Hi Folks, Ron, Bronson seemed to be simply confused on a few of her points. The CO2 being best left in the atmosphere remark was one and is something I think most of the ETC donors need to pay close attention to. Greenpeace can offer a much more rational "service" for the donation dollar. Also, on one hand she claims all GE proposed methods simply will not work (3:33), yet on the other hand, they should all be baned. I believe this is a clear example of her confusion or willingness to be simply dishonest with her audience. Why take the trouble to ban something which does not work?
You asked about if there was any reference to not removing atmos. CO2 on their site. I have been reading the available material on their site and have not found any direct reference to that strategy. I can not, however rule out that it is there somewhere. Also, the type of rhetoric that is common in their writings is not precise in any way, shape or form and so much of what is written can be widely interpreted. As you know, one tried and true con-artist technique is that "If you can't dazzle with your brilliance, baffle them with your Bull Sh#t" Bronson was clearly not dazzling anyone in her interview and I am completely baffled by much of what I read on their site. The ETC staff constantly brings up "The Precautionary Principle" as a mantra like chant. Here is a stark look at that principle from Max More; *What’s Wrong with the Precautionary Principle?* The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us badly by: 1. assuming worst-case scenarios 2. distracting attention from established threats to health, especially natural risks 3. assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all positive or neutral, never negative 4. ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favoring nature over humanity 5. illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavorably positioning the proponent of the activity 6. conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm. Ironically, the precautionary principle does actually support GE. Wiki; "One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio Conference<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Conference>, or "Earth Summit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit>" in 1992. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration> notes: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. *Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation*."[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-1> My underscoring. It is clear that Global Warming does pose a "threat of serious or irreversible damage" and the "lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" (that seems like a call for GE to me!). I would like to see ETC place this definition prominently on their front page. What would their donors think? You asked about their position on getting more CO2 into plants (Redd+). My reading indicates to me that they believe it is now a "green washing" situation. Again, I could be mistaken as understanding their many....many...many positions on the many...many issues they rant against is a major cat herding exercise and I may have missed a cat or two. Ron, I hope this helps bring some clarity to the engineered opaqueness of ETC's means and methods. Thanks again for your patience, Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:24 PM, <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Michael etal - especially Jim Mason > > 1. Re the 5 minute video on Ms Bronson - I was glad to see that and > hope you will keep alerting us to such. The surprise to me was her > statement just before the 4 minute mark that carbon dioxide was better in > the atmosphere than in geologic formations, the land, or the sea. Does > anyone know if there is anything on the ETC website (or anywhere) to support > this conclusion - which I have not seen before - and is likely not supported > by any (?) on this list, and unlikely by anyone serious about getting back > to 350 ppm. > > 2. She left out getting more CO2 into plant matter; is that > acceptable or not to ETC? (many groups like ETC reject REDD+). I think > I have gotten into the ETC website once or twice, but have been foiled at > least ten times before and couldn't get in tonight. Is there a secret way > or time to get there? > > Ron > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Michael Hayes" <voglerl...@gmail.com> > *To: *agask...@nc.rr.com > *Cc: *kcalde...@gmail.com, "jim thomas" <j...@etcgroup.org>, "Andrew > Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>, "geoengineering" < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "David Keith" <ke...@ucalgary.ca>, > "Jason J Blackstock" <j...@iiasa.ac.at> > *Sent: *Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:47:43 AM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Ngo reaction to ipcc geo meet > > The interview with D. Bronson was interesting in that she is calling for > some sort of body to assess GE technologies.......before they are > supported.....Will someone please break out the crayons and construction > paper and explain to me, in really simple terms, how an assessment can be > done before the technology has a chance to be....well, for a lack of a > better word....... assessed? > > Here is 5 min you wished you had back. > http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2011/06/diana-bronson-etc-group-on-the-importance-of-technology-assessment/ > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Alvia Gaskill <agask...@nc.rr.com>wrote: > >> ** >> According to the ETC website, one of Jim's skills is "storytelling." Any >> more questions? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> >> *To:* jim thomas <j...@etcgroup.org> >> *Cc:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> ; >> geoengineering<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; David >> Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> ; Jason J Blackstock <j...@iiasa.ac.at> >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:16 >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Ngo reaction to ipcc geo meet >> >> Let me get this right. >> >> <snipped rest as not pertinent to the short video> > -- *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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
