What I am advocating right now is research into geoengineering, not
deployment.
There are however things we can be doiing right now, by way of stopping
harmful things we are doing which are 'reverse geoengineering'. These
include most particularly reductions in black carbon (soot) emmisions from
biomass burning, charcoal kilning, dirty stoves, 2-stroke and diesel
engines, and industrial sources; and a rapid end to emissions of the PIGGs
or powerful industrial greenhouse gases such as the HFCs widely used in
refrigeration.
Most promising research options for geoengineering would be accelerated rock
weathering (ARW - which may also be thought of as ex-situ geochemical CCS)
and various means of enhancing reflectivity such as cloud-whitening by
saline micro-particles, and possibly by creating reflective stratospheric
aerosols. This latter option is promoted with some enthusiasm but we must be
mindful of dangers of ozone depletion.
ARW has the great advantage of having generally beneficial side-effects,
such as reducing soil and ocean acidity; a rapid 'payback' of relatively low
upfront carbon costs; and low cost.
Oliver.
Kyoto2.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Orr
Sent: 13 September 2010 11:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the role of identity in denier motivation .... strategy ideas?
Oliver,
What geo-engineering solutions to the climate change crisis do you favour if
any?
Brian Orr
On 9 Sep 2010, at 18:08, Oliver Tickell wrote:
> One of the main things we have to do now is damage limitation. Most of
> our responses to date have been worse than if we had done nothing. The
> CDM has caused more emissions than it has saved. The UK's Climate Act
> is giving rise to the wholescale incineration of forests from Alaska
> to Borneo and the Congo Basin - as they are felled, chipped and burnt
> in UK power stations as "carbon free energy". Biofuels in cars causing
> worldwide hunger and expansion of agriculture into forests, grasslands
> etc, and a lot more on the way.
>
> Now with REDD coming into the CDM a whole new round of deforestation
> and forest dispossession is set to take place.
>
> www.biofuelwatch.org.uk one of the few NGOs that's on the mark with
> this.
> Big demo planned for London 25 Sept.
>
> Main task now is not to secure better targets etc but to scupper the
> monstrously destructive 'climate solutions' which are all about
> creating new frontiers of economic growth while exacerbating climate
> chaos.
>
> Oliver.
> --
> www.kyoto2.org/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair McIntosh
> Sent: 07 September 2010 19:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: the role of identity in denier motivation .... strategy
> ideas?
>
> Hi Folks
>
> I've just got back from holiday and so catching up with great interest
> in this debate. Thanks for this thoughtful post, George. It reminds me
> of when I used to work as a student in a seaweed processing factory on
> Lewis (we didn't spend all our time chasing sheep). It was being dried
> for use as a gelling agent in toothpaste, ice-cream, etc., but in
> summer it would start to rot if it stayed outside too long, and fill
> with maggots.
>
> When it came out the other end, after 3 hours on the conveyor belt in
> the dryer, all the maggots would be clustered together in fist-sized
> balls. The ones on the outside would be dried to a char and those in
> the middle just nicely done. It bothered me to think how they must
> have squirmed around, fighting for the coolest spot, as they clung
> together to preserve body moisture, but what can you do, but hope, as
> Blake puts it, that "The cut worm forgives the plough"?
>
> I've often thought of this as a metaphor with climate change. Nobody's
> talking about temperature rises that will literally fry us, of course,
> but it does feel like we're on that conveyor belt, and we're all
> getting into our little cohort groups, like George says, and squirming
> around, the main thing we've got in common being that whether we deny
> or recognise where we're headed, we're all pretty powerless to do
> anything.
>
> I'd like to say we're not powerless, but realistically, in the time
> scales we've got if the science is right, we maybe have to fact the
> music.
> I don't
> see any evidence that we're going to be able to do more than slow down
> what's happening.
>
> But that slowing down is important. That mitigation allows for
> parallel strategies of adaptation. Here we are on this email list,
> like one of those (if you'll not take offense at the metaphor) balls
> of maggots, clustered together, talking to each other, worrying and
> wondering what best we can do?
>
> I'm wondering, given the realities of Cop 15 and the fact that little
> else is shaping up beyond that, what is our best strategy now?
>
> What can best help the world to see through the future, come what may
> in the come-to-pass?
>
> I've been thinking while on holiday about this list. What can the
> likes of us do? Some of the people on it are climate change
> scientists, policy people, writers, etc.. Great. Keep it up. Others
> are clearly at an early stage in their careers and expertise. I'd like
> to suggest that one contribution they might offer is to get onto some
> of these lists and politely, and without using blogger pseudonyms,
> refute as best the can untruth when they see it.
