Dear Professor Watson,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9483790.stm
How absurd. Now we have it confirmed that the Arctic Council is there,
not to pretect the Arctic, but to carve up the resources. And now we
know that the people involved ARE rubbing their hands with glee as the
sea ice retreats, seemingly oblivious of the tremendous horrors that
await them (and the rest of humanity) as Arctic ice melts away and
methane, trapped by permafrost, is discharged in ever increasing
quantities to exacerbate global warming. There are signs that this
process is already underway [1]. As I said to BBC correspondent,
Richard Black, at the EGU conference in April, we only need 10% of
potential methane to be discharged over 20 years, and the rate of global
warming would be multiplied by about 40 times [2]. This is easily
enough to cause abrupt and catastrophic climate change [3].
Governments around the world, together with the whole environment
movement, should unite to fight this absurd situation, and back a plan
to stop the methane at all costs. This is an emergency.
Kind regards,
John
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8437703.stm
[2] Sam Carana points out that I was erring on the low side for this
figure.
[3] I am not the first to point out this danger from methane. Research
on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) has exposed the dire situation.
/If just one percent of ESAS methane escapes its crystal prison,
Semiletov suggested at a geophysical conference in 2008, it might push
total methane to 6 parts per million. Some researchers consider this is
a tipping point towards 'runaway climate change.' If that term doesn't
summon up an image, you can take NASA scientist James Hansen's
suggestion of an "ice-free state" where the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets melt entirely, raising global sea level by over 200 feet.
/
See http://tyeebridge.com/?p=608
---
On 12/05/2011 18:44, John Nissen wrote:
Hello again, Albert,
I've just picked up this news about Hillary Clinton going to the
Arctic Council meeting, thanks to the "World Environment News Service"
to which I subscribe. The URL is http://planetark.org/wen/61985
Unfortunately this email may be too late for Robert Corell, who you
mentioned in connection with the Arctic Council.
It appears that there is a complete disconnect between the danger from
the "thaw" with associated sea level rise and the exploration and
exploitation. And what about the methane? Does _nobody_ realise
that the Arctic _has_ to be cooled to a prevent a climate catastrophe
that could be the end of us all? It is so obvious if you think about
it - given the quantities of methane that would be discharged if the
ice cap is allowed to melt away.
BTW, I wonder whether John Holdren ever looked at that open letter we
sent him, about the methane danger [1]? It might have been better to
have gone to Clinton! Bit late now.
John
[1]
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2010/06/sea-ice-loss-stuns-scientists.html
---
Hillary Clinton Lands In Greenland For Arctic Summit
*Date:* /12-May-11/
*Country:* GREENLAND
*Author:* Andrew Quinn - Additional reporting Alister Doyle in Oslo
[photo deleted]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the Washington Conference
on the Americas at the State Department in Washington May 11, 2011.
Photo: Kevin Lamarque
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Greenland on Wednesday
for an Arctic summit to improve management of a vast, pristine region
being rapidly transformed by climate change.
Clinton flew to Nuuk on a Air Force transport and was greeted at the
tiny capital's airport by Greenland Premier Kuupik Kleist and dozens
of cheering Greenlanders who braved a chilly spring night still bathed
in sunlight.
Clinton and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will lead the U.S. team to
Thursday's meeting of the Arctic Council, which includes Canada,
Russia, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark, which handles
foreign affairs for Greenland, as well as groups representing
indigenous inhabitants of the world's most northerly regions.
Clinton will be the first U.S. secretary of state to attend an Arctic
Council meeting. U.S. officials say her trip shows the Arctic is
moving up Washington's priority list as rising temperatures create new
environmental risks and new economic opportunities in a region rich
with untapped resources.
The melt is undermining the hunting livelihoods of indigenous peoples
and threatening polar bears and other creatures. But the changes may
also make the Arctic more accessible to shipping, mining and oil and
gas exploration.
The region is estimated to hold about a quarter of the world's
undiscovered oil and gas reserves.
The Arctic Council is an international organization formed to promote
cooperation among the nations making up the Arctic region, which
covers more than a sixth of Earth's landmass.
The council is expected to announce its first formal agreement -- a
deal on dividing search-and-rescue responsibility among Arctic states
-- and to debate guidelines for admitting observer delegations from
non-Arctic powers such as China.
