Does
substantial mitigation of climate change, absent global economic
collapse, presuppose social revolution? Is a global economic collapse
resulting from oil and gas depletion the most likely scenario
for substantial mitigation of climate change?
I find
it difficult to articulate my political desires (for systemic
socio-economic transformation) with the foreshortened timescale we are presented
with within which to substantially mitigate climate change. I am wary that
climate change can become the vehicle for political desires (my own included)
such that realistic options may be rejected on ideological grounds - or to put
it another way that the profound potential for climate change
to act a vehicle for social transformation becomes an ideologically
driven focus above and beyond the objective conditions of climate
change.
An
illustration of the problem.
Carbon Trading A
Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power edited by Larry Lohmann, makes the case convincingly that the UN,
governments, academics and many environmentalists are united around an
essentially neoliberal response to climate change in which the Northern elite is
manoeuvring to defend its power over the global atmospheric commons and thus
contain the threat of the radical transformation of scion-economic forces
potential in the problem of climate change. I agree with this reading. A central
plank of the 'technological fix' element of this neoliberal discourse is carbon
capture and sequestration. We see the US Department of Energy teaming up with
oil majors to fund research in this area - thus rather than seeking to reduce
and replace fossil fuel use a prominent proposed 'fix' to the climate change
problem is actually an enabler of increasing fossil fuel use - a "little tested
and hazardous techno-fix". Aren't techno-fixes a perpetuation of the thinking
that got us to where we are? Shouldn't we oppose such funding for research into
sequestration projects as dangerous business-as-usual? Shouldn't we oppose the
construction of coal power stations per se, even those employing 'clean coal
technology'?
China is expected to construct the generating equivalent of 150 new
1000mw coal plants by 2010, a further 168 by 2020, with lifetime emissions of
25bn tons of carbon. This is within the limit of the timeframe we have to
mitigate catastrophic climate change. These are conventional coal-fire plants
with which, for technical reasons, carbon capture and sequestration are not
possible. The International Energy Agency projects that China will become the
world’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in 2009, overtaking the
United States nearly a decade earlier than previously anticipated. Coal is
expected to be responsible for three-quarters of that carbon dioxide. China has
13% of the world's coal reserves. It is increasingly dependent on imported oil.
In the event of a oil importation supply crunch China would undoubtedly ratchet
up its already ambitious program of producing synthetic oil from coal (it's
current program aims to produce 10% of national requirements by 2020). For those
of us who expect an earlier rather than a later supply crisis in world oil
reserves, it is well before 2020, thus China may increase its use of
coal above current projections.
Coal gasification plants produce cleaner power with emissions comparable
to natural gas and potentially can use capture and storage technology. They
cost about 10% to 20% more per megawatt than old style coal-fired power plants
(see www.thepeakist.com/chinas-coal-future/).
Estimates for including carbon capture and storage technology are in the region
of 40% more. Before the break up of the Chinese State Power Corporation in 2002
into quasi-private corporations China was set to develop cleaner coal
technology. Now subject to market forces, in the absence of an imposed cost for
carbon and\or the reduction of the price gasification and storage technology to
market competitive levels the 218 proposed plants will not be amenable to
reduced carbon emissions through technological means during their operating
lifetimes. David Hawkins points out (Kolbert 2006) that contrary to the argument
for US inaction in the face of the China's enormous emissions growth the US
should forge ahead technologically and with a regulatory framework because
history shows that where America goes China will follow. This is because,
firstly, the conditions motivating regulation are objective - urban
pollution from car exhausts, or sulphur dioxide pollution from power plants for
example - China is now regulating for these just as the US previously did. On a
practical level US R&D and market economies of scale both drive the price of
the technology down (sulphur dioxide scrubbers today, coal gasification and
carbon capture technology tomorrow) and China can regulate in the knowledge of
an existing tried and tested technological solution. No new coal fired plants
have been built in the US for some time, but new plants are on the horizon (the
Pentagon is also funding the development of coal-to-liquid fuel technology as it
intends the US military to free itself from dependence on imported oil http://www.thepeakist.com/pentagon-announce-plan-to-secure-fuel-for-us-war-machine/).
David Hawkins argues the US should regulate so that no new plants should be
allowed except those that employ carbon capture technology, therefore
kick-starting Chinese use of the technology within a time frame to impact on the
13 coming years of coal plant development and reduce emissions from them within
the timeframe for action on claimte change.
I ask
again, shouldn't we oppose funding for research into sequestration projects
as dangerous business-as-usual? Shouldn't we oppose the construction of coal
power stations per se, even those employing 'clean coal
technology'?
