List, Peter, Greg and other ccs
I suggest we go a little slow on heavily critiquing Naomi Kline (NK).
I suspect NK may apt to do more than you might think to push geoengineering as
a needed option.
1. First reason for this view: Her comments on geo in the Amy Goodman (AG)
aren't all that negative. In the 1.5 hour transcript of the 18th, found at
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/9/18/naomi_klein_on_motherhood_geoengineering_climate,
the word "geo" is only mentioned 10 times (half the 5 by Naomi)
About half way, we read this exchange (emphases added):
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, you have the Heartland Institute describing geoengineering
as, quote, "much less expensive than seeking to stem temperature rise solely
through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions"; Cato Institute arguing
"geo-engineering is more cost-effective than emissions controls altogether";
Hudson Institute saying that geoengineering, quote, "could obviate the majority
of the need for carbon cuts and enable us to avoid lifestyle changes." The very
point you're making.
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, so, I mean, some of the scientists who are at the heart of
this research--you know, people like David Keith or Ken Caldeira--they would
say, "We absolutely do not see this as an alternative to emission reduction. We
see this as potentially a stopgap measure." And you can understand why many
climate scientists, who have been sounding the alarm now for decades, saying,
you know, "We are in huge trouble. We need to cut emissions," seeing no
action--in fact, seeing us going in the wrong direction--would be desperate
enough to start trying to propose these technofixes.
She didn't pick up AG's bait on three groups I doubt many on this list
want to be associated with. My takeaway is that slamming NK could be viewed
as list support for Heartland, Cato, and Hudson - whereas she seems here to be
supporting two list contributors.
2. Second reason is that Joe Romm on the 16th came out favorably in the first
of two book reviews - the first at:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/16/3567322/this-changes-everything-naomi-klein-capitalism-climate/
Two sample quotes:
Klein isn't calling for an end to capitalism, just an end to the rapacious,
self-destructive version it has evolved into.
What matters most is Klein's core argument that unchecked capitalism will lead
to catastrophe. This is an argument I also make (albeit in a different way).
Romm, who I trust, says the book has three main themes; none are
directly on geo. I can't recall Romm's views on geoengineering, but he has
been supportive of biochar. I view NK as giving the same message on the
current faults of modern capitalism as Herman Daly - my favorite economist.
3. Third is that I have now read parts of the ($12.99) e-book version Apple
version (at https://itun.es/us/JX5bZ.l). I feel a bit more comfortable about
the book as it relates to CDR (which term doesn't appear), because biochar
wasn't slammed, with only this single paragraph (emphasis added) containing the
word "biochar"
"This new incarnation of the Earth Challenge was unveiled (to significantly
less fanfare than the first time around) in November 2011, at an energy
conference in Calgary, Alberta. Appearing by video link, Branson announced the
eleven most promising entries. Four were machines that directly sucked carbon
out of the air (though none at anywhere near the scale needed); three were
companies using the biochar process, which turns carbon-sequestering plant
matter or manure into charcoal and then buries it in the soil and is
controversial on a mass scale; and among the miscellaneous ideas was a
surprisingly low-tech one involving revamping livestock grazing to boost the
carbon-sequestering potential of soil.45"
I now thank NK for new information on the Earth Challenge, as I came
away with much less respect for (capitalist) Branson and his purported prize
She pulled no punches in describing how this prize has morphed into something
quite different - harmful to the environment. She reports on several
relatively private meetings - at least one with a geo-only focus (I have only
skimmed so far - I suspect there may be more).
To sum up - I agree with Romm's favorable assessment. I'll report
back if I find something in the book that this list is likely to be really
upset about - so far none.
One should read this book as being from a reporter - one who has a
clear writing style. She writes knowledgeably about urgency and the failure of
global (mostly capitalist) government efforts to deal with it, I believe her
views comport with the climate urgency most of us on this list feel. I'll bet
we hear a good bit more about NK in the next two days - her themes seem to fit
what I understand the Sunday March and Monday sit-in to be about.
The index is full of this list's member-names. I'm willing to copy her
material on anyone reading this and (privately) forward that - in case anyone
else has had curiosity like mine about how she might have captured their
favorite topic. (If you have never bought an e-book - be prepared for a
horror.)