It may also consider moves to coordinate oil and gas development in
the region, as well as establishing a permanent council secretariat to
help strengthen the organization's governance role.
'IMPORTANT INNOVATION'
"This is an important innovation in the architecture of regional and
global cooperation," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said
this week in a speech previewing Clinton's Arctic trip.
The Arctic Council is getting more attention as a thaw transforms the
region.
Last week, a new international study projected that world sea levels
would rise by 3 to 5 feet by 2100 -- more than previously projected --
partly because of an accelerating melt of Greenland and other Arctic ice.
That brought calls by Nordic nations for more action to slow climate
change and more focus on the Arctic in sluggish U.N. negotiations on a
global deal.
While the United States -- through the state of Alaska -- is a major
Arctic player, it has been hampered by the U.S. Senate's failure to
ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
That agreement governs navigation rights, addresses environmental
issues and allows member nations to apply to extract oil, gas and
mineral deposits beyond a 200-mile (322- km) exclusion zone.
Political analysts say that while other countries such as Russia,
Canada, Denmark and Norway have hastened to stake claims in the
region, the United States has not been able to join in.
"We need to be at this table. We are at a military and economic
disadvantage," said Heather Conley, an Arctic expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
The Obama administration has said it will continue to work with the
Senate to get the treaty ratified. But the window appears narrow as
the United States gears up for the 2012 election campaign, a political
season that often puts international agreements on the back burner.
(Editing by Peter Cooney)
---
On 12/05/2011 08:40, John Nissen wrote:
Hi Albert,
Although fear may be one of the primary drivers of action, suppressed
anxiety may be a cause of inaction, especially when it reaches a
point of "mortality salience".
Take the Arctic sea ice. It is part of the thermostatic control
mechanism for the planet - thus critical to preventing global
temperatures from rising above a certain limit. It is also a
critical part of the whole Arctic ecosystem. And it protects
permafrost from releasing methane and the Greenland ice sheet from
accelerated discharge with associated sea level rise. The methane
hazard is particularly dangerous to mankind. Even if only a small
proportion (under 10%) of the trapped methane were released into the
atmosphere, it would cause runaway global warming - a
life-threatening situation.
When the sea ice showed unexpected signs of rapid decline in
September 2007, you would have thought it common sense to act to save
the Arctic sea ice. But we have not. The scientific community has
ignored the problem. And they have ignored the continued decline in
sea ice volume since 2007. How can they be so stupid? I have talked
to a few top scientists, and they seem to have a complete mental
block. They suppress the reality because it is painful. Hence they
also suppress contemplation of the action which would be required to
save the sea ice - which of necessity includes geoengineering to cool
the Arctic. The consensus is that geoengineering is more dangerous
than not geoengineering, when it is plain common sense that not
geoengineering is a threat to their own lives.
Thus there has been no effective action to save the Arctic sea ice.
So now the methane level is starting to rise significantly, and some
of us are starting a fire-fighting exercise. But it should not have
been necessary if prompt action had cooled the Arctic and halted the
decline in Arctic sea ice
BTW, I am not suggesting that the Arctic is the only problem area
with mortality salience. The Amazon rainforest is in a critical
state, such that a few more years of drought could lead to die-off,
burn-off and complete breakdown of the existing climate patterns in
the Western Hemisphere, besides exacerbating global warming. Yet we
see no effective action to save the rainforest which has the
necessary urgency behind it.
A tragic irony about the warming Arctic is that the chiefs of the oil
and mineral companies are rubbing their hands with glee at the
prospect of an ice-free ocean, to help with their exploration and
exploitation, when they should be contemplating their own funerals.
Cheers,
John
P.S. I am still hoping to get psychologists interested, hence
copying this email to John Keene.
---
On 11/05/2011 18:00, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
It is important to take a new approach as it is entirely clear that
the route taken by IPCC since Kyoto is not receiving any urgency.
The business community is spreading denialism as long as it can.
When it no longer works, it switches to fatalism and unpredictablity
that no one can know and therefore prepare for. There is 100%
certainty of total failure of climate change mitigation unless there
is a good deal of fear involved. Winston Churchill was so succesfull
selling bombs to the nation, just because of fear, not lack of it.
