----- Original Message -----
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
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"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
>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
<[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Chris Keene
<[log in to unmask]>
>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