Ron
To Peter: The term "Canad" appears 236 times ("Caldeira" only 6 and
"capitalism" 76 times; no "Flynn"). This, so far, seems to be mostly on
governmental laxity.
On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Peter Flynn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Naomi Klein's long term focus has been an attack on capitalism, and this
> latest inclusion of GE and climate change in her repertoire sits, as I see
> it, over her underlying theme. I personally have found her, in the little
> contact I have had with her work, to be both shallow and tendentious. This
> leads me to focus on more productive uses of my time than plowing through her
> work to find the point at which capitalism will be the real enemy.
>
> I find an irony here in that epidemiologists looking for the progress of
> emission caused illnesses went into eastern Europe after the fall of the iron
> curtain, because failure to shut down or control polluting industries created
> large numbers of cases of illnesses not experienced in the west, which had
> avoided them by more effective regulation.
>
> My brief encounter with this thread about NK has reinforced my prior view.
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> [email protected]
> cell: 928 451 4455
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
> Sent: September-20-14 11:44 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [geo] More Naomi Klein
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/16/whether-we-engage-or-do-nothing-changes-everything
>
> NK - "A great many of us engage in this kind of climate change denial. We
> look for a split second and then we look away. Or we look but then turn it
> into a joke ("more signs of the Apocalypse!"). Which is another way of
> looking away.
> Or we look but tell ourselves comforting stories about how humans are clever
> and will come up with a technological miracle that will safely suck the
> carbon out of the skies or magically turn down the heat of the sun. Which, I
> was to discover while researching this book*, is yet another way of looking
> away."
> * http://thischangeseverything.org/book/
>
> GR - GE = looking away = climate denial? What fantasy world is she talking
> about, and for what purpose, entertainment or propaganda?
>
> In an earlier interview:
> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/
>
> Salon -
> "You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of disaster
> capitalism. Isn't geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?"
>
> NK - "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."
>
> [There is a] willingness to sacrifice large numbers of people in the way we
> respond to climate change - we are already showing a brutality in the face of
> climate change that I find really chilling. I don't think we have the
> language to even describe [geoengineering], because we are with full
> knowledge deciding to allow cultures to die, to allow peoples to disappear.
> We have the ability to stop and we're choosing not to. So I think the
> profound immorality and violence of that decision is not reflected in the
> language that we have. You see that we have these climate conventions where
> the African delegates are using words like "genocide," and the European and
> North American delegates get very upset and defensive about this. The truth
> is that the UN definition of genocide is that it is the deliberate act to
> disappear and displace people. What the delegates representing the North are
> saying is that we are not doing this because we want you to disappear; we are
> doing this because we don't care essentially. We don't care if you disappear
> if we continue business-as-usual. That's a side effect of collateral damage.
> Well, to the people that are actually facing the disappearance it doesn't
> make a difference whether there is malice to it because it still could be
> prevented. And we're choosing not to prevent it. I feel one of the crises
> that we're facing is a crisis of language. We are not speaking about this
> with the language of urgency or mortality that the issue deserves."
>
> GR So if failure of emissions reduction is genocide and GE has a chance of
> mitigating that genocide why is considering and evaluating GE a bad thing?
> It is precisely because we are failing to do the hard work of emissions
> reduction and genocide avoidance that makes considering alternative actions
> essential. Contrary to her statement otherwise, geoengineering clearly does
> threaten her worldview: that humans can and will reduce their CO2 emissions
> in time and any suggestion of alternative actions are a threat to emissions
> reduction and humanity (or Klein's book sales). Given that despite
> considerable technical and political effort our CO2 emissions continue to
> grow (rather than decline), a world view that only relies on emissions
> reduction to avoid genocide would seem an increasingly flawed and dangerous
> one.
>
> Meantime, from her website: "Please note her Fall tour itinerary is full and
> she is currently unable to add any other tour dates or events." Go figure.
>
> Greg Rau
> ps See you at the Lake Merritt (surrogate for NYC) Climate Rally tomorrow?
> Something tells me that GE won't be on the agenda there either.
>
>
> --
> 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 [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.
>
> --
> 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 [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.
--
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.
