Profile picture
, 9 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter
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…
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.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to TOC
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!