I heard a panel discussion on Canadian national radio (Klein is Canadian) about this NY protest. I was sympathetic to the view of one of the panelists, Anna-Lisa Aunio, who is a teacher at Concordia University. Audio of the discussion can be heard here <http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/09/19/the-peoples-climate-march/>.
Transcript of a remark by Anna-Lisa Aunio: "It seems as though 350.org has really put itself front and center actually, saying in particular that they're leading this, that people can sign on, and in terms of my desire to actually go to the protest I was a little bit turned off with the way it was couched which is "nothing has ever happened before, there has been no action, there has been no protest there has been no real work on this issue until this particular protest. I think this protest is going to be interesting, it may be a game changer in terms of being held on American soil, but its certainly not the first action that has been held and it certainly belies all of the efforts that have been made in people's communities over the past 5 years.". Naomi Klein is calling for an ideological debate. She is dismissing the efforts of all who came before her. Obama has done nothing. The big green NGOs have done nothing, or worse than nothing. She seems unaware of the ideological battles over whether revolution was a necessity or could civilization be reformed that took place during the early days of the first Green Party on the planet, i.e. in 1980s Germany. I wish these organizers well and I hope ten million people show up demanding change. But in my experience it matters what is in the minds of those who are organizing. They have a pro renewables line, not low carbon, i.e. they oppose nuclear power. Etc. I prefer a line that allows for ingenuity to deal with the problems allowing the use of whatever is discovered to be useful, i.e. new ways of using nuclear, breakthroughs in carbon capture, geoengineering, etc., and whatever. On Friday, September 19, 2014 11:10:18 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote: > > Geoengineering, David, etal > > I had occasion a few years ago to use the word “biochar” in a short dialog > with Amy Goodman (AG), and so feel a need to say a few more words about her > conversation with Naomi Klein (NK). > > Those some distance from the USA may not appreciate that the main point of > the 1.5 hour AG-NK dialog (maybe not yet aired?) was to promote a huge > environmental (climate-oriented mostly) “march” this Sunday in New York > City. They project it could reach 100,000 marchers - and maybe then a > world record for such a march. Seems to be well organized... ... I > personally applaud them both for taking our climate mess this seriously. > > ....I have not read the new NK book, but am pretty sure their will be good > new details on our present climate mess. These are not flakey people. I > have no idea how they feel about either SRM or CDR, but guess their views > are shared by some on this list. > > David is correct (below) in noting NK’s concerns about capitalism. The > (capitalist) US can do a lot better than we are doing in the Geo/CE arena - > and both AG and NK are doing more to make that clear than most in their > spheres of influence. > > Ron > > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 8:51 AM, David Lewis <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > At least Klein understands that types like Caldeira and Keith are clear > when they explain that geoengineering is not an alternative to emission > reduction. Her reasoning now seems a step ahead of where she was when she > argued that the ocean she looks at from the window of her Pacific Northwest > home is no longer the same because 100 tonnes of iron was dumped into it by > Russ George. > > Her argument that only a radically transformed capitalism can solve the > climate problem dribbles away as she asserts that what's needed is the > application of a few trillion dollars. Congress committed to spending on > this scale while establishing the beacon of democracy that is today's Iraq, > and it did so while reducing taxation. > > On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:22:21 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> Poster's note : irksome interview which falls into lazy intellectual >> traps (solar power vs geoengineering, monsoon disruption risk). Maybe a >> lesson for scientists, in that "idealised experiments" clearly have the >> potential to enter folklore as policy-relevant ideas, even among leading >> environmental thinkers. >> >> http://m.democracynow.org/web_exclusives/2256 >> >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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/d/optout.
