Thread by @OlafCorry

Thread/
1. Cambridge University's idea for a centre for Climate Repair is great. But this BBC piece makes a number of common slip-ups in my view. In order of appearance:

BBC News - Climate change: Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth's climate bbc.com/news/science-e…

2. The headline: these ideas definitely won't 'fix' Earth's climate. They may ameliorate some bad effects of global warming but may also cause some new ones
- and must be combined with rapid emissions cuts. All the scientists I know working on it make this point repeatedly.

3. 'Fix' is also an instrumental idea of repair, like it's a broken cup needing some glue. A better approach to climate repair is to focus on repairing the broken relationship between humans and planet.

4. "Radical approaches like ... taking CO2 out of the air". Is taking CO2 back out of the air with technology 'radical'? Keeping carbon in the ground would arguably be more radical. So 'new' ≠ 'radical'! If windmills or insulation were invented today, would they be 'radical'?

5. "The initiative is the first of its kind" -OK tho #Harvard may dispute that - and "could lead to dramatic reductions in carbon emissions." Woah!
It 'could', perhaps. Let's hope. But 'could' also lead to increases in emissions if care is not taken to avoid mitigation deterrence

for example:
6. "the new centre's mission would be to 'solve the climate problem'"? It's unhelpful to suggest geoengineering could 'solve' climate change as that makes it appear to be an alternative not a supplement, a stand-alone 'solution'.

7. That Climate Change can be "solved" by anything is a bit of a misnomer - it is such a wicked/multifaceted problem that the best we can probably aim for is to "manage" it reasonably well. Again, if it were a'solution we could do it _instead of_ transition to low carbon world.

8. Carbon capture and utilisation is not mainly about climate repair (or 'geoengineering'). It's mainly about creating a product, including hopefully a substitute low-carbon fuel that prevents harm (e.g. from flying) in the first place.

9. The scientists know all this, but the breathless journalistic search for all things first, new, radical, decisive and silver-bulletty is a real problem when communicating geoengineering technology and its (potential) roles. /ENDS.