Hi,
I would like to emphasise the term "Realpolitik" in political sciences. There are political idealogues but like a businessman, one has to develop a good alliances and sales strategy. The best strategy is close liaison with the people who are trying to address same problem but face same financial realities. Like the renewable energy people in the UK, how much acutual support the wind turbine developers do get in this country in comparison to Denmark, Germany, Spain. All but hot air. I am sorry to say but I am more pragmatist than ideologically oriented person. If one country votes in communist government and another one capitalist government, there are always those "Realpolitik" reasons why some parties are popular, others not. Often the problems and the devil rest in the detail rather than public pronouncements and stated objectives. If it were so, the Britain that claims to lead the world in the climate change would have the largest wind turbine sector in Europe, but alas, we are the lilliputtians. I think geoengineering community should perhaps organise a formal organisation that would then invite others join and be the face of this aspect how we intend to protect our environment from the harmful climatic changes and address the risks posed to humanity as well. There is an enormous need to link and hook up with other environmental organisations that deal with the issues and speak to the utility and urban planners etc. When geoengineers are seen as a part of coalition of forces to tackle the climate change, the results will be the best. I also like the idea of competition, even in science and environmental protection. No one should be prevented to enter the game of solutions. The best and most effective ideas and solutions to address the climate change should win the greatest funding. I also note that there are going to be capacity constraints in wind turbine and nuclear reactor indsutries to supply enough generation sets to satisfy the skyrocketing demand. In these circumstances, I think when others are unable to deliver more, forests are planted as much land is available and so on, there comes point that more funds in will not improve and increase production. I see this situation as the golden age of geoengineering to step into picture and fill the gaps. Geoengineering as a matter of the last resort, is going to be so much last resort, that if strategy is left so, then I am already almost certain it will be a terminal climate change or total pandemonium at that point as with this argument there is always another excuse for delay in deployment. From industrial point of view, I am sure that capacity constraints emerge quite soon and the climate change escalates that much that panic ensues and deliveries cannot meet with demand. So, let us join others and strategise with the broader community tackling with all aspects of climate change rather than being against "them". I am very familiar with these kind of gaps. Only this week we are getting into agreement of new class of climate change risks that the United Nations need to look at. This new class of risks we have agreed to call "Paleofuture Risks" following the United Nations General Assembly complaint (UNGA 101292). The complainant nations stipulate to the UN that their ancient recollections are suggestive that the ice age never ended by ice sheets peacefully melting into oblivion in situ, but that they started to float on their meltwaters and suddenly slid off land. This then rose sea levels world-wide which 270 indigenous nations observed as either coastal floods and others as slide out of the Hudson Bay ice dome. The term "Paleofuture Risk" emanated from discussions during the indigenous nations summit in Alaska and the Climate Parliament Group in liaison with the President of United Nations General Assembly and several participant nations. The complaint, in essence, is that the indigenous recollections are suggestive that Greenland ice sheet will fall off land soon after the Arctic Ocean becomes ice free based on what happened to the Laurentide Ice dome they say slid off land on a lubricating matteress of meltwater, hence, the work paleofuture. Indianice and FIPC have been working to devise series of experiments to check out whether and which "Paleofuture Risks" may be valid concerns, which are not. So, it is not at all unique for a new science like geoengineering to find it struggle, so it is with any start up, even Wangari Maathai was once called as a crazy woman to plant trees. Motto for geoengineers: "Be it constructive engagement over dysfunctional competions". Yours sincerely, Veli Albert Kallio Press spokesman for "Arctic - Mirror of Life" convened by: His Excellency Kofi Annan (former UN Secretary General) His Excellency Jose Manuel Barroso (President of European Commission) HAH Bartholomaios I (the Head of 350-million Greek Catholic Church) From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:30:21 -0700 CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] While there may be tactical reasons to support emissions reduction, the main reason is that it is the right thing to do. Sent from a limited typing keyboard On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:25, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I think geoeng sells itself much better when we talk supportively to projects like Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maatshai's efforts to re-green Africa, this removes loads of CO2, increases biodiversity etc. Albedo change can be addressed by planting lighter crops and plant variants if there is a pressing need to bring local temperatures down. We do not make friends by telling others that their emissions cuts through better insulation, renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon sequesteration, sustainable transport etc. Neither we do make friends with people who prepare higher sea walls and forest fires, draughts, floods and disease epidemics that climate change may bring to urban and other planners. So, by supporting everybody one best supports his own cause (geoengineering) as we all are at the same problem from different perspective. Veli Albert Kallio > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:35:37 +0100 > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Dear Alvia and Samuel, > > You're right, that was bad phrasing on my part. > > In any case we would not take that university debating club approach of > debating a 'statement' - I was just trying to get the idea across... > > Best, > > Gus > > > On 30/04/2009 15:26, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why the hell would anyone agree to a debate based on such a strawman > > argument? Almost no one involved in geoengineering research or discussion > > would agree with your premise. We all agree that reducing emissions must > > proceeed at an expedited, but realistic pace. Geoengineering is simply to > > buy time and prevent accumlating irreversible damage along the way. A > > better debate topic would be whether or not geoengineering should be done at > > all, addressing the major arguments for and against that we here are all too > > familiar with, but that the public or whatever your audience consists of is > > not. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gus Lamb" <[email protected]> > > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:03 AM > > Subject: [geo] Televised debate > > > > > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> We at One Planet Pictures are interested in setting up a televised debate > >> on > >> geoengineering. Something on the lines of: "This house believes we should > >> give up trying to reduce emissions and concentrate instead on finding a > >> technofix". > >> > >> Can anyone suggest any companies or institutions that might be interested > >> in > >> sponsoring such a debate? > >> > >> Many thanks > >> > >> Gus > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
