Hi Chris and CRISIS FORUM,
When I read Chris Keene's reply, my first thought was "he's in fighting mode".
Let's look at the language : "challenge", "run the world", "defeating", "they care nothing", "we go to war", "turn the public".
From my vantage point, there are no "Them", only "Us". I think we are all in this mess together.
To humour this poor, old peacemaker, can I ask you to drop the (call for) propaganda and military terminology, and try again ?
Yes, there are parts of the system that are stuck, to use the old vinyl term in a rut rather than in a groove.
I don't know whether the "complex" "care nothing". That smacks of demonisation of the "enemy".
Did "we" go to war in Iraq ? Or was this opposed by many ? And was it a war ? Looked rather like an invasion.
We all believe in free markets, apparently, so "profiteering" is justifiable, just "profit-making".
Protecting your "vested interests" is protecting the evolution of your "profit-making".
Yes, we need to describe (or "expose") the hidden influence. Yes we need to lay out for people the way things have gone wrong.
But I'm not in favour of belligerence.
jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.changecollege.org.uk
> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:59:21 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Kyoto2 : Systems Analysis
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I think what we need to do is challenge the vested interests, in the
> military industrial complex, who run the world. Without that, we have
> no hope of defeating climate change. They care nothing for the planet
> or for future generations.
>
> The first thing to do is expose their influence, and that should not be
> too difficult to do. Why did we go to war on Iraq, if not to help
> America control the oil?
>
> Then we have to turn the public against them. And the profiteering of
> Big Oil when ordinary people are struggling with both energy and food
> (partly caused by biofuels) price rises should make that relatively easy.
>
> Chris
>
> Wright, Steve wrote:
>
>> Dear Jo,
>>
>> Thank you for your detailed (almost Asperger-like) deconstruction of
>> Oliver T's book, and the convincing arguments you've made. I am trying
>> to make sense of my reaction since it was coupled with a reading of
>> Alan Simpson's cogent pieces that Mark Levene circulated and the
>> spattering of news stories about Russia's invasion of Georgia.
>>
>> Alan's slicing of UK policy reminds us that most of the technical
>> innovation required to yield significant percentage drops in carbon
>> useage are already with us as he has cogently highlighted by comparing
>> UK and German policies. So why have the more logical climate change
>> saving paradigms not been grabbed? The Yes Minister analogy works up
>> to a point since it says there are a hundreds of thousands of civil
>> servants wedded to the notion of business as usual and if they are not
>> adequatey retasked then the momentum in the system will self
>> replicate, with some tinkering at the margins.
>>
>> The Russian invasion raises more complex and far darker carbon-use
>> protection issues.A paradigm shift of the C&C kind which we advocate
>> on global commons justice grounds will not be viewed as so logical by
>> those who are carbon rich - especially if that carbon wealth
>> generation matrix is using those resources to regenerate the military
>> muscle to protect that paradigm.Lets not forget Russia's regeneration
>> and resurgence has been built on petro dollars and that addiction is
>> one which they might think they give up at their peril. Hence the
>> sabre rattling re Poland and the so called Missile defence initiative.
>>
>> In short, by all means let us have the deconstruction of various
>> "solutions" but if it is a true "systems analysis" then it needs to be
>> holistic and that means related systems and their behaviour need to be
>> deconstructed too. Any attempt to cut or reduce the carbon arterial
>> lines flowing from Russia and the various Stans to the West will be
>> seen in military, security and political survival terms, not just
>> through the monochrome lens of climate change impact.
>>
>> I would love to see a world where we have successfully made the
>> transition to a non-carbon economy. All the technology necessary to
>> make significant moves is I believe already with us. That doesn't mean
>> that paradigm will prevail however. If we want to deal with climate
>> change, deconstructing alternative economic ways of doing this will be
>> necessary but not suficient. The problems are so embedded in business
>> as usual we will need to rexamine the way that we image war and
>> militarisation. My guess is that we are at the beginning of a shake
>> out where the notion of 'Peak Oil' doesn't motivate the old guard
>> towards sustainable renewables but to advanced and highly militarized
>> forms of fuel colonisation whether it is Russia in the Artic and the
>> Stans, or China in Africa. If I am right then the next 50 years will
>> see an acceleration of spasm wars like Dharfur and mutinational
>> reinvestment in highly insecure but fuel rich states. If we are
>> entering a period like that of ancient China's waring states, we will
>> need to recognise military behaviour that is part of morphed carbon
>> colonialism and that probably means gathering knowledge beyond the
>> models of climate change proferred within environmental communities.....
>>
>> Some of this new knowledge should include a reassessment of the roles
>> of the military and military production and capability sets. Given
>> that we now have no peace dividend from the ending of the cold war but
>> even higher military expenditure, it is prudent to look around and ask
>> why is that and what are the consequences. A good starting place for
>> example would be Science For Global responsibility's publications on
>> Soldiers in the Laboratory and the militarisation of British
>> university research.......
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* jo abbess
>> *Sent:* Fri 15/08/2008 10:37
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Kyoto2 : Systems Analysis
>>
>>Hi Oliver and CRISIS FORUM,
>>
>>What annoys me is that Oliver Tickell has jumped into the fray without pausing to consider that his arguments may already have been used and refused by people working on the issue of Carbon control for several decades. If he were to look back, into the annals of evolving Climate Change policy, he will find that the idea of Auctioning Carbon Permits to the Carbon-wealthy has been diagnosed as quite probably leading to great inequalities within and between nations, exacerbating the problems that Climate Change poses, and risking emissions growth in countries and areas without "conventional" Fossil Fuel resources.
>>
>>Here are more of my comments on my second in-depth reading of Kyoto2 below. As you can see, it's pushing my neurons and causing multiple explosions at the synapses. I've SEEN IT ALL BEFORE, and it's firing strong memories of how proposals such as Kyoto2 are ALL WRONG.
>>
>>=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
>> http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Win a voice over part with Kung Fu Panda & Live Search and 100’s of Kung Fu Panda prizes to win with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571439/direct/01/
|
