As usual Steve, you hit the nail on the head.
Thanks, Tom
________________________________________
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wright, Steve [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 May 2011 00:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Political Economy of Militarising Climate Changeþ - my money's on Pachamama
Dear Tessa,
Thanks for this thoughtful and comprehensive series of prisms through which we can discern shadows of new policies to come. Even your brief overview shows how interconnected and complex the various strands of potential response are becoming...
This in my view is the core of the friendly spat between Mark and Tom...What Mark is labelling as conceit and hubris is the notion that "we" or "they" can undo the folly of our collective reliance on the we can dominate nature approach - it is not personal.. Its the recognition of the sage that we have to live with the consequences and some things are more important than death. Alas we are facing BOTH tigers and alsatons and do not have the luxury of deciding whether it is better for us to be raped or murdered.
At core Tom and Mark agree since if Mark was simply giving up - or as Leonard Cohen so eloquently puts it "reaching for the sky just to surrender" he would have gone to the pub rather than setting up the crisis forum.....
As the realities of climate change begin to fully sink in to our collective psyche and the international crisis deepens as the symptoms of conflict and migration sweep in, all of us will be tempted to thrash around looking for quick efficient scientific ways to lead us out... That has to be a benefit even if the political will is not sufficiently there to use it. As a species we are still yielding organised knowledge that others following us will mine and adapt. As Asimov perceived, when the Empire falls the role of the Foundation is to ensure that the ensuing period of chaos is diminished. For the time being we are all part of the Foundation...
Courage.....
Steve
________________________________________
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Tessa Burrington [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 May 2011 22:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Political Economy of Militarising Climate Changeþ - my money's on Pachamama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/12/battle-for-arctic-oil-intensifies
The US government has signalled a new determination to assert its role in Arctic oil and gas exploration by sending secretary of state Hillary Clinton and other ministers to a summit of the region's powers for the first time.
Shortly coming up on BBC2 tonight, Hilary in the Artic
"Climate change has shot to the top of the world agenda. But until our economic system is radically changed, we won't be able to tackle climate change effectively."
New Economics Foundation
http://www.neweconomics.org/programmes/climate-change
The Risks
U.N. Body Urges Caution on Synthetic Bacteria, Geoengineering
http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=51559
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/synthetic-life-too-much-too-soon
Michael Reinsborough asks whether synthetic biologists are rushing ahead with development of associated technologies before the science is properly understood.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/events/emerging-technologies-are-risks-being-neglected
What I found on google:
The Military
http://coto2.wordpress.com/enmod/
Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering, ETC Group, 18 Oct 2010
http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy2010_0.pdf
Page 38 above link Military Matters
"The military implications of geoengineering and weather modification are often forgotten, or at least hidden from view. Journalist Jeff Goodell, who is sympathetic to the
geoengineering enterprise, calls it the elephant in the room: “It’s not easy to see how a serious geoengineering program could move forward without some degree of military
involvement both here in the United States and in countries such as China and Russia.”108Weather control has long been a consideration of military strategists and the geoengineeringmilitary connections will be strengthened as increased attention is devoted to the “security” implications of climate change. As science historian James Fleming has shown, the military distorts science and engineering by imposing secrecy on new discoveries, seeking to weaponize every technique, even those designed for peaceful purposes. In exchange, they offer scientists access to political power, an unlimited stream of resources, and the ability to deliver on the promise of controlling nature/weather/climate.109 Key military strategists are involved in geoengineering development discussions. ‘Father of the atom bomb’ Edward Teller, in his day, was involved, as was his protégé, Star Wars architect Lowell Wood, who continues to publish on the topic. Key US institutions with military mandates, budgets and contracts, such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NASA and
DARPA (the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency) are also involved. Some geoengineering scientists, such as Gregory Benford, have argued that the military must be
involved as they “can muster resources and they don’t have to sit in Congress and answer questions about every dime of their money.”110
Corporate Connections
Geoengineering is still too contested a field for most big corporate investors, and for many an open association with geoengineering would be a public relations liability. At this
stage, the fossil fuel and automobile industries are much more likely to fund market-friendly solutions and organizations than they are to openly advocate for geoengineering solutions.
However, there is a complex web of connections between big capital and the global technofixers, comprised of researchers, multinational corporations and small start-ups, the military
establishment and respected think tanks, policy makers and politicians. The non-profit institutions that promote geoengineering are well connected with the private sector.
