Good governance for geoengineering

Phil Macnaghten and Richard Owen have published a review of the stagegate process in Nature this week...

Nature, 479, 293, 17 November 2011, doi:10.1038/479293a



Whilst reporting it in full here doubtless breaks numerous copyright laws I think I can discuss (and quote) specifics...

The most interesting paragraph (from the perspective of someone who went through the process) is the section on 'Lessons learned'

'Aspects of SPICE's governance could have been improved. The framework should have been in place before the project's conception; the test date should not have been announced until the stage-gate criteria had been met; and the structures and resources to support the social research should have been in place earlier. Even now, the decision on whether to proceed will not be easy. There are few right or wrong answers to the many questions about climate engineering. But it is vital that we make space to listen to and discuss these questions, and that the debate transparently influences the decisions that are taken.'

I think, overall, I agree with this. SPICE, of course, had no control over the pre-workshop decisions on governance and social research and I have strongly endorsed the position that social scientists should have been part of the workshop process. Such is the nature of that process. The test date is a harder one - for the record SPICE were determined to be as open as possible about the outdoor experiment and have been accused, utterly unfairly, of being secretive. We needed clearer signals that the stagegate was likely to be imposed - I worry that it could be misconstrued that we ignored the signs from the panel and ploughed on with the press briefing anyway.

Phil and I are on Material World (BBC radio 4) this afternoon at 4.30 pm to discuss this live. I am sure, as always, it will be a positive and useful interaction.

via the Guardian....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHZzACcYJRo

Kirsty's article

Of course, being a member of SPICE, I know Kirsty pretty well. Her views closely mirror my own and I think this article strikes the perfect tone...

http://theconversation.edu.au/geo-engineering-why-research-something-we-never-want-to-use-3684

Existentialist angst

I think part of the reason I am so comfortable with the stage-gate process is that I believe in collective restraint. The metaphorical 'cliff' looms large, and governance (even opposition to the idea of geoengineering) is like a safety barrier - it prevents me from using intellectual freedom negatively. It is good that this [global scale SRM] cannot be done easily, and that no one has the freedom to undertake research without responsibility. It frustrates me greatly that those who are mindful of this are under great scrutiny, regularly inaccurately and irresponsibly reported, when others have already conducted field trials (e.g. Yuri Izrael) without any governance whatsoever. 

News pre-Durban gets more depressing by the day...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15591309

'Public support for geoengineering research'

An interesting article out today, published by David Keith, suggests strong support for geoengineering research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15399832

This is a continuing theme, following from IAPGs efforts, that suggest most people are comfortable with, even support of,  research but alarmed about deployment.

http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/spice.pdf

I count myself amongst that group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15132989

One interesting result is that (from the BBC)...'The majority of respondents, the researchers added, were also inclined to say that the use of SRM technologies was an "easy way out" of continuing to burn fossil fuels and did not offer a long-term solution.'

I'm not sure I agree with that - SRM, to me, does not look at all like an easy option. Maybe the respondents think 'easy to implement' whereas I am thinking about it being easy to make safe.

In the interests of being even handed, David himself is not at all convinced by the tethered balloon technology or the trial.

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16791 (and subsequent article, also by Michael, in the New Scientist).

DECC 2050 tool...

 is very thought provoking.

My first stab is here. It needs work, although it does make the reductions target.

http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/pathways/2011212111111102132210022322023330310230333032043

Green credentials

This is mostly a cathartic exercise and may seem defensive, but I thought I'd give it a go. I've been thinking a little about this since seeing Susan Soloman speak at U. Pitt, where she [humbly] presented her [significant] carbon footprint.

Good: I grow a lot of my own fruit and vegetables. This year I grew 5 species of herb (in two big pots), four species of lettuce, rocket, tomatoes (two varieties), chillies (three varieties), cucumbers (that turned out to be courgettes - last time I trust anyone at a car boot sale!), onions, spring onions, chinese leaf, spinach, runner beans, broccoli, potatoes, parsnips (went badly this year, no idea why), french beans, carrots (two varieties), rhubarb, raspberries, blackberries, and strawberries. I do not have a massive garden, or a team of 'staff' before you ask, the plot makes up about a third of my garden and is about 8 m x 8 m (including a small greenhouse). We obsessively recycle and compost (two composters and a heap) and have a pretty effective water butt. I think I've bought 5 new items of clothing, excluding smalls/socks, in the last five years mostly from gift cards I've received. I try to work from home as much as I can, and I've given up driving into town (it's an 8 minute walk). We buy as much local produce as we can. Our house's resting pulse is about 80 W (it's thanks to British Gas's gadget I know that). Whilst we have a tumble drier it is very rarely on. I've cut down on international travel and will try to get to European conferences (i.e. EGU) by train from now on. I probably now do 2 transatlantics a year on average, 1 being Guatemala every year for a field trip.


Bad: My commute is 45 mins each way and I probably travel to work 4-5 times a week (I am seeking to cut this down). The local trains are awful and expensive but I should revisit them I'm sure. I still fly too much (1 x transatlantic flight uses as much energy as 100 km a day for a year in the car I heard David Mackay say the other day). We're not bad at turning stuff off, but could do better. The loft is relatively well insulated, but the walls probably aren't and our windows are not double glazed. Our energy bills are below average but could be further trimmed I'm sure.

So, what's the point of this? Well, I think the first step towards a more sustainable lifestyle is to look, closely, at what you currently do and think were you could make [even small] changes that would benefit the environment. Since starting to think more about climate I've started to make these changes (I've had the veggie patch a while) and they've been easy and, not wanting to sound patronising, even fun. Why not do the same?