>
> Without truth we cannot see reality. If 90% of the Daily Express's
> readership do not believe in AGW, as a recent survey that they
> published suggested, then one of the things we need to be doing is
> having people who are willing to beaver away on their comment pages
> shedding light but trying to keep clear of getting sucked into heat on
> the situation.
>
> At the opposite end of the spectrum of expertise, it seems to me that
> a lot of the scientists and scientific journalists are becoming hyper
> cautious and in effect, running scared. We need to keep up pressure to
> see that people like the Royal Society continue to keep climate change
> under the lens, and take a stand in public education.
>
> What's important in all this is that we must distinguish speaking the
> truth about the situation from feeling obligated also to come up with
> the fixes.
> On a population base of 7 bn and escalating consumption, I don't think
> there are politically acceptable solutions. But that doesn't mean it's
> not worth digging the conduits form which future solutions might flow.
> For example, look at the rate at which fertility rates are falling in
> some unexpected countries. UN fertility rate projections for 2005-10
> range from war- torn patriarchal Afghanistan with 7.07 births per
> woman, to the modern Muslim nation of Turkey (2.14), Catholic Ireland
> (1.96), Mongolia (1.87), UK ( 1.82), China (1.73), Cuba (1.49), Italy
> (1.38), Russia (1.34), very Catholic Poland (1.23) and Hong Kong
> (0.97). If such trends spread, we could be looking at some interesting
> dropping off in pressure on carrying capacity in the future. And if we
> don't see that, nature might find her own ways, and if so, are we
> ready, in our minds and ideas, to take advantage of what living on a
> less pressured Earth might mean for living within our means? Or will
> we simply further hype up consumerism?
>
> There's a peasant saying, "The Earth shows up those who are good for
> nothing." It's aimed at individuals, but could be seen as applying
> also to a species. I don't believe that humankind is good for nothing,
> but present times do pose the question: "How can we show we're not?"
>
> It seems to me that this sort of thing is what a futures discussion
> forum needs to be about. So, how should we be responding strategically
> to where the climate change debate is currently stuck at? Thoughts?
>
> Alastair.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Marshall
> Sent: 20 August 2010 10:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: the role of identity in denier motivation
>
> Dear Brian and all,
>
> I agree with Brian about the challenges to world view but I think that
> this is a rather simplistic ideological explanation for an affiliation
> that may have far more to do with an emotionally driven cultural
> affiliation and people's self image.
>
> When I look at Bishop Hill's column, Spiked, the online attacks,
> Jeremy Clarkson and so on, I see something that appeals to a much
> wider sense of identity that a simple ideological argument. And I
> think the motivation of many deniers is much less a defence of their
> worldview than a spirited assertion of their own and attack on that of
> others.
>
> I have noticed a repeated pattern during my lifetime for people to
> congregate around polarised identity clusters. Written here from the
> perspective of the left hand side).:
>
> Some of the oppositions are ideological:
>
> Conservative Liberal
> Personal State interference
> Freedom
>
> But many more are emotional and self image related
>
> Fun whingeing
> Funny earnest
> Ironic Literal
> Traditional trendy
> Optimistic Pessimistic
> Realistic Exaggerated
> Interesting Boring
> Arts Science
> Individual Conformist
> Skeptical of Undermining of old certainties
> new ideas
> Old money New money/poor
> Light, easy Heavy, intense, uptight
> English Foreigner
> Outrageous Self aware and PC
>
> The clusters express themselves in a wide range of behaviours and self
> images...take for example the public school ideal of not being seen to
> try too hard as opposed to those grammar school swotty nerds. Take for
> example the antithesis as expressed in the personalities of Ken
> Livingstone and Boris Johnson.
>
> Livingstone - Jewish, working class, former lab technician, droning,
> trendy causes and frighteningly intense Johnson - Eton, Oxford
> classics scholar, relaxed, jovial, smart but not trying too hard,
> ebullient eccentric.
>
> Of course things are never as they seem (Livingstone and Johnson have
> a lit of similarities) but these characterisations (and the social
> types they
> represent) would be familiar and immediately readable to anyone
> British.
>
> These attitudinal clusters seem to change very little, though the
> issues they attach to have changed a lot: when I was a student the key
> campaign issues were apartheid and cruise missiles. I had the dubious
> honour for a year (before my politics matured) of being in the
> Conservative Students and our world view was very much that the people
> who campaigned on these issues were constantly whining about things.
