Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic

[Ron Baiman]

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
> 
>
>
> 
>
> 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
> 
>
> 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 simmens ; John Nissen ;
> Robert Tulip ; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <
> planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald ;
> Hugh.Hunt ; healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an
> international non-use agreement
>
> I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the
> non-use letter - she 

RE: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic

[Wil Burns]

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
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
[http://www.google.com/images/icons/product/groups-32.png]
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 

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>> 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>>
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>>; 
Planetary Restoration 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Shaun Fitzgerald