Hi John et al. - I'm glad to see that this debate is continuing & that I've
found time to contribute a bit more. I should explain that I too am really
scared for the future of the planet & am aware of the methane problem. I do
not dismiss geoengineering out of some belief that we will change our ways.
I dismiss it because there is no (mainstream) discussion about the fact that
we HAVE to change our ways. I liked the smoker analogy but stick by the idea
that it's pretty pointless to fix someone up if they won't stop doing what
initially caused the damage - could have been an alcoholic with cirrosis of
the liver. The point's the same. I agree that people should be told but I
also understand that people have no idea who to trust and are quite happy to
carry on as is than make some sweeping change on the back of misinformation.
I am as sceptical about biochar as I am about large mirrors in space, not
because I don't think they'd work (they might, they might not - I don't have
the climate or engineering background to know) but because they will be
developed with the same mindset which led to our current crises. Jonathan
mentioned the fact that we can't experiment with many large-scale
geoengineering projects. Clouds sound nice but what impact would an
alteration of solar input have on plant life, especially at a time when
other cycles are being altered at a rapid rate. And speed of change is key
here. We all know how evolution and adaptation work - over time, gradually.
Speed of change is linked to scale, which is relevant to biochar (& indeed
all biofuels). Sure, ancient Amazonians used charcoal to improve soils but
some proponents of biochar propose it on a colossal, indeed unfeasible,
scale.
Biochar has been made from grasses, woody material, straw, corn stubble,
peanut shells, olive pits, bark, sorghum, and sewage wastes. However,
experimentation with biochar and bio-oil has typically been on wood because
of its consistency as a material and its relatively low ash content. The
idea for biochar came from Terra preta, the carbon rich and highly fertile
soils created by communities in Central Amazonia 500-2,500 years ago. Terra
preta is characterised by:
* highly diverse biomass residues (compost, manure, fish & animal bones,
weeds, etc) linked to high agro-biodiversity (not monoculture forests);
* organic phosphorous and calcium additions;
* charcoal additions.
Terra preta was about more than just burying charcoal and it was not done on
the scale some are proposing, such as Peter Read, contributor to IPCC
Assessment Report 4, 2007, and member of the International Biochar
Initiative (IBI), who said "Land use improvements on the scale envisaged -
on average, an area the size of France in warmer regions and of Germany in
temperate zones, each year for 25 years - is a daunting organisational
prospect". Why hasn't the daunting prospect of the land mass needed to
'store' significant amounts of carbon via biochar led the biochar debate?
And where will this land be found? One then gets into arguments about what
is 'marginal' land - is it merely land not making money, regardless of who
lives there now?
Yes, future solutions will be a mixture of energy demand reduction (this is
the hard one to get going - 'we' would much rather launch large space
mirrors than cut back on consumption) and meeting that reduced demand with a
variety of alternative technologies. But back to biochar, which scares me
because it is so easy to market to people as a 'green' solution. At the 2008
UN climate talks in Poznan, Johannes Lehmann, Chair of the IBI, estimated
that under ambitious scenarios biochar could store 1 billion tons of carbon
annually - equivalent to more than 10 percent of global carbon emissions
(8.5 billion tons in 2007). Ref:
www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4B45KB20081205. According to
Lehmann et al., modern large scale charcoal applications could sequester as
much as 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year, which would necessitate over
500 million hectares of dedicated plantations. Ref:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf (p5). The total
geographical area of India is 328.73 million hectares. It's obvious that
this amount of land simply isn't available, so why do some proponents even
mention such outlandish figures? Why is biochar not promoted as a
small-scale local endeavor? The answer to that is probably at the real root
of the problem - we have to change our ways but the inertia is enormous.
We have to understand the difference between bio-fuels and agri-fuels, which
leads me onto my last point - it's attitude which has to change first. For
example, Biopact (which runs the Biochar Fund) says (see here, end of first
para -
http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/10/strange-world-of-carbon-negative.html)
"By driving, you will be saving the planet. And the more you drive, the more
you prevent catastrophic climate change." This is utter codswollop (can't
spell it but trying not to swear!) and while this probably represents the
extreme end of biochar advocacy we must be aware that such attitudes persist
and could win the argument.
OK, enough from me and I didn't even mention net energy....!
Mandy
http://mandymeikle.wordpress.com/
_________________________
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley, "Proper Studies", 1927
----- Original Message -----
From: John Nissen
To: A&M Meikle
Cc: [log in to unmask] ; Emily ; John Davies
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: So ... what now folks?
