Hi Steve
You actually made me read Kevin’s contribution again carefully, so thanks. I have no objection to the views expressed, nor to the criticism of the ‘powers that be’, but I do take issue with the exasperated screaming, and the unhelpful and destructive accusations that seem to be inherent in the text but are not made explicit. We maybe all feel like that sometimes but we’re here to be constructive in order to find a way out of the mess. Yes, if we all stop flying and driving and buying foreign ‘stuff’ and out of season food, as well as replant lost habitats, and reconnect with the Earth and culture while we’re at it, we might possibly put back the clock on climate change, and biodiversity loss, and peak oil won’t matter either. But that is not going to happen because those ‘powers that be’ are not going to give up that power, and certainly not before their competitor does. That must surely be the only reason that Contraction and Convergence, and Tradable Energy Quotas and other excellent ideas have not been adopted. Our leaders, faulty as they are, cannot conceive of another way that will work. When they do, it will definitely be too late to do anything about it. We will monitor the end of civilisation. That is why we need to study and trial things like geoengineering, so that when it is really desperate, a potential stop gap is already capable of being put in place. We are getting near that point, and we need to be ready. Only a fool would rely on geoengineering as a way to perpetuate the ills of this absurd ‘capitalism’, but to stamp our feet and throw our toys out of the pram because the world isn’t lived sustainably is plain stupid, and it doesn’t add anything to the Forum. Blocking trials of geoengineering is as idiotic a decision as those that made it necessary in the first place.
Tom
From: Wright, Steve [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 October 2011 14:03
To: Barker, Tom; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait
Tom
Well it is an emotional subject and sometimes righteous indignation is the most appropriate response..But the thread does raise serious issues about utility of various solutions. We are just at the beginning of understanding that each “option” will have a political economy so some will be favoured over others. For example ‘I’m told that slash and burn agriculture causes more annual emissions than all forms of air travel put together but few are aggressively opposing that one as the key environmental focus. So the idea of getting to where we want to be by enacting what we want to see has always found currency on this site
Kevin does raise the ethical point that our “solutions” should not merely create the space to carry on business as usual. In the security field we have seen a growing bureaucratic capture of the policy and decision making by the security industrial complex – certainly in Europe. As the global economic crisis deepens and the “best solutions” offered are a return to growth, we may find new policy fields opening up re public expenditure on future geo-engineering options. Would we feel comfortable if the only groups capable of delivering on the required global scale were super multinationals like BP or BAe systems that have both the reach and the buying power as core prime industries?
Mark is the best moderator who does moderation gently or not at all. In the long run there is not just one solution but a myriad of possible options with associated interest groups. If there is suspicion of geo-engineering it might be because of past experimentation gone wrong. It would be an interesting exercise to map and rank order the set of available carbon emission reduction possibilities in terms of efficiency and cost of investment but we can never ignore the dimensions of fairness and justice. Kevin might be vociferous but it is a view congruent with the very informed and quantified views of Aubrey Meyer on contract and converge. For me it is perhaps even more interesting to examine why these entirely sensible options will probably never be adopted and that comes down to capital and corporate investment strategies over which most of us including governments have very little control….So watch tonight’s banking headlines and weep – then come along to Mark’s Winchester workshop if you can!
Steve
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Barker, Tom
Sent: 26 October 2011 08:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait
Fair enough Mark. I notice you use the word ‘informed’, and Kevin may be for all I know, but his style suggests otherwise. I didn’t even bother to read his second tranche of text. I guess it was another rant. So much for discussion. We at least ought to voice our objection to badly crafted comment. I did not say that he should leave, merely that he might think about it for the sake of thoughtful debate. If he has something useful to add, why not say it in a less shrill manner, and evidence based?
