Magnificently put on Mark/Tom, Steve. It greatly pleases me to see debate of
calibre happening here at both the scientific and psychodynamic levels.
Can I point people towards George Monbiot's Guardian website comment the
other day:
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/
I think it's a hugely important statement that's come, yet again, from his
harrowing independence of mind. He's reflecting on a fascinating piece by
Paul Kingsnorth of Dark Mountain/Uncivilisation which is linked within his
article. It's a reflection that moved me all the more because there was
quite a public disagreement between Tom and Paul at last year's Dark
Mountain conference. In Scotland we have a name for a cultural custom by
which poets and intellectuals engage in a kind of spat where they really let
rip at one another at one level, but hold the friendship and respect
together at another. It's called a "flyting" - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyting - and the way George has responded to
Paul here shows how it is possible both to disagree strongly and appreciate
almost in the same breath. So too, I trust, on this forum with Mark's and
Tom's "friendly spat" as Steve puts it. But of wider relevance to the
Mark/Tom debate is the fact that George is commenting on Paul's having drawn
attention to the dichotomy between the "quants" (the quantifiers), and the
poets. George rallies to support Paul on this point: he says we need to
correct a balance which has been lost between quants and poets that has
caused the environment movement to have narrowed its vision too much in the
direction of carbon crunching, with the risk of damaging the wider
motivations that draw us towards being environmentalists. Our old friend
once on this list, Aubrey Meyer, made a good comment on Paul's site (I think
it was) suggesting that the quants/poets dichotomy is ultimately a false
dichotomy. We are living in a world where we need to try and embrace both.
On a different matter, I await, and would appreciate, any comment on my
posting yesterday as to how best to get a reality check on the science of
the methane bomb question. Is it correct that in the informed scientific
community there is considerably more uncertainty around CH4 dynamics than
around CO2, and if so, where does that leave pushing the geoengineering
debate out on the CH4 front? Do I take silence to mean that the rest of you
also lack an adequate answer, or was it a silly question to have wasted
everyone's time asking?
Alastair.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wright, Steve
Sent: 13 May 2011 00:44
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-intensi
fies
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-cha
nge-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
|
