---

From: Mark Levene <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 7 March, 2011 8:13:13
Subject: Re: Economic Crisis<----> Ecological Crisis (and a workshop to discuss further)

Brian,

a good response, eloquently said!

thanks,

mark



on 6/3/11 7:45 pm, Brian Orr at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> Many thanks for holding to your promise. Your elaboration below much
> appreciated. Like yourself I'm short of time for the moment so if I
> may I'll just
> respond to your short answer, leaving myself time to digest your
> longer one.
>
> So, on the short answer, it is reassuring that collectively Crisis
> Forum is
> expected to be open-minded. This is particularly reassuring as it would
> seem that several on Crisis Forum see 'geoengineering' as little more
> than a pact with the Devil. I would agree that it is very easy to see it
> that way, but there is 'geoengineering' and there is 'geoengineering:
> nice
> to know we can discuss the difference.
>
> As for Crisis Forum being 'merely', a network of discussants, I'm
> absolutely
> fine with that. But what to me seems inescapable is that the views
> exchanged
> and the consensuses that emerge have a value in themselves that
> shouldn't
> be underestimated, if only for the confidence it gives those who have
> the time or
> the courage, or both, to take the issues into arenas where something
> can be done.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 6 Mar 2011, at 09:46, Mark Levene wrote:
>
>> dear all,
>>
>> I promised Brian I would come back to his email on Crisis Forum and
>> geoengineering a few days back.
>>
>> Here's my first opportunity. There's a short answer and a slightly
>> longer
>> one here.
>>
>> The short one is that there's nothing stopping anybody in Crisis Forum
>> having a position on this subject or any other regarding the crisis/
>> crises
>> of the 21st century. But we're not currently set up as a 'network'
>> to take a
>> position on any particular proposition. The list is a network of
>> discussants.  My view is that it should stay that way.
>>
>>
>> Now the somewhat longer response. Part about how we are set up. Then
>> on any
>> any possible change to that.
>>
>>
>> Crisis Forum does not have a constitution. It's just a network set
>> up by
>> myself and David Cromwell back in c. 2002-3 to try and bring
>> together folk
>> who are wanting to consider where we're at in a holistic manner and to
>> implicitly to counter conventional wisdoms as they are purveyed in
>> political
>> life, the media and especially through academic discourse.  It also,
>> by the
>> way, doesn't have any funding other than what we can find for specific
>> projects (e.g. the Climate Change and Violence workshops). The list
>> was set
>> up as essentially subsidiary to these sorts of efforts, but in
>> practice has
>> proved 'core' to what and who we are as a network.
>>
>> A small group of us had a discussion in c. 2004 as to how CF might be
>> developed and how we might divvy out tasks. But there was felt to be
>> no need
>> then for a clarification on the loose organisation of the network or
>> specific 'policy' goals. I say all this because I think the implicit
>> implication of Brian's below is that somehow CF should take a line on
>> geoengineering. Brian also requests that we include discussion in
>> the 18th
>> March workshop. Actually, Dave Webb provided a very broad discussion
>> of
>> genengineering in wkshp 1 which can be found in resources on the CC/V
>> webpages (and which my students amongst others, use with regularity).
>>
>> The current wkshp is not about geoengineering per se but might be
>> discussed
>> in it inasmuch as it -the wkshp -  is about human responses to climate
>> change.
>>
>> I think what I'm getting at here is that I think it would be the
>> kiss of
>> death if CF started changing its position and became wedded to any one
>> position or formulation. Another example :  I like some other
>> parties to
>> this list have in the past and continue to be very supportive of
>> Aubrey
>> Meyer's Contraction and Convergence global formula for mitigation.
>> Indeed, I
>> was involved in setting up a C and C support group which tried to
>> publicise
>> and mobilise for Aubrey's campaign a few years back. But I did so
>> outside of
>> CF. It should be noted that when a debate over the C and C became
>> intense -
>> and indeed overheated - on these pages, it descended into ad hominem
>> attacks, one very sad consequence of which was that Aubrey (and
>> various
>> other folk) left this list.
>>
>> I don't want to see this list head in that direction again, not
>> least as I
>> haven't got time to act as umpire!
>>
>> Two other things need to be said here while I'm on the subject
>>
>> 1) I think some folk are overplaying the importance of the CF list.
>> While it
>> would be very nice to be taken seriously by powerful institutions
>> (not least
>> academic research councils to whom we are in effect 'invisible') if
>> people
>> feel strongly e.g. about geoengineering and want to get backers for
>> it, they
>> should probably be addressing themselves to at Royal Society, RUSi
>> etc.
>> Being persuasive on this list may change how people think on this
>> list but
>> it won't change HMG policy formulation!
>>
>>
>> 2) and I've said this one before! CF was NOT set up to discuss climate
>> change in isolation but the global economic dysfunction of which it (
>> anthropogenic climate change) is a fundamental symptom. As I certainly
>> envisaged it, CF would be more akin to the Critical theory of an
>> earlier
