That ETC (a hotbed of *Northerners *and I use that term pejoratively for the first time) is an odd duck in taking up this fight.
Most people who are interested in "geoengineering" that I know are interested in it because they think effects of greenhouse gas emissions might be very bad. Most people who are interested in "geoengineering" that I know strongly favor deep and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Most people who are interested in "geoengineering" that I know fear that these cuts may not be deep enough or might not come soon enough to adequately reduce the risk of some really bad outcomes. ETC seems to live in a fantasy world in which people who think effects of greenhouse gas emissions might be very bad do not think it is important to cut these emissions deeply and soon. ETC seems to live in a fantasy world in which in makes sense to attack people who support deep and rapid emissions reductions simply because they might want to consider technical means to preserve important parts of the biosphere (e.g., Arctic ecosystems) should those emissions cuts not be deep enough or come soon enough. ETC seems to live in a fantasy world in which exposing ourselves to risk is better than examining approaches that might reduce risk. ETC seems to live in a fantasy world in which "geoengineering" is considered a substitute for emissions reductions. ETC seems to live in a fantasy world in which ignorance is better than knowledge. There may be a small number of people that hold the simplistic cartoon views that ETC ascribes to those interested in "geoengineering", but these people are few and far between. If ETC would ever step off of their self-proclaimed moral high ground for a few minutes, they might find that they actually share perspectives with many people interested in "geoengineering". However, it appears that they would rather spend their time attacking people who care deeply about the climate problem than to address people who do not care deeply about this problem. As far as I can tell, ETC's positions are basically the following: 1. Geoengineering research will take incentive away from reducing emissions. 2. We are so confident that our emission reduction strategy will succeed that we do not deem it prudent to make back-up plans. 3. We know in advance that these back-up plans cannot diminish harm. The first point is empirical, and I believe it to be false. Acceptance that geoengineering may be necessary is to admit the potential for catastrophic consequences from greenhouse gas emissions, which would imply a strong incentive to reduce emissions. The second point indicates self-delusional self-confidence and a hubristic willingness to expose ecosystems and people to excessive risk. The third seeks to replace science with a form of omniscience. Not a reliable guide for sound policy. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > *Hi Folks,* > * > * > *Steven posted something similar and I can only hope this is more media > hype than a growing trend. I think the biggest threat comes from groups that > use media hype to block genuine scientific investigations while pulling in > donations. This is truly Yellow Journalism! * > * > * > * > > Look at what ETC has to offer just today; > * > "Dear Dr. Pachauri, > > The undersigned organizations would like to express our concerns about the > upcoming IPCC joint working group expert meeting on geoengineering to be > held in Lima, Peru, June 20-22, 2011. > > Geoengineering, the intentional large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s > systems to modify the climate, is one of the most serious issues the > international community will face in the decades ahead. The prospects of > artificially changing the chemistry of our oceans to absorb more CO2, > modifying the Earth’s radiative balance, devising new carbon sinks in > fragile ecosystems, redirecting hurricanes and other extreme weather events > are alarming. The potential for accidents, dangerous experiments, inadequate > risk assessment, unexpected impacts, unilateralism, private profiteering, > disruption of agriculture, inter-state conflict, illegitimate political > goals and negative consequences for the global South is high. The likelihood > that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful > solution to the climate crisis is non-existent (. > > The IPCC aims to be “policy relevant” and “policy neutral,” and must take > great care not to squander its credibility on geoengineering, a topic that > is gathering steam precisely when there is no real progress on mitigation > and adaptation. The IPCC’s announcement of the expert meeting already > suggests that geoengineering has a place in the portfolio of legitimate > responses to climate change (a highly contestable claim), and that the role > of the IPCC is to define what that role is. Permit us to stress that this is > not primarily a scientific question; it is a political one. International > peasant organizations, indigenous peoples, and social movements have all > expressed outright opposition to such measures as a false solution to the > climate crisis. > > The Scientific Steering Group of this expert meeting includes well-known > geoengineering advocates who have called for steep increases in funding for > research and for proceeding with experimentation, as well as scientists who > have patents pending on geoengineering technologies and/or other financial > interests. Asking a group of geoengineering scientists if more research > should be done on the topic is like asking a group of hungry bears if they > would like honey. Their predictable answer should be viewed with skepticism. > At the same time, independent organizations, which have devoted years of > critical research to geoengineering, are not allowed to participate, even as > observers. > > Furthermore, we are concerned that the IPCC appears to be wading into > waters beyond its expertise and mandate. The expert meeting, for instance, > describes “appropriate governance mechanisms” as part of its mandate, and > participants will discuss the “suitability of existing governance mechanisms > for managing geoengineering, including social, legal and political factors.” > This is a crucial discussion that has already begun at the international > level among governments and civil society, most notably at the Conference of > the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan in 2010. That > meeting agreed to adopt a *de facto* moratorium on real-world > experimentation until a number of conditions are met. The critical question > of governance is one that needs to be fully debated by the international > community, with *all* interested states, civil society organizations, > indigenous peoples and farmers’ organizations taking part in a clearly > democratic, multilateral transparent and accountable way. Scientists from > the IPCC should participate in that debate, but they do not have the > expertise or legitimacy to determine the suitability of existing governance > mechanisms. > > In the months ahead, as the Fifth Assessment Report is prepared, civil > society organizations concerned with climate change and geoengineering will > closely scrutinize the IPCC’s work. In particular, we will look for the IPCC > to come out clearly and strongly in favour of the strict application of the > precautionary principle and against any real-world geoengineering > experimentation. > > On the expert meeting, before its report is published and its conclusions > are shared more broadly, we urge the IPCC to ensure that a variety of civil > society voices is heard, understood, and taken into account, particularly > from the global South. This will provide much-needed common sense and a > global perspective, as well as a counterpoint to the more prominent and > extreme positions of some Northern scientists engaged in geoengineering > research. > We thank you for your attention to these issues and look forward to your > reply." > > *I will directly respond to this statement in the next few days. I want to > take my time to fully express my views and I will CC the response to Dr. > Pachauri. ETC is not an expert on GE just as I am not expert. They have a > financial motive to be heard on this issue, I do not! These folks are > pulling in around 100k per month on this scam of a gravy train!!!!!* > * > * > *This type of irrational ranting **by groups like ETC is what fuels the > irrational threats against those seriously working on true solutions. As > long as folks like ETC can make a living by ranting non-sense, there needs > to be those willing to stand toe to toe against them and debate/expose them > for the fear mongers that they are. * > * > * > *Thanks again for your patience,* > * > * > *Michael * > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> A friend I won't name worked in geoengineering related research and >> reported visits from hippies with baseball bats to researchers who offended >> the deep greens. >> >> Seems you can't do anything noteworthy in this field without someone >> somewhere wanting to kill you. >> >> I think I'd rather be shot by a redneck than beaten to death by a hippy. >> Anyone else got a preference? I'm not sure I'm influential enough to offend >> anyone yet, though. I've never previously thought of that as a good thing... >> >> I've written a non fiction book on security and counter intelligence for >> campaigners. If anyone wants a copy, I'll email it. >> >> A >> On 13 Jun 2011 17:54, "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
