WIL BURNS Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University Email: william.bu...@northwestern.edu<mailto:william.bu...@northwetsern.edu> Mobile: 312.550.3079 1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: *60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call * 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min * 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min * 60-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min * 30-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call * 15-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:11 AM To: Digest recipients Subject: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic geoengineering@googlegroups.com<%20%20https:/groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email#!forum/geoengineering/topics> Google Groups<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email/#!overview> [http://www.google.com/images/icons/product/groups-32.png]<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email/#!overview> Topic digest View all topics<%20%20https:/groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest_medium=email#!forum/geoengineering/topics> · [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement - 4 Updates [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/c696c33e7e483dc?utm_source=digest_medium=email> Clare James mailto:cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>>: Jan 31 04:07PM I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the non-use letter - she addresses many of the vague statements and illogical conclusions and was the peer review on the main article so perhaps someone could reach out to her in relation to the draft response letter? One thing I have noticed is that almost all of the original 16 signatories were governance scholars. Any kind of intentional cooling needs a properly interdisciplinary approach to avoid silo preferences and ill advised moratoria demands. Governance, atmospheric physics, ethics, Law, engineering, risk analysis are just some academic areas that might contribute to a more nuanced pathway to research and maybe deployment. Moral hazard is two fold as you say and too often used as a club to bat away the uncomfortable truth that given the magical BECCS permeating the IAMs, things are even worse than forecast. Clare (@clare_nomad_geo) David Mitchell mailto:david.mitch...@dri.edu>>: Jan 31 05:51PM Here are some reflections I've been having concerning the anticipated rebuttal letter: 1. The real target audience of a rebuttal letter should be policy makers and the public, and not the signatories of the non-use letter. Regarding the non-use letter, it might be noted that decisions born of fear generally lead to poor outcomes. 2. There is currently a lot of fear in society which makes people more reactive. The non-use letter can be persuasive by provoking additional fear about climate intervention technology and then offering a mechanism to reduce this apparent threat. A rebuttal letter could be an opportunity to educate the public about the myth of net zero carbon, the timescales of CDR, and the likelihood over overshooting the Paris Agreement thresholds, empowering them to act more wisely. Uncertainty and the unknown promote fear, whereas knowing the facts and the options available may reduce fear. 3. I especially like the comments made by Clare James and Herb Simmens. David Mitchell From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Clare James mailto:cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:07 AM To: rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com> mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> Cc: H simmens mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com>>; John Nissen mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>>; Robert Tulip mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>>; geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>