Hi Brian and Tom,
I've been following the recent discussion, and that is a good summary,
Brian, and I think the polarization is unfortunate. I agree with Tom
that it needs to be "both/and" and not "either/or." In a sinking boat
it is important to keep pumping, but it would also make sense to try to
fix the leak.
Geoengineering is a very general term, from planting trees to putting
mirrors in space. In addition to the technical questions, it might be
useful to look at the political and economic side of various proposals.
Who would be making decisions? Who would benefit and who would suffer?
Will decisions be motivated by compassion for the future or by the drive
for short-term profits?
With these questions, the two approaches converge. Will geoengineering
being advocated within the context of business as usual or in the
context of a sustainable economy? As a democratic decision or in
corporate boardrooms.
On the one hand, the situation seems pretty hopeless. On the other
hand, social systems can also sometimes have positive feedbacks --
witness the rapid collapse of the USSR.
John
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 12:22 +0000, Barker, Tom wrote:
> Brian
>
> Well done for offering this clarification, but I suggest that neither side would work on its own.
>
> I take your point that there's little value in musing about a sustainable society if there is going to be havoc very soon unless we deflect the physical consequences of climate change rather smartly. After all, these same issues (i.e. inequality, corruption and power-driven ruthlessness) have dominated human existence. They have not been solved in previous centuries by those who see further than the power-mongers, and will not change now because we want them to.
>
> What I am more opposed to is the either-or scenario. In my opinion, geoengineering is now essential if we are to have any chance of saving ourselves from cataclysm but, as pointed out clearly by others, on its own that would do nothing but stave off the inevitable (even if it didn't concentrate power further - is that possible?).
>
> We must buy time with geoengineering, and make an economic case for sustainability. Don't laugh! it might be our only chance, and it has started already with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the TEEB project (www.maweb.org and www.teeb.org respectively). The people who can effect change are interested in economic growth, and the only way to communicate with them is through economics. Witness the Stern Review: It said nothing new and what it said was largely inadequate, but it got the attention of governments around the world.
>
> Now we have to envisage the economic reasons for working fewer hours and sharing more, providing we can fend off the worst of climate change in the mean time. We truly are 'living in interesting times'.
>
> Cheers, Tom
>
> -----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
>
> On 28 Feb 2011, at 03:12, John Scull wrote:
>
> > Hi Luis and everyone,
> >
> > I agree with all this, but we also need to take seriously the
> > message in
> > "Worker of the world, Relax" at
> > http://www.workersoftheworldrelax.org/indexlow.php
> >
> > It's all very well to try to reduce consumption, increase efficiency,
> > and move to renewables, but we also have to become much less
> > productive
> > as we do so. Otherwise, falling prices will simply stimulate
> > consumption.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 21:46 -0500, Luis Gutierrez wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the interesting and instructive responses.
> >>
> >> Personally, I think a basic issue is that "homo economicus" must be
> >> liberated from the delusion that extravagant consumption is the key
> >> to
> >> human fulfillment. But we have to start where we are.
> >>
> >> Please consider WWF's "Energy Report: 100 Percent Renewable Energy by
> >> 2050" and UNEP's "Green Economy Report," both published February
> >> 2011.
> >> Both reports converge on energy as a key dimension of the transition
> >> from consumerism to sustainability, and both are free downloads:
> >>
> >> http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/energy-report.html
> >>
> >> http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/v2/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/Default.aspx
> >>
> >> The focus on energy points to where the action is. We all know about
> >> resistance to change and the "propensity to consume," and we also
> >> know
> >> about the human capacity to adapt. But, as long as we are dealing
> >> with
> >> "homo economicus," adaptation happens if, and only if, people are hit
> >> where it hurts, i.e., in the pocketbook. Since we must reach people
> >> where they are, and human resistance to change becomes willingness to
> >> change only when there is a financial incentive to do so, may I
> >> suggest
> >> that the best way to get started would be to shift incentives and
> >> disincentives (subsidies, taxes) in favor of clean energy.
> >>
> >> I think that starting with energy would be a good strategy because
> >> the
> >> need for energy is pervasive for the economy at all levels - local,
> >> national, global; so a shift in the energy mix for the economy will
> >> have
> >> a rippling effect in inducing adaptation throughout the economy. The
> >> next question is how to create the political will to "energize" clean
> >> energy via gradual adjustments in subsidies and tax systems. As
> >> long as
> >> we lack an effective form of global governance, the only way to
> >> create
> >> the required political will keep is to foster the creation of a
> >> critical
> >> mass of "global citizens" and keep pressuring all national
> >> governments
> >> to stop talking and start walking.
> >>
> >> Financial incentive is the only way for "homo economicus" to become
> >> "homo ecologicus." Hopefully, "homo ecologicus" will eventually have
> >> the wisdom to (paraphrasing Nick Maxwell) "try to be more honest
> >> about
> >> what human aims actually are, and actively seek out problematic
> >> aspects
> >> of human aims, and search for ways of improving human aims," and then
> >> *act* accordingly.
> >>
> >> Luis
> >>
> >> Luis T. Gutiérrez, PhD, PE
> >> Editor, Mother Pelican: A Journal of Sustainable Human Development
> >> A monthly, CC license, free subscription, open access e-journal
> >> http://pelicanweb.org
> >>
> >> On 2/27/2011 7:01 PM, CRISIS-FORUM automatic digest system wrote:
> >>> Re: Economic Crisis<----> Ecological Crisis
|