To
head off a couple of points, I am fully aware of the technological
uncertainties and potential dangers of sequestration. Chinese geologists have
given a preliminary estimation of storage space in oil fields and
aquifers for more than a trillion tons of carbon dioxide–more than China
could emit at their current rate for hundreds of years. I don't think anyone
would suggest that it is realistic to think 218,000 mw capacity could be
provided by renewables in China over the next 13 years.
The
possible scenarios it seems to me are 1) status quo, the capacity is
provided by dirty coal plants 2) capacity provided by clean coal plants with the
potential for sequestration 3) the capacity is not built due to economic
collapse, either apocalyptic, in which case emissions drop, or not, in which
case lack of investment is likely to mean the existing capacity carries on
emitting beyond its currently assumed lifetime.
I look forward to your
thoughts.
Dan
Welch
Hi Boris
Ok, the technology thing - it isn't anything I
can cover off quickly, and so I don't know if it would be right of me to use
this list to start expounding my beliefs. Perhaps we can discuss it
elsewhere. But, for this episode at least, I have started, so I'll
finish, with apologies to all uninterested parties.
My feelings about this are simply that -
thoughts and impressions, not a dogmatic blueprint for 'how it should be'.
However, I think industrial technology is not only life threatening in the
longer term, but that it also leads to what Habermass has described as a
'maimed and truncated existence'.
My PhD is concerned with the ideas of a 'safe
limit' to warming, a critique of the idea that climate change is, like
everything else in the world, amenable to control through a range of
industrial management techniques. "X amount of CO2 = X amount of
warming = X amount of danger" is the equation underpinning every response
to climate change I have encountered to date and such an approach seems
predicated on the desire to maintain the dominance of technology,
science and capital. And yet if anything would require a truly revolutionary
response, I would have thought climate change would be it.
So, over to you Boris (and the use of 'you' does
not indicate any ad hominen element to this) - how does one increase
automation ( an idea I saw on your website as part of the solution to our
current predicament) without reproducing the current order? After all, I
would have thought people must be educated, shaped, trained and disciplined to
ensure maintenance of the machines, hierarchies kept in place, timetables kept
to etc - which all seems pretty similar to the current state of
affairs.
Best
Chris
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:21
PM
Subject: Re: Running a Temperature - an
action plan for the eco-crisis
Hi Chris
thanks very much for your nice e-mail.
And thanks for the support.
I am interested though in why you are
suspicious of the role of technology. I am aware that you have posted
on this in the past but I'm not sure whether I fully understood your
particular angle. I suppose one question might be about what you
define as technology... a simple tool such as a hammer or are you thinking
more industrially e.g. robotic arms in an assembly plant, transport etc. Is
the issue to do with technology as a distraction/hindrance to human
existence and fulfilment or is there something I am missing?
Maybe we
should discuss this offline but I hope this may be useful for others to know
too, assuming they don't already.
Cheers Boris
At 11:50
01/02/2007, you wrote:
Hi
Boris
I apologise unreservedly for any ad
hominen elements in my reply - I try and always maintain conviviality in
such discussions and I failed in that instance.
I was very impressed with your site and indeed before posting my
message had already ordered a copy of the book - I am totally committed to
supporting all responses to this problem which are predicated on a degree
of political consciousness. I guess perhaps that was why I got a bit
carried away when I saw the statement about increased automation being a
route to human emancipation - I was disappointed to come a cross a
statement which seems to assume a maintenance of the industrial order as
part of the solution. I am coming to this from a sort of Frankfurt school
critique of the enlightenment project and thus am suspicious of how
technology can have any role in the creation of an authentic
existence.
Anyway, I look forward to
receiving the book and keep up the good work.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
- From: Boris
Kelly-Gerreyn
- To: [log in to unmask]
- Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:07 PM
- Subject: Re: Running a Temperature - an action plan for the
eco-crisis
- hi Chris
- I'm not sure what you mean by old school (ad hominem possibly? or
what you base your statement regarding automation on.
However, an 'authentic' human existence will be ushered in not on
the back of automation but on the back of social and political
change. It's not about technology it's about social (and therefore
cultural political economic etc) relations. The work of AWTW is to try
and bring this change about. As such they provide political/economic
analysis on the problems we face (whether they be climate, pensions,
health etc) and come up with action plans... I myself find it very hard
to disagree with their action plan for the eco-crisis we face... try and
get a copy of running a temperature and see what you think
(incidentally, it promotes among other things, contraction and
convergence)
- Cheers
- Boris
- At 12:55 31/01/2007, you wrote:
- I see that on the AWTW website that this is a
strictly old skool marxist approach to the problem, predicated on the
belief that an authentic human existence will be ushered in on the
back of increased automation of industrial processes. I can understand
H.G Wells or Issac Asimov proposing such an idea but, in all
seriousness, how could anyone today be proposing salvation through
robots?