I personally think that any person who thinks that fear is not the
primary instinct and driver of our action needs to have his "head
examined" just like President Babrak Obama told about Osama bin
Laden. We do not try to sell a tivoli for children but sell
something smelly and very unpleasant that involves lots of cost,
sacrifice (and opportunity cost) as money to be spent elsewhere
needs to go into climate action. Less breaks to faraway lands by
plane, less flying, less driving and more queues in buses and time
spent in rain on bus stops or on bicycles, or insulating homes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:49:30 +0100
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Actic Council meeting on Thursday
To: [email protected]
Though the research indicates people do not respond positively to
fear messages, but instead become fatalistic. I personally would
advocate agitating for the development of a revolutionary
consciousness which allows people to properly understand and
identify the systemic causes of our predicament, and thus regain the
nobility that is our birthright rather than cowering in fear and
letting politicians, experts and business leaders define our
collective future.
*From:*Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Veli Albert Kallio
*Sent:* 11 May 2011 13:43
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: Actic Council meeting on Thursday
I think we all would be better off if we could persuade that there
is an emergency. The businessmen say now that there is no emergency.
The next day they say there is an emergency, nothing can and should
be done, let the nature to take its own course. It is fatalistic.
The science community has not made its case clear enough to the
general public and politicians that there is an urgency, let alone
emergency as per the risk of climate change from anthorpogenic
emissions. Instead more forest will be felled down.
There is always an urgency of economic growth and emergency
economics to cut down public spending including the cutbacks on
renewable energy investments such as the UK Green Bank to fund
switchover to renewable energy. Now offshore wind is deemed too
expensive and it is supposed to be switchover to nuclear energy.
Meanwhile, the Third World is told to curtail emissions and in case
of Iran to close down its nuclear energy programme (without
increasing carbon dioxide emissions). Supposedly to complete with
the West with solar panel based electricity (they have not too good
winds there anyway comparable to the North Atlantic or Scotland here).
Once there is a clarity what the West tells others to do and is
doing itself, then there is chances to get something done. Words
without action is just drifting into crisis just like Winston
Churchill said in 1936. But here we are not selling bombs but wind
turbines to power us.
Geoengineering trails renewable energy and emissions cuts. Carbon
trading is seen as modern sale of sins, in fashion of Peter's Pence,
medieval penances to buy good conscience with money - without
repentance.
We need several good front riders of fear that can make people to
understand the need for climate actions.
Kind regards,
*Albert*
[snip]
---
On 10/05/2011 16:07, John Nissen wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for pointing out my error. The reference to article
mentioning Arctic council should have been:
http://planetark.org/wen/61906 [corrected below]
Albert has just emailed to say he'll pass on my message to the
Arctic Council meeting.
The link I gave you about food was from the same World Environment
News email service that I subscribe to (free), coming from
Australia. It was one of a number of interesting news items. The
price of food is already being affected by climate change -
according to a study reported in Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531
As global warming accelerates, even without the methane, it will be
increasing difficult for farmers to adjust, and prices of food are
bound to increase. This will start hitting people in the pocket
even in rich countries. And methane would make it far worse. A
potential economic impact could make politicians sit up.
But methane's effect on the ozone depletion could perhaps achieve
most publicity, especially with the Arctic ozone hole already
becoming a significant hazard.
There could also be an effect of methane bubbling through water on
marine life. Anybody know? CO2 produces ocean acidification -
already critical in the Arctic; does methane make this any worse?
Off now to see Mark.
Cheers,
John
---
On 10/05/2011 09:52, John Nissen wrote:
/Foreign ministers from Arctic Council nations -- the United States,
Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland -- are
due to meet in Greenland on May 12. Warming in the Arctic is
happening at about twice the world average.
/
See http://planetark.org/wen/61906 [corrected URL]
<http://planetark.org/wen/61945>
Actually the warming is much faster - reports of 4 degrees warming
suggest the polar amplification is at least 5 times now. This
factor is growing, because positive feedback makes the relationship
to global warming non-linear - possibly even exponential. And soon
the methane factor could come into play - if not already happening,
given the growing emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.
Should/could we raise the methane issue at this meeting? Do any of
you have contacts in the council?
Today I am hoping to explore the UN option with my neighbour, Mark
Malloch-Brown, former assistant to Kofi Annan.
Cheers,
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1500/3629 - Release Date: 05/10/11
--
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.