Hi Mandy,
I'm sorry about the smoker analogy - it's not worked for you. Try again.
If you were dying of cancer (God forbid), but did not know it, would you
want the doctor to keep silent about the cancer and not tell you about
treatment? If we let the Arctic continue warming, there's an inevitability
that vast quantities of methane will be released from permafrost. The only
treatment which could work fast enough to stop this happening is
geoengineering cooling technology, called 'solar radiation management'. At
present Jo Public is not being told about the Arctic danger, and at the same
time they are being told that geoengineering is inherently dangerous (which
it isn't if used sensibly). It's mad. It's suicidal.
Cheers,
John
---
On 12/02/2011 19:20, A&M Meikle wrote:
Not sure when this thread began but I am amongst those who believe that
geoengineering is not the solution. To continue the dying smoker analogy,
what's the point of expensive treatment, which may or may not work, if the
person remains hell-bent on smoking? (I should probably add that I'm a
smoker!)
I accept that the chances are that CO2 levels are reaching, or are at, the
tipping point stage. However, we have to be realistic and accept that many
(most?) proponents of geoengineering remain entrenched in the mentality
which says that industrial civilisation is the pinnacle of intelligent life.
I look around me and simply do not agree. It's not that we "should not have
to interfere with the climate system" (we've been doing that for long
enough) but that we should not think that we can be in control of the
climate system.
If humans had first become a species which really did care for the planet
(i.e. ecological integrity was the number 1 priority with equity and human
rights 2nd and profiteering further down the list) I might be swayed by the
geoengineering argument. Sadly, I just see another ploy for making some
people rich at the expense of the rest. And not forgetting that much of
modern history has been about who controls the energy supply. There's a huge
shift going on just now and we in the 'West' are not coming off too well!
I know this isn't a popular argument and have run out of time to try to be
more coherent - sorry! But let's keep the debate going and maybe we'll come
up with some ideas about 'what now folks?'
Mandy
http://mandymeikle.wordpress.com/
_________________________
The primary, if not the only, measure by which we will be judged by those
who come after us is going to be the health of the landbase
- Derrick Jensen, Endgame part 1
----- Original Message -----
From: John Nissen
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: So ... what now folks?
Dear Alistair,
I'm sorry I didn't reply to all the emails. Many of you feel in your guts
that geoengineering is wrong - we should not have to interfere with the
climate system - if only we stop our excesses everything would sort itself
out. But let me give you an analogy.
If a smoker is dying of cancer, you try and save their life. Guia is dying,
and the cancer is in the Arctic and the Amazon. We have to tackle the
cancer with medicine (geoengineering) which will work rapidly and
effectively. Tackling the root cause of the problem - humans putting too
much CO2 in the atmosphere - is no cure in this case*.
Geoengineering seems scary, but it's not half so scary as the consequences
of letting the situation get out of hand in the Arctic or the Amazon. We
may already be too late - beyond the point of no return - but I refuse to be
defeatist.
Best wishes,
John
* Emissions reductions cannot work quickly because of the long effective
lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the case of ozone depletion, CFC
reduction worked because the ozone started to recover before it became too
serious.
---
On 11/02/2011 15:53, Alastair McIntosh wrote:
Dear John
I replied very directly to your email a while back . hope that was OK. I do
see the importance of what you are raising, but to geoengineer the hardware
without having tacked the software of our profligacy?
All the very best
Alastair
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: 15 January 2011 23:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: So ... what now folks?
Thanks Alastair,
I have always assumed that this list was about crisis - crisis recognition
and response. (Some also consider societal change, but as a response to
crisis.)
The general recognition of a world crisis is beginning to dawn, as Paul
Rogers point out in his excellent piece [1]. It is important to hammer home
the good science that shows that the force of Katrina and the force of the
Queensland floods are both related to extra high temperature in neighbouring
ocean - and a component of that temperature is from global warming. Too
often journalists will end their piece with something to throw doubt about
the effects or existence of global warming - for example here [2].
The retreat of Arctic sea ice is a crisis which needs to be recognised more
widely, because of "positive feedback" of the "albedo flip". As the
reflective sea ice retreats, the resulting open water absorbs solar energy
and the air above the water is heated. If Arctic warming continues
unabated, massive quantities of methane will be released from melting
permafrost - enough to cause global warming to spiral out of control. Also
there is the risk of Greenland ice sheet disintegration, producing 7 metres
of sea level rise. The sea ice is already in a critical state [3].