- Chris
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Boris
Kelly-Gerreyn
- To: [log in to unmask]
- Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:03 AM
- Subject: Running a Temperature - an action plan for the
eco-crisis
- Dear Forum, A prescription I hope you may read, follow and pass
on... Cheers Boris
- Running a
Temperature – an action plan for the
eco-crisis
- Buy your copy
now!
- This 64-page guide to climate chaos just published provides
you with analysis as well as solutions that you won’t find
anywhere else. Running a Temperature proves the direct link
between corporate-driven globalisation and global warming and why
the capitalist economic system is ecologically unsustainable.
Running a Temperature sets out detailed emergency and long-term
action plans to tackle climate change before it is too late.
Written by Penny Cole and Philip Wade, it is published by A World
to Win through Lupus Books.
-
- How to purchase your copy
- Running a Temperature costs only £3.00 plus postage. You can
buy online by going to
www.aworldtowin.net and following the
links to the RBS-WorldPay secure system.
-
- Or send a cheque for £3.65 (made out to AWTW) to AWTW, PO Box
942, London SW1V 2AR.
-
- What other say about Running a Temperature:
- “That capitalism and climate change are inextricably linked is
beyond doubt. Running a Temperature provides a clear and
alternative framework for human existence beyond capitalism,
together with the best action plan to combat the dire predictions
of climate change I have ever seen.”
-
Dr Boris Kelly-Gerreyn, marine
scientist
-
- “A World To Win has produced a rational and workable series of
policies to tackle climate change. Like them, I believe that a
solution is only possible if we challenge the global capitalist
system which currently has a near-monopoly on the planet’s
resource.”
-
Molly Scott Cato, green economist, social researcher,
homemaker
-
- “Running a Temperature makes it very clear that there is no
time to lose. To dwell on a market-led solution to this crisis is
to continue to waste precious time and ignores the very real
opportunity that must be recognised if we are to empower
ourselves.”
- Anita Ceravolo TGWU organiser (personal
capacity)
-
-
- Dr. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn
- Voiced
with Dragon
NaturallySpeaking
v9
- Ocean Biogeochemistry
& Ecosystems
- National Oceanography
Centre, Southampton
- Waterfront Campus, European Way
- Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK
- Tel : +44 (0) 2380 596334
- Sec : +44 (0) 2380 596015
- Fax : +44 (0) 2380 596247
- e-m: [log in to unmask]
- This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and intended
solely for
- the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.
Both NERC and
- the University of Southampton (who operate NOCS as a
collaboration) are
- subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The
information contained
- in this e-mail and any reply you make may be disclosed unless it
is legally
- exempt from disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be
stored in the
- electronic records management system of either the University or
NERC as
- appropriate.
Dr. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn
Voiced
with Dragon NaturallySpeaking
v9
Ocean Biogeochemistry &
Ecosystems
National Oceanography Centre,
Southampton
Waterfront Campus, European Way
Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK
Tel : +44 (0) 2380 596334
Sec : +44 (0) 2380 596015
Fax : +44 (0) 2380 596247
e-m: [log in to unmask]
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and intended solely
for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Both NERC
and
the University of Southampton (who operate NOCS as a collaboration)
are
subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information
contained
in this e-mail and any reply you make may be disclosed unless it is
legally
exempt from disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be stored in
the
electronic records management system of either the University or NERC
as
appropriate.
Dr. Boris
Kelly-Gerreyn
Voiced with
Dragon NaturallySpeaking
v9
Ocean Biogeochemistry &
Ecosystems
National
Oceanography Centre, Southampton
Waterfront Campus, European
Way
Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK
Tel : +44 (0) 2380 596334
Sec : +44
(0) 2380 596015
Fax : +44 (0) 2380 596247
e-m:
[log in to unmask]
This e-mail (and any attachments) is
confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity
to whom it is addressed. Both NERC and
the University of Southampton (who
operate NOCS as a collaboration) are
subject to the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. The information contained
in this e-mail and
any reply you make may be disclosed unless it is legally
exempt from
disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be stored in the
electronic
records management system of either the University or NERC
as
appropriate.
--
This e-mail (and any attachments)
is confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is
addressed. Both NERC and the University of
Southampton (who
operate NOCS as a collaboration) are subject to the
Freedom of
Information Act 2000. The information contained in this
e-mail
and any reply you make may be disclosed unless it is legally
exempt from disclosure. Any material supplied to NOCS may be
stored
in the electronic records management system of either the
University or
NERC as appropriate.