Why did Solidarity 703 publish Stuart Jordan’s article about solar radiation management (SRM)? I read it as an ad hominem attack on me that adds no clarity on serious climate matters.
InSolidarity 693, as part of a series on geoengineering, I assessed the most controversial form of SRM, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This involves adding reflective particles such as sulphur dioxide to the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet.
I summarised arguments in favour of stratospheric aerosol injection from its principal scientific exponent, David Keith at Harvard. I also set out key arguments against it, articulated by another highly-credible scientist, Mike Hulme at Cambridge.
SAI is at an early stage. Efforts to develop it have been hampered by opposition to even limited field tests. Given the current state of climate mitigation, I concluded that further research is warranted, despite significant fears about the technology.
By contrast, Stuart makes a series of false claims in Solidarity and a longer online piece. His mode of presentation is personalised extrapolation. He attributes to me views I don’t hold.
Stuart asserts I am “pessimistic about the prospects for socialism”, believe “social change is unlikely”, and can’t imagine “the end of capitalism”. He claims I suggest “the role of the AWL is to act as a kind of geoengineering advisory service to capitalist states”.
This is pure fabrication. It reads as disparaging my socialist commitment.
Stuart declares I am “overly impressed” by “for-hire ecomodernist scientists”. He contends I “argue for Keith’s research proposal with Keith’s arguments” and “arrive at similar conclusions to Keith”.
Keith
I tried to honestly represent Keith’s views for an unfamiliar readership. By contrast, Stuart fails to seriously evaluate Keith’s scientific work. Stuart’s barb at Keith for working in a university and taking some private funding effectively rules out huge numbers of scientists, including many working on climate risks.
Stuart alleges I “underplay the dangers of SRM” and “downplay the potential of SRM for military conflict”. He says capitalist states are “much more likely to radically destabilise Earth’s climate with SRM”.
At present, many consequences of SRM are not known. Scientists cannot yet quantify whether deploying SAI will destabilise the climate. That’s the whole point of further research. Stuart wants to confine this to computers and laboratories. But without some field experiments, researchers and activists won’t have sufficient knowledge to assess the risks.
Stuart alleges I “sow illusions in both the rationality and stability of bourgeois rule” and that “with a nudge from the workers’ movement they can be persuaded to collaborate”.
Again, pure invention. Stuart knows I critique capitalist states.
Stuart’s assertion effectively rules out the fight for reforms or making demands on bourgeois governments. That cuts against the history of the labour movement and climate activism.
Stuart argues that “SRM is at best a project for decades into the future at a time when the climate crisis is so extreme that we really have run out of alternatives.” He claims only a “democratic socialist commonwealth” can run SRM.
This is not a strategy for now or the future. It is a sectarian, “r-r-revolutionary” waiting — abstract propagandist passivity.
My efforts to bring solar radiation management to the attention ofSolidarity’s readers deserve serious criticism. Certainly, SAI requires careful evaluation. SAI is currently a long way from deployment at a scale where it might have the intended or unintended effects suggested by supporters or opponents. What socialists can do is engage with scientific studies and contribute serious politics.
I am disappointed that Solidarity’s editor published Stuart’s invective. The mode of presentation, even the sub-edited version, was structured around ad hominem attacks, rather than the real issues. Rational polemics are welcome. But socialist newspapers must have minimum standards of quality and coherence.
Stuart’s article failed those tests. Solidarity is diminished by publishing it.
Paul Vernadsky, London