>> holistic analysis, minus too much jargon but also bringing in a
>> wider range
>> of folk beyond social science to embrace environmentalists, earth
>> scientists
>> and indeed the whole range of specialists trying to understand why
>> we're
>> here...and what hence (in some alternative frame of reference -
>> ALWAYS
>> geared towards  the grassroots, the common weal) - we as human
>> beings, are
>> going to do to bring us back onto the path of survival and long-term
>> non-violent, sustainability.  Contributors to the list have mostly
>> concentrated on 'the climate change' element. Perhaps
>> understandably. And
>> that's fine. The list can't be manipulated (thank god!) into
>> something which
>> it is not.
>>
>> But that brings me back to my starting place. My sense is that  most
>> people
>> on the list are NOT supporters of geoengineering. On the other hand,
>> folk
>> like Brian and John Nissen are respectively listened to as they
>> continue to
>> make their case. Good!
>>
>> But I propose that's how the list should remain. As a discussion
>> point. That
>> doesn't preclude of course public fora organised by CF where
>> geoengineering
>> might be debated. But here's the nub : if folk want to organise such a
>> debate, I'm sure the founders of CF would be only to happy that they
>> did so
>> - with some consultation perhaps - but with others taking the lead. My
>> personal resource (David is now concentrating on Media Lens) is
>> limited and
>> overstretched. Let me also reiterate : we don't have £sd, other than
>> that
>> provided for the CC and V workshops.
>>
>> However, if people want to develop an event around geoengineering or
>> anything else I reiterate : that  would be excellent. Same goes for
>> publications (that was mooted on the list a month or so back re: the
>> debate
>> about climate 'sceptics' but I don't remember anybody rushing to
>> organise).
>> What CF as a network can guarantee is that results - debate or
>> whatever can
>> be published on the website.  In short, if anybody has proposals on
>> stuff
>> they want to do  it will not receive objections from here. It will
>> however
>> require their hands on input. Including, where £sd is an issue
>> finding it, !
>> The ball it seems to me is in your own good courts.
>>
>> go well,
>> mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> on 2/3/11 8:15 pm, Brian Orr at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> On the one hand I'm 100% behind the ambitions of Crisis Forum and
>>> on the
>>> other I'm very concerned that it could be an immense distraction once
>>> one has
>>> taken on board the imminence of the threat posed by the rapidly
>>> diminishing
>>> Arctic ice-sheet.
>>>
>>> But a resolution would seem fairly close at hand if some
>>> conscientious
>>> spade-
>>> work was put in.
>>>
>>> Luis Guitierrez has expressed sympathy with my motion but
>>> is unhappy with the either/or bifurcation implied.
>>>
>>> Tom Barker, supported by John Scull, are also against the 'either/
>>> all'
>>> line, but
>>> both have taken up my point and have improved my basic exposition
>>> justifying
>>> asking Crisis-Forum for a re-think.
>>>
>>> In simple terms, I would agree that "either one or the other" is
>>> wrong: the situation is
>>> "either neither" or "both"!!!
>>>
>>> This follows if, as the rising tide of evidence presses, it is
>>> accepted that the Arctic ice crisis is of near
>>> immediate concern and if this is not addressed in a very short time
>>> scale measured in
>>> under a few years, "everything" will rapidly shoot out of control.
>>>
>>> But as all those on CRISIS FORUM who have, to some degree, accepted
>>> that some form of
>>> geoengineering needs to be implemented to save the Arctic have also
>>> insisted that 'business
>>> as usual' should be forestalled at all cost, then it follows that the
>>> underlying purpose of Crisis Forum remains,
>>> and remains as fundamentally necessary as before - if not more so.
>>>
>>> The way forward is to press for the implementation of best choice
>>> geoengineering solutions to the Arctic
>>> ice-melt problem by those who are making the running, and the 'gentle
>>> school' to examine the difficulties
>>> they have with this "last-chance-saloon" rescue at the same time. I
>>> believe this examination could prove most constructive
>>> if it were included in the next CRISIS-FORUM work-shop on 18th March.
>>>
>>> At the same time CRISIS FORUM can proceed along its "prescribed
>>> lines"
>>> while in the process of 'absorbing'
>>> the implications of employing the "Sword of Damocles".
>>>
>>> My prediction is that the geoengineering options will slowly filter
>>> into the fundamentals of the CRISIS FORUM
>>> ongoing debate. But I very prepared to have to admit I was wrong. It
>>> would be very comforting if I found I
>>> had to.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Brian Orr
>>>
>>> PS I may have something to say in this post-script after I've heard
>>> Prof. Bill McGuire's talk tomorrow on
>>> "The Earth Bites Back" which focuses on the rapidly deteriorating
>>> situation in the Arctic.
>>>
>>> On 1 Mar 2011, at 08:22, Mark Levene wrote:
>>>
>>>> dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> re: this debate and Brian's request for a more focused one:  just
>>>> the
>>>> gentlest of reminders that Crisis Forum  has been exploring exactly
>>>> these
>>>> potential dichotomies now through a series of workshops entitled
>>>> 'Climate
>>>> Change and Violence' for the last three years -  the fundamental
>>>> premise
