----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:58
PM
Subject: Re: Running a Temperature - an
action plan for the eco-crisis
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.