This is an emergency. But what can we do? Traditionally the focus has
been on greenhouse gas emissions, but reducing emissions cannot help on the
necessary timescale to save the Arctic sea ice.
Our only option is to use geoengineering to cool the Arctic. Now almost
everybody, scientists and environmentalists alike, has a natural aversion to
engineering on global scale. But we have no choice. Either we embrace
geoengineering, and get it to work on our behalf, or we are doomed to many
degrees of global warming and many metres of sea level rise. That's
curtains. That's the end of civilisation.
At present we seem hell bent on a suicidal course of relying on some
miraculous reduction of CO2 emissions, which by itself can neither halt
global warming, nor save the Arctic. All talk is about changing people's
lifestyle to reduce carbon footprint. But this won't prevent catastrophe.
We are indeed like the proverbial lemmings - and we are about to fall over
the cliff edge.
Rant over. Does this make sense to anybody? Does anybody understand what
I'm saying? I know you don't want to know - you desperately don't want to
believe what I'm saying. It's extremely uncomfortable to contemplate. Like
Jeremiah's warning to the Israelites that Babylonians wanted them as
slaves - the Israelites didn't want to know. But if we all bury our heads
in the sand, we and our offspring have no future. We need a Transition to
Science and Sanity.
That's how I see it. Can anybody see my point of view?
Kind regards,
John
[1]
http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/world-in-breakdown?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=Nightly_2011-01-14%2005%3a30
[2] http://planetark.org/wen/60863
[3] http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52896
---
On 15/01/2011 08:00, Alastair McIntosh wrote:
Well everybody .
It seems to me from recent postings (mostly on the warmest year not being
news theme) that there's a strong view on this list that climate change is
too narrow a focus, and that we should be widening out our concerns to
issues that threaten crisis in a broader sense. I very much concur with
that.
When I first came onto this list about 3 years ago I mistaken called it the
"Climate Crisis Forum" because that seemed to be its singular concern. But
it's interesting to look back on how that singularity came to pass. Nature
is not a follower of fashion. Nature operates according to life's adaptation
to the physical realities affecting the biosphere. Human beings, once beyond
the level of basic sufficiency in life, are dedicated followers of fashion.
If we don't have to fight or flight we look for ways to twiddle our thumbs.
This produces a mismatch between underlying biophysical realities affecting
the planet and the human perception of what is important, given that most
people do not think long-term (ask any politician about voting realities).
The prophets of a society - those who see and testify to the bigger
picture - are perennially faced with the same problem. In Jeremiah's time it
was how to wake the Israelites up to the fact that the Babylonians were at
the door and about to force them into slavery. The Israelites tried to shut
him up by putting him in the stocks and throwing him down a well. They didn't
want to know. The same is true of modern prophets - and I use the term in
its secular as well as its spiritual sense. The party-goers hate the
party-poopers, even when they're right, especially when they're right.
As such, modern environmentalism (i.e. post Rachel Carson, Teddy Goldsmith,
etc.) has had a marketing problem. The materialistic eighties were an era in
which war became acceptable again as a tool of political policy (Falklands)
and massive deregulation undermined localism. "Greed is Good" became
disturbingly normalised. The idea that "Green is Good" started to become a
fading seventies dream. The 1972 Limits to Growth Report which had caused
such a stir began to pop with the Ehrlich bubble. There were no limits that
technology couldn't fix. There was no need for a "frugral" green movement
that could be dismissed - often with good justification because of its own
indulgence of neurotic fads - as "yoghurt knitters".
Along comes climate science in the late 80s and the sudden conversion of Mrs
T. All of a sudden "our" agenda re-opened. Climate change became the
presenting symptom of everything else we'd been banging on about since at
least the sixties countercultural revolution and the wider need, arising out
of WW2, to seek to understand and resolve the authoritarian mindsets of our
parents pre-baby-boomer generation. Some of those neurotic fads were
understandable - all the cranky diets and crazy cures and "energies" and
what have you. They were and are a visceral response from sensitive souls
injured by socio-psychological mores that negate whole living, and render
full incarnation into what it means to be a human being a very painful
process for some.
Climate science packed all these concerns - both justified and neurotically
inflated - into one knapsack. In millenarian terms such as ethnographers
study the threat of climate change served as a "folk devil" - the singular
cause of all our ills. We (I speak generically and not for the better
informed position) missed the point that it was not a singular cause; it
was, rather, the measurable thermometer stuck in the mouth of the patient
afflicted with multiple maladies.