> We on the other hand could have a good laugh and greatly enjoyed
> goading them - which was easy because they were so earnest. In
> response to the campaign to make the student union a nuclear free zone
> we invited the US government to install cruise missiles in the grounds
> of our hall of residence...ho ho ho, pretty puerile stuff on both
> sides. But what is interesting is that our behaviour was not based on
> any intelligent discussion of the issues of nuclear proliferation
> (that kind of earnest information based debate was the province of the
> other side)...our position was a statement of our group identification
> and a bit of a lark.
>
> The publication that spoke strongest to this attitude was Private Eye
> which, despite its Paul Foot anti-establishment roots, was deeply
> conservative in spirit and motivated by a contempt to liberals. It is
> no surprise that one of its founders, Christopher Booker, has become a
> leading climate denier.
> Columnists such as Auberon Waugh and Michael Wharton who wrote the
> Peter Simple column in the Telegraph also exemplified this spirit and
> dichotomy, viscerally denouncing trendies and their causes with savage
> irony.
>
> So, from this perspective, I see many of these identify attitudes
> present in the climate change debate and the language used. I would
> add that I share the social and age demographic of many deniers, so we
> can suggest that the their personal politics were formed in the late
> 1970's and early 1980's.
>
> Taking responses to Alastair's piece just look for these old identity
> markers kicking in.
>
> Anybody who uses the word epistomology [sic] is immediately suspect.
> he and his eco-chums...
> in it for the money
> an Uber tree hugger
> weird Highlanders
> been out on the moors too long
> only sheep for friends
> deploy heavy ad hominem artillery to characterize the estimable
> Alistaire McIntosh, b'gosh, as a "coprophagic proctocranial."
> What ho, when they lifted the lid!.
> Just keep humour and lightness of touch.
>
> Notice the use of archaic 'ripping yards' language (chums, what ho,
> esteemed), latin (ad hominem) the sarcastic and class based contempt
> for the foreigner/peasant, 'in it for the money' (obvious sign of
> poverty or nouveau money grabbing) and again contempt for the
> intellectual and the final 'keep humour and lightness of touch'
> summing up the entire attitude
>
> So I am not suggesting that this is the explanation of the psychology
> climate deniers...there are subsets and variants...and the US and
> Australia have their own variants (and surprising similarities). Nor
> is it an explanation of the professional deniers who are much closer
> to the data (and their own distortions) and who have personal
> motivations of self aggrandisement.
>
> But to return to my core thesis- the core motivation is one of
> personal and emotional psychology and social identity which then
> aligns itself with arguments that support or reject the issues that
> speak strongest to that identity.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> X
> G
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Orr
> Sent: 19 August 2010 18:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Hockey Stick Illusion
>
> Yup, well done Bob.
>
> My own guess as to what drives many denialists is that accepting the
> basic facts about man-made climate change would challenge the
> foundation of their belief systems - something like "economic growth
> can go on for ever, man is above natural forces, man is too clever to
> make such a mistake that civilisation itself is threatened....."
>
> Alternatively, obviously everyone is really only interested in the
> welfare of themselves and their nearest and dearest, so anyone
> pursuing objective truths is lying, so what better to defeat such
> self-interested promulgation of 'objective truths' than peddling lies
> and half-truths.
>
> Brian Orr
>
> On 19 Aug 2010, at 17:39, Barker, Tom wrote:
>
>> Well done Bob. An enjoyable explanation of how it all seems to work
>> when the big name denialists get organised. Can someone tell me: is
>> it profit, or ego or simply delusion that gives these people the
>> impetus to continue with their rants, which themselves can only be
>> accepted by other nutters?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>> [[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Bob Ward
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 19 August 2010 15:31
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: The Hockey Stick Illusion
>>
>> I have just joined this mailing list and have noted that there was a
>> discussion of Andrew Montford's book yesterday. I decided that
>> Alastair MacIntosh should not have to carry the responsibility alone
>> for countering the fawning write-ups of the book by Matt Ridley and
>> Christopher Booker, so provided The Guardian with this review which
>> was posted today:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-
>> sc
>> ep
>> tics-mislead-public
>>
>> Bob Ward
>>
>> Policy and Communications Director
>> Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
>> London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street
>> London WC2A 2AE
>>
>> http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
>>
>> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
>> Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
>>
>>
>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandCo
> mplian
> ceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
|
