Lou, your point about the 'retail activist' problem relates to a recent thread about whether discussing geoengineering made focus groups more willing to believe in climate change. Portraying the situation as hopeless induces brain freeze, as in 'this is too depressing to think about'. But offering even a glimmer of optimism in the form of geoengineering can offer a foothold to start engaging with climate activism in some form - perhaps by a background interest in long-range prospects for CDR, with a foreground resolve to fight those wicked SRM types- whatever. It's often said that people have evolved to respond to immediate threats but not to a distant & vague threat like climate change, but sometimes it's the other way around. A grand apocalyptic scenario grips the imagination in a way that distracts from practical action in the here-and-now. Relieved from the prospect of utter doom, some people will of course go straight to 'hack the sky and forget the rest' but others will be freed to be curious and active. Knowing that in the last resort there is something drastic to be done (even if you don't like the method) suggests that the small local action may not be pointless after all.
re: Romm's savage response to Klein He dissects her method well, in way that is similar to David Keith's extract from his upcoming book - a compliment that would displease Romm, I assume :-) I think he's committed some of Klein's sins himself now and again (for example on geoengineering, or in anything to do with Roger Pielke) but hats off to him this time. As he says, "Whatever you are trying to accomplish, your main obstacle is not other people trying to accomplish the same thing in different ways" On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:50:20 AM UTC-6, Lou Grinzo wrote: > > Klein never said that it was the researchers avoiding the hard work. And > in that, I agree with her completely. Politicians, heads of large > corporations and other concentrations of power are nearly all playing a > game of "kick the can down the street". Eventually we'll reach a point > where whoever is in power when things hit the fan will have to reach for > whatever solution is available, and geoengineering will be at the top of > the list. This is why I think it's absolutely critical that we do as much > research into geo. technologies as possible before there's a political > incentive for people in government to "do something about it". I want > those decisions to be as well informed as possible. > > I also see a problem at the "retail activist" level, with all the members > of one green group or another who are adamant that we simply can't tell > newcomers how serious climate change is out of fear we'll scare them away > from activism. I've heard this dozens of times both locally as well as > around the US from people who should be doing vigorous outreach to > mainstream consumers and voters. The truly frightening part is that the > people saying this almost never understand how urgent the situation is; > many of them still cling to the notion that we can "fix" CC in just a few > years by recycling, changing our light bulbs, and driving a hybrid. I > honestly don't know how much blame the green groups should get for that, > i.e. for not educating their own members, and how much is simply human > psychology at work. > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: >> >> Naomi Klein is wrong. >> >> I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering >> who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions. >> >> For most, researching 'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at >> the fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing >> emissions. >> >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> 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, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full >>> interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green >>> movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I >>> don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering. >>> >>> >>> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/ >>> >>> You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of >>> disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism? >>> >>> I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid >>> doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of >>> it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change >>> becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to >>> geoengineering. The appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten >>> our worldview. It leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is >>> an escape hatch. So all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter >>> ourselves for our power, will just be scaled up. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