In an event called the “Virgin Earth Challenge,” Richard Branson, CEO Virgin Airlines, offered $25 million for a climate technofix.111 He has also devoted considerable resources to the Carbon War Room, a “geoengineering battlefield” that is actively engaged in obtaining offsets for biochar and cloud whitening. Bill Gates has provided US$4.6 million to scientists David Keith and Ken Caldeira for geoengineering and climate related research, and Microsoft’s former technology chief, Nathan Myhrvold, is busy patenting geoengineering technologies through his firm Intellectual Ventures, which counts prominent geoengineers amongst its senior scientists.112 Both Gates and Branson have provided funding to the so-called Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, headed up by the UK Royal Society.113 In his former role as BP’s Chief Scientist, Steve Koonin convened a group of scientists under the auspices of NOVIM to look at the research, experimentation and deployment of stratospheric aerosols.114 He then went on to become Undersecretary of State for Energy in the Obama administration. A year later, the lead author of that report, Jason Blackstock, convened a Chatham House Rule meeting at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Canada for senior business executives and policy makers and a select group of individuals to explore bottom up governance innovations and “prepare for emerging geoengineering possibilities.”115 Blackstock argues that geoengineering technologies are more likely to be deployed by a small island state than by the United States of America!116 CIGI, along with the Royal Society, also ran three geoengineering side events during the Copenhagen Climate summit in December 2009. Shell Research has been involved in the International Biochar initiative and funds CQuestrate, an open source start-up looking into liming the oceans that is headed by Tim Kruger, who also runs the Oxford Geoengineering Institute.117 ExxonMobil has funded similar research into altering the ocean’s alkalinity in order to increase carbon dioxide absorption.118 Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems Chief Scientist and Vice President David Whelan (formerly of DARPA) is also active in geoengineering debates. He claims there is a small team at Boeing studying the issue and has publicly mused about the technical feasibility of getting megatonnes of aerosol sulphates up to different levels via aircraft or large cannons.119 Whelan also sits on the National Centre on Energy Policy’s task force on geoengineering. ConocoPhillips Canada, which invests in the Athabaska tar sands, is also working to obtain an “industryled”protocol for biochar on the Alberta Offsets System.120"
The Council on Foreign Relations?? http://consciouslifenews.com/cfr-admits-spending-millions/116250/
CFR Admits Spending Millions to Confuse Public About Geoengineerig
"According to the Mission Statement on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) website, the CFR outwardly claims to be “an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.
However, behind the scenes, according to former CFR president, Winston Lord, the CFR runs the world: “The Trilateral Commission doesn’t run the world, the Council on Foreign Relations does that!”
Hard to believe? Watch this short video in which Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR tells her what to do and how to think:" ??
http://consciouslifenews.com/bullying-other-nations-geoengineeringchemtrail-spraying/114861/
“UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club.” "The accompanying article details the events at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico: “In Cancun, Mexico, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under pressure to overturn the UN ban on chemtrails… The US has not agreed to it. Citing profits, the US further refuses to cut greenhouse gas emissions attributed to global warming, the purported concern of the United Nations.
Instead, it seeks to expand its geoengineering projects for which hundreds of patents have already been filed.”
Other links to add to the debate:
Institute of Science in Society
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OAMCC.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GeoEngineeringAMD.php
"Proponents argue that because we cannot be sure conventional methods are effective, or that they will be deployed in time , it is worth carrying out research into less well understood and therefore riskier technologies, and hope we never have to resort to them. This may seem a sensible way forward given the adverse political climate; but it is a measure of desperation. And it must be placed under the strictest legal oversight and regulation of an appropriate international body. " Institute of Science in Society
Organic agriculture and localized food & energy systems for mitigating climate change
Olivier De Schutter | United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Climate change policies must be rooted in human rights principles
http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/471-climate-change-policies-must-be-rooted-in-human-rights-principles
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRightToFood#p/a/u/0/m7cryLIrVqw
Raj Patel
http://rajpatel.org/2011/01/24/if-you-love-cuba-so-much/
"Our key findings are (i) the spread of agroecology was rapid and successful largely due to the social process methodology and social movement dynamics, (ii) farming practices evolved over time and contributed to significantly increased relative and absolute production by the peasant sector, and (iii) those practices resulted in additional benefits including resilience to climate change. "
Bolivia blasts UN, WTO over Geoengineering
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/bolivia-condemns-geoengineering/
"The answer for the future lies not in scientific inventions but in our capacity to listen to nature." ? Can we do both?
"In October 2010, the UN agreed to a moratorium on “friendly” geoengineering, that done purportedly on behalf of the planet. (See ETC’s discussion of that agreement, which argues that weather modification is excluded.) In 1976, the UN banned “hostile” environmental modification techniques. Resolution 31/72, effective 1978. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm"
ETC Group
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5236
The Geoengineering Moratorium under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity
"On 29 October 2010, the Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP 10) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a decision that amounts to a de facto moratorium on geoengineering and, almost as importantly, affirmed the UN’s leadership in addressing these issues. Since then, many commentators (both those opposed to and supportive of geoengineering) have circulated erroneous statements concerning the import of the decision. In this note, ETC Group addresses some of the misunderstandings about a decision we consider to be an extremely important step forward."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyiSGkQAJwg
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
|