>>>> being that it will not be climate change per se which has the
>>>> greatest
>>>> potentiality to destroy s us but the nature of our ongoing
>>>> response....if
>>>> you like the consequences of consequences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rather than reinventing the wheel through having another debate
>>>> (though
>>>> please feel free to do so if you Brian or whoever wish to organise!)
>>>> the
>>>> next workshop is imminent on Friday 18 March at York St John
>>>> university
>>>>
>>>> I know a few of you are coming but here's as good an opportunity as
>>>> any
>>>> (especially given this workshop's very open and inclusive format)
>>>> for a
>>>> wider number of good folk on this list to put their very 'gentlest'
>>>> of oars
>>>> in.....
>>>>
>>>> Workshop 5: Human Consequences: Human Welfare
>>>> http://www.crisis-forum.org.uk/events/workshop5.php
>>>>
>>>> please let Marianne <[log in to unmask]> know if you're
>>>> coming by
>>>> next Friday 11 March
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>>
>>>> mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 1/3/11 6:07 am, Luis Gutierrez at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Brian and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I second the motion ... even though ... rather than an "either/or"
>>>>> bifurcation between the two camps, I would prefer to think in terms
>>>>> of
>>>>> "both/and" ... I agree that radical solutions will be required that
>>>>> can
>>>>> only be articulated holistically, but the "gentle camp" can buy
>>>>> time for
>>>>> such overarching solution to be found ... if it is ever found, for
>>>>> the
>>>>> kind of crisis we are discussing transcends "problems" for which
>>>>> "solutions" can be found.  Even if the most urgent symptom (such as
>>>>> climate change) could be addressed in a timely manner, it is
>>>>> impossible
>>>>> to predict the repercussions that "resolving" one dimension of the
>>>>> crisis will have on all the other dimensions ... it boggles the
>>>>> mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> But assuming that your motion carries ... what would be the next
>>>>> step?
>>>>>
>>>>> Luis
>>>>>
>>>>> Luis T. Gutiérrez, PhD, PE
>>>>> The Pelican Web of Solidarity and Sustainability
>>>>> Mother Pelican: A Journal of Sustainable Human Development
>>>>> http://pelicanweb.org
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Brian Orr
>>>>>>> Sent: 28 February 2011 11:57
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Economic Crisis<---->  Ecological Crisis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John, Luis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CRISIS-FORUM has spawned two camps under the economy/ecology
>>>>>>> dichotomy. There are
>>>>>>> those who insist that we can find our way out of the dichotomy by
>>>>>>> pursuing the goal of
>>>>>>> a 'steady-state economy', with the emphasis on ditching
>>>>>>> consumerism,
>>>>>>> "need not greed"
>>>>>>> and our addiction to fossil fuels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other school contend that we've left things far too late and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> state of nearly everything
>>>>>>> you can think of having global importance - the environment, the
>>>>>>> world's ecological systems,
>>>>>>> energy supplies, world finances, population, social tensions,
>>>>>>> tensions
>>>>>>> between nations - and
>>>>>>> global warming - all individually look capable of badly damaging
>>>>>>> 'civilisation, or bringing it to
>>>>>>> it's knees. And this latter school proffers the solution of
>>>>>>> 'cataclysmic solutions', as illustrated by
>>>>>>> the current upheavals in the Arab world - or, in a different
>>>>>>> sphere -
>>>>>>> 'geoengineering' to provide
>>>>>>> breathing space for us to abandon our current insane modus
>>>>>>> vivendi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an aside, it might be thought that the 'gentle camp' and the
>>>>>>> 'geoengineers' might rapidly converge
>>>>>>> after the temporary cure has been applied. I would contend that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is not the case in that the 'geoengineers'
>>>>>>> would not accept that a gentle docking between business-as-usual
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the 'steady-state economy would be
>>>>>>> anything like what is needed. In a nut-shell, only the stark
>>>>>>> divergence between where we are and where we
>>>>>>> ought to be can justify 'tampering with the earth's climate', and
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> stark divergence will still remain even after
>>>>>>> the geoengineering 'sticking plaster' has been applied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Professor Bill McGuire says "Whilst the 2007 IPPCC report
>>>>>>> paints a
>>>>>>> pretty bleak picture of the future, the
>>>>>>> scariest thing about it is that it may not be scary enough."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A debate would seem vitally necessary. I offer the motion:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The underlying rationale pursued by the 'gentle camp' in CRISIS-
>>>>>>> FORUM
>>>>>>> to address the world economy/ecology
>>>>>>> dichotomy constitutes a totally inadequate basis for addressing
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> multiple, interacting, crises manifest in that dichotomy,
>>>>>>> with the global warming/Arctic ice-melt crisis the most
>>>>>>> critically
>>>>>>> urgent of the multiple crises."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian Orr
>>>
>>
>
>