Hi Herb--The paper seems to mainly be expressing views on geoengineering
applicable to proposals for geoengineering back in the 1950s and 1960s
that were aimed at changing the climate back then in ways to gain access
to needed resources and take on projects thought to be beneficial to
society. As it turned out, such projects did not go forward, in part due
to reasons of hubris and the other issues raised in the article. Melting
of the Arctic to get at its presumed resources was, for example, an idea
goes back to the 1870s, and there were a number of other such ideas.
Now, 60 or so years later, these critical views of using geoengineering
to alter the world away from its natural state are now being applied to
geoengineering's proposed use to keep the world as close as possible to
what it naturally was (so the reverse of the situation when the
arguments were first assembled). In addition, with mitigation chosen as
the preferred approach for dealing with climate change, the notion that
this will not be sufficient and that the world will also need to resort
to geoengineering is, in my view, being seen as a personal failure of
those who had taken that position rather than a situation caused by the
massiveness of the transition that is needed and the significant
resources, technologies, and economical and political commitment needed
to make it happen.
With so many locked in to their position that mitigation must be the
only approach used, there has been a blizzard of articles opposed to
geoengineering that has created a momentum of opposition that is now
drowning out dissenting views. Those who are creating the blizzard seem
to persist in part because they are getting credit for being in the
mainstream that got its start 60 years ago, all without noting the
different purpose of geoengineering applicable to the present situation.
In few of these articles is there acceptance and accountability taken of
what lies ahead without intervention if geoengineering is not
tried--what will be their answers then.
Your fundamental question of the past several years, Herb, remains
valid. I'll augment, however, with an insert in brackets for clarity:
"If not now [after three decades of the UNFCCC international agreement
calling for avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system and with global emissions still rising and nowhere near
to being on a timely path to net zero that will avoid of order a
doubling, if not more, of the current increase in global average
temperature], then when [will the seriousness of the consequences be
enough to stimulate a reconsideration of the 60 year old view that the
authors of the article are arguing}?" None of those writing the articles
of opposition to geoengineering seem willing to consider anything other
than the mitigation-only approach that is failing, and, even with CDR
and adaptation, seems to be getting closer and closer to failing to a
disastrous degree.
As I recall, the talk that I gave at the DC Climate Week last year
addressed most, if possibly not all, of the stated objections and
concerns that the authors found were motivating the opposition. I'll see
if I can briefly respond to each of the concerns that were identified.
We do need to get a response out there, and perhaps you can help in
preparing it. I would also note that the Open Letter Ron Baiman has been
leading already addresses a number of the points.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 3/11/26 11:56 AM, H simmens wrote:
A recently published paper describes eight reasons why the authors
claim that opposition to solar geoengineering is growing.
Unless those supportive of direct cooling can mount convincing
arguments against these concerns supporters of cooling will remain on
the defensive.
I am not aware of any paper or article that attempts to systematically
respond to each of these concerns.
“Why do actors oppose the development and potential future use of
solar geoengineering technologies? This article maps and analyzes
growing opposition to the development of planetary-scale solar
geoengineering technologies among three actor groups—govern-
ments, civil society and academics.
While much social science research on such technolo-
gies has addressed questions of feasibility, acceptance, legality, the
desirability of more research or hypothetical governance designs,
hardly any empirical analyses exist of the opposition to these
technologies.
Drawing on numerous policy documents, civil society
declarations and academic statements, this article identifies eight
diverse rationales that underpin current opposition from governments,
intergovernmental bodies, civil society
and academic communities to solar geoengineering.
These rationales include:
concerns about:
risks and uncertainties of potential solar geoengineering schemes,
their failure to address the root causes of climate change,
risks of delaying mitigation,
likely violations of international law,
entrenchment of unjust power relations,
presumed ungovernability,
technological hubris, and the
violation of the Earth’s integrity.
Our analysis also finds evi-
dence of cross-fertilization among these rationales and a gradual
normalization of a global‘non-use’ discourse.
Overall, these critical perspectives increasingly shape the normative
and political terrain within which solar geoengineering is being
deliberated.”
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-026-04131-6.pdf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy,
also hilarious, Dive in and see"
Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/69bc4e26-4dcc-46fc-ab46-d52076d4553d%40comcast.net.