Cheers, Tom
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Mark Levene
Sent: 26 October 2011 09:11
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait
Importance: High
Tom, Kevin, and all good discussants on the Crisis Forum J-list .,
As long as folk maintain their decorum, and speak essentially to the point of any current discussion, the J-list is available to anybody who wishes to make comment. As a general rule we do not moderate, and do not wish to do so. A subject like the end of the world ( as we know it) will have the debaters on this list offering many different perspectives, some diametrically opposed to others. It cannot be otherwise. We may not like what others say, we may vociferously wish to refute them. But the List exists so that participants can have their informed say. Crisis Forum will hold to that principle. So, good discussants, help us maintain the decorum. And, indeed, we look forward to a widening of this current debate, which might take us beyond the immediate subject of geoengineering the Arctic per se.
go well,
mark,
for Crisis Forum
on 26/10/11 12:07 am, Kevin Coleman at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Then you have missed the point of what I am most concerned with and that is the distinct lack of forethought for the consequences of such mad experiments with our only planet.
Until there is definite proof that all these clever little ideas actually work beyond the four walls of the laboratory they should remain in the laboratory.
Mankind has already done enough damage to the planet. It is not reasonable to inflict further damage on the basis of untried and untested theories based on simplistic laboratory experiments.
As for a rant I beg to differ. I have been holding my patience for far longer than you could imagine but the final straw was to read the patronising comment that people like me were uncomfortable with the idea of geoengineering.
I am not uncomfortable with them. I am totally against any further experimentation.
Ranting is not what I was doing. Objecting is.
Maybe it is others that are not suited to this forum. After all as an environmentalist observing ecosystems I can assure you that the planet is indeed in crisis and it is entirely human in manufacture. Manufacturing more crisis on the planet is against my principles and ethics and the better judgement of a great many people who have shared my extreme concern for a good long time now.
As for a response I didn't ask for one. I merely made a point that I would hope intelligent people would understand and make them think before they condemn us all.
Regards.
On 25/10/2011 23:59, Barker, Tom wrote:
P { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px }
Maybe this group is not for you. The place for such ranting is elsewhere. The content of your contribution does not deserve a response within this forum. Tom
________________________________
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Kevin Coleman [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 October 2011 23:54
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait
'As for lentils, I don't think anybody feels comfortable about geoengineering, it's just that some of us feel that what we are up against is so horrific, that we just have to find a way to counter it - and that inevitably involves some geoengineering to cool the Arctic'.
In response to the above comment from John Nissen I post this point of order. So please take note.
It is not that we the people do not feel comfortable with this daft madcap experiment called Geoengineering. Its simply that we have the sense to realise that we have only one planet and therefore only one chance and none of us is even remotely keen to commit Hari-Kari.
So please don't start trying to convince me that the problem is real because I already know what the problem is and its people like the corporations who profit from this mess and people like you that do likewise pretending to clear it all up. That is the problem. There is no political will to do anything about it all because there is no profit in doing so. That is the bottom line so all your mad experiments will do is perpetuate the madness that is corporate greed from pollution and destruction of the planet.
The solution is so easy. Stop polluting. Simple. If we did that the effect would be quite remarkable. Stop deforestation and stop burning fossil fuels. Stop flying everywhere. Stop trying to be clever with all these little inventions. Until we can recycle everything without polluting the planet (which at the present time we cannot) then we should limit our clever ideas and inventions to things that we actually can make sustainable and recycle fully and cleanly.
In fact to stop climatic change from killing us all why don't we stop mining for fossil fuels entirely and start by reducing our individual global footprints right now? Fit solar PV's on every house roof that could generate electricity. Oh yes of course your going to say that that requires mined materials. Wrong! There is a technique available now to make solar PV cells from silicon and we have tonnes of that on the surface. In fact it is everywhere. The only problem is there is no political will to embark on this path because the corporations who own the political system won't allow it as it threatens their control of the masses and their profits and power generating monopolies. If you don't believe me then you are one of them.
The answers are all very simple. Legislation could be introduced tomorrow to make these sorts of simple and meaningful changes happen but the governments won't let us start because their handlers, the corporations who own them, won't let them introduce that meaningful legislation to make it happen.
Now why will they let you and your madcap scientists mess with the planetary ecosystems? Again its simple. It will allow the corporations to continue with business as usual. Its not about whether it will stop our demise or that of the planet. Its about whether the corporations can continue playing god over us mere mortals and make a bundle of worthless paper money in the process. By reducing the carbon content the corporations will cite that as a reason not to change their methods of manufacture, production or creativity. They will say they can still pollute because there is a method of carbon extraction that keeps everything in check so they can increase their pollution levels by simply increasing the geoengineered solutions capacit
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
