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
>>
>