But things move in fashions, and a thermometer reading was easy for the
media and public to understand. As one of my ex-public school media friends
keeps telling me, "Remember, McIntosh, if you want to reach the ordinary
person you must pitch what you write for what you'd imagine to be the
reading level of an 8 year old." As such, we all constellated behind climate
change. We didn't have much choice because it became the only show in town.
Biodiversity? As somebody said (was it on this forum?) a recent survey
suggested that most people think it's a washing powder. In any case, there
is a sense in which climate change is the only show in town. It is the most
systemic problem a biosphere can suffer.
For a short time during the mid-nineties the green movement, naively in my
view but recognising the need to KISS (keep it simple, stoopid) when
communicating with today's public, pushed the view that mitigation was a)
technically possible and b) the only thinkable option. If adaptation was
mentioned at public meetings there'd be angry responses from campaigners who'd
get up and say, "To talk about adaptation is to concede defeat and let the
governments and the corporations off the hook." But those culprits in fair
measure, especially in democratic free market economies reflect, at least to
a substantial degree, the psychological mores of the people. Yes, they may
be demons, but to demonise them alone is to deal with our own complicity by
projection and scapegoating. The bottom line, as Cop15 so ignobly
demonstrated, is that while mitigation might have been technically feasible
(e.g. Monbiot's analysis in Heat), it was never going to be politically so.
That brings the movement - the movement of those who are concerned about the
world beyond self-gratification - to a crisis point. As such, this debate we've
been having makes for an interesting meta-take on what a Crisis Forum should
be here for. The question is how do "we" - those who seek to serve as
researchers, policy-makers and opinion-leaders on these issues - seek to
steer matters henceforth? What is worth researching, campaigning about,
conforming our lifestyles in accordance with (while acknowledging the
difficulty and our complicities - thank you, Michael)?
In short, what is the greater purpose to which we can meaningfully hitch our
visions and serve?
My sense is that climate change is going to go off the boil for a while
because it's resolutely gone out of fashion - at least in certain countries,
like the UK. That doesn't mean we stop bothering about it. The science, if
it is broadly right, will continue to catch up. All the time it is catching
up, an what's interesting is that a lot of that catching up seems likely to
throw us back onto the original component concerns of climate change. (For
example, I'm interested in the Scottish fishing industry, and a BBC round-up
yesterday states: "Iceland and the Faroes said they saw the situation
differently. The countries argued that the mackerel stock has gravitated
north in recent years - thought to be due to climate change - so they were
now fishing in their own zones.")
The question of "crisis" interests me in 2 respects. First, I am concerned
with the dynamics of love and the trauma that lovelessness, a.k.a. violence,
generates in scarring the human condition. As such, matters that heighten
conflict between peoples are troubling . we are not that far away, yet, from
those dynamics of world war that so shaped today's elderly generation.
Secondly, I am interested in the dynamics of transformation. Crisis, as the
old Chinese pictogram has it, represents both threat and opportunity.
Whenever I see crisis I'm asking, "How can deeper insight, deeper humanity,
be drawn from this?" This is what I mean by finding a greater purpose to
which to hitch our wagons.
As for the discussions on this list, personally I hope it will continue to
be a well-informed context for discussing climate change, but also, that
there may be a widening out into other dynamics of global crisis. But above
all, a deepening of reflection about what the trends in global crisis mean
in an ontological sense. The role of a prophet is to testify to situations
in ways that might dig out channels that the deluge can later fill and be
directed by. I think we are in an era of maybe not being heard as much as we
were 3 years ago, but of needing to beaver away digging those channels. Jon's
missive on the Transition movement is interesting in this respect. I agree
with all his misgivings about it, but also with his perception of why it is
important. Transition, without having to TM the term, is what we need to be
working on, but what is so often lacking when words like transition or
transformation are used is a clear vision of what it is that we are moving
towards. This is why, in my view, the single most important thing any of us
can be doing in present times is to deepen our reflection, and seeking out
of embodied experience, of what it means to be human: epistemologically,
ontologically and dare I suggest it, teleologically (concerned with
end-purpose). Such an agenda goes profoundly contrary to dominant trends in
the postmodern academy. But perhaps Derridean postmodernism with its denials
of reality, along with the nihilistic forms of Sartrean existentialism that
have accompanied it, are part of our problem. Climate change and associated
crises has the great virtue of forcing us back to biophysical properties.
Who knows what can open up from there.
Oh dear . sorry to have generated such breakfast indigestion!
Alastair.
|
