I guess I'm questioning if "reductions only"
is the right policy all the way up until the
point when the water is up to our ears.
Will there never come a point when doing the right
thing includes drastic remedial measures?
When/if 9 metres of sea level rise becomes a
blindingly obvious inevitability, would we
say "leave you cities and fight for space in the
mountain hermitages - we're not going to try anything
clever because of the new organic standards
from the soil association, and some scientists are
worried it might cause some problems for
arthropods"?
Andy
--- Chris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Personally I feel no choice but to try and do the right thing,
> futile or not. At least that way I can look my children in the eye
> with pride, and know I did what I could.
>
> As Orwell once said (and I paraphrase) 'I should have been a vicar
> in a sleepy English back water, but confronted with the evil around
> me I felt I had no choice but to write.'
>
> Regards
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andy Ray Taylor
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:51 PM
> Subject: [CRISIS-FORUM] Save the Planet
>
>
> Hi all
>
> recent research findings from the arctic and UK methane-from-soil
> and Siberia seem to indicate that we have reached tipping point
> on escalating greenhouse gases.
>
> If that's true, we're beyond the point at which reductions alone
> will be sufficient to stabilise the climate.
>
> It's all very well to want to "do no harm", but when "serious
> shit"
> has already happened, isn't it necessary to try whatever
> remedies are available?
>
> Andy T
>
>
>
> Mandy & Andy Meikle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think Chris K is right with his 'crazy' theory. Have only
> skimmed this but
> would warn against techno-fixes in general (and earth-scaled
> ones from the
> US in particular!) I mean orbiting space mirrors that deflect
> sunlight away
> from Earth, or ships that intensify cloud cover to block the
> sun's rays -
> and here was me wondering how the US could ever control
> renewable energy
> once the oil's gone!
>
> Also, Boris Kelly-Gerreyn recently wrote on this e-list:
> As someone involved in oceanography, this suggestion of
> fertilising the
> oceans with iron (or other nutrients required by algae) as a
> way of
> sequestering carbon is UTTERLY IRRESPONSIBLE. (email was dated
> 3/8/05 if
> interested in more)
>
> Popular science says, "Before CO2 is injected into the ground,
> it's
> compressed into what's called a supercritical state ..." - how
> much energy
> does this take? More or less than launching mirrors into space?
> And remember
> that CO2 makes oil less viscous so it'd be getting pumped into
> those
> depleting wells no matter what state the climate was in.
>
> "In this form, CO2 should remain trapped underground for
> thousands of years,
> if not indefinitely". That's a bit of a leap there, from
> "should" (what if
> it doesn't?) remain trapped for 1,000s of years to
> "indefinately". Think
> we'd need to see some real science on that one! I'm no
> geologist but I
> watched Earth Story and I think some of Bush's science advisors
> should too!
>
> Techno-fixes invariably avoid addressing the real problem, in
> this case
> unsustainable energy consumption. None of the perils address
> net energy
> issues - what happens when oil hits £300/barrel & we can't
> supercool our CO2
> anymore? Using evermore energy to try to work our way out of
> the current
> situation isn't the answer. Albert Einstein said "We can't
> solve problems by
> using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them"
> or words to
> that effect - it really is time to think differently & fast!
> When will we
> start exercising our brains on how to do that, rather than how
> to use oil
> even faster?
>
> As some of you know, I believe that oil depletion (peak of
> production) and
> climate change are at the same level on the 'serious shit'
> scale. I think
> the latter, to some degree, is being used to deflect attention
> away from the
> former. I wish I didn't believe this stuff, really I do!
>
> MM x
>
> Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian
> Oil Bourse by
> William R. Clark (Friday August 05 2005)
> (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450)
>
> It's about Iran's plans to begin competing with New York's
> NYMEX and
> London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a
> euro-based
> international oil-trading mechanism and apparently beginning in
> March 2006.
> [1]
>
> In summary
> Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and
> Iran extend
> beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear
> intentions. The
> proposed Iranian oil bourse (The word 'bourse' refers to a
> stock exchange
> for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock
> exchange in
> Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs)
> signifies that
> without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to
> establish a firm
> foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels
> and the
> stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination,
> Tehran's objective
> constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the
> crucial
> international oil market.
>
> The report also says that from the autumn of 2004 through
> August 2005,
> numerous leaks by concerned Pentagon employees have revealed
> that the
> neoconservatives in Washington are quietly - but actively -
> planning for a
> possible attack against Iran.
>
> And that throughout 2003-2004 both Russia and China
> significantly increased
> their central bank holdings of the euro, which appears to be a
> coordinated
> move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a
> second World
> Reserve Currency. [2] [3]
>
> A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an
> alternative
> oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's
> hegemonic status
> as the monopoly oil currency.
>
> Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and
> Iran extend
> beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear
> intentions.
> Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran
> relate to the
> macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized
> but real
> challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an
> alternative oil
> transaction currency.
>
> The author believes that Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he
> announced on
> September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars
> for oil being
> sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch
> to the euro
> as Iraq's oil export currency.
>
>
> [1] "Oil bourse closer to reality," IranMania.com, December 28,
> 2004. Also
> see: "Iran oil bourse wins authorization," Tehran Times, July
> 26, 2005
>
> [2] "Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar,"
> AFP, June 9,
> 2003 http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
>
> [3] "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China
> Business Weekly,
> May 8, 2004
>
>
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
>
> Author: William R. Clark has received two Project Censored
> awards, first in
> 2003 for his ground-breaking research on the Iraq War, oil
> currency
> conflict, and U.S. geostrategy and again in 2005 for his
> research on Iran's
> upcoming euro-denominated oil bourse. (Censored 2004: The Top
> 25 Censored
> Stories, Seven Stories Press). He is an Information Security
> Analyst, and
> holds a Master of Business Administration and Master of Science
> in
> Information and Telecommunication Systems from Johns Hopkins
> University. He
> lives near Bethesda, Maryland.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mohamed Yunus Yasin"
> To:
> >Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Popular Science: How Earth-Scale Engineering
> Can Save the
> Planet]
>
>
> Technology on an Earth Scale.....Hmm, not sure about this...
>
> Mark Twain once said "Climate is what we expect, weather is
> what we get."
>
> Some say Methane is going to be a bigger problem compared to
> CO2 from the
> climate change perspective. Others say climate change would
> come from other
> sources etc etc....So if we spend trillions of dollars on a
> technology for a
> specific problem, what assurance do we have that some other
> problem will not
> come and hit us while we are not looking?
>
> Besides human 'intervention' (in environment/social) IS the
> problem. Why
> should one believe that it takes human intervention to solve a
> problem
> caused by human intervention?
>
> However, from a technical point of view, 'prevention is better
> then
> cure'....so isn't the money better spent on alternative energy
> sources etc
> etc.
>
> So perhaps the title should be changed from
> "How Earth-Scale Engineering Can Save the Planet" TO
> "How Earth-Scale Engineering Can CHANGE the Planet" again!
>
> peace
> yunus
>
>
> >From: Chris Keene
> >Reply-To: Chris Keene
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: [Fwd: Popular Science: How Earth-Scale Engineering
> Can Save the
> >Planet]
> >Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:22:10 +0100
> >
> >Does anyone have any thoughts on these ideas? They seem pretty
> crazy to
> >me, but I'm not an expert, and it might be useful for us to
> have some
> >evaluation of them in case we ever get to debate them with
> their supporters
> >
> >Chris
>
|
