That's exactly what was attempted against geoengineering with SPICE. It leads to bad science, bad policy, and flight of investment to "rogue States". (A parallel is the adult industry fleeing California to escape regulation.)
We can expect endless and tiresome assaults on geoengineering work in this regard. Look at animal experiments, and GM food for examples of what can happen from campaigners. I'd expect everything from smear campaigns, destruction of experiments, burning of labs, home pickets, public mob scuffles, idle-but-scary threats of rape and violence, financial boycotts and maybe even assassination of scientists and engineers. Fasten your seat belts. It may be a bumpy ride. Basic precautions are simple, and convenient. It's hard to find my home address. I always lock my doors. I park my car where few can find it, and I can't be tailed to its location. I never tweet or otherwise announce my location. I buy transport tickets in cash. I always use a dashboard camera. I always bolt the door of any room I sleep in. Not complicated, and it makes me far, far safer. A On 11 Jan 2015 13:21, "Daniel Kirk-Davidoff" <[email protected]> wrote: > The point of site battles is attrition- annoy the industry enough that > they'll acquiesce to rational carbon policy, rather than having to have > extended court and political battles every time they want to build > something. And site battles are easier to mobilize for. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 11, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > With my moderator hat on.... > > If people think this is an appropriate topic for the list, it would be > helpful to have some numbers to demonstrate why. > > The pipeline would have to make a significant difference to price globally > to significantly increase the quantity of FF demanded by the market. Will > it do this? I have seen no evidence here, or elsewhere. If not, this is > off-topic. > > Without my moderator hat on... > > My personal view is that carbon taxation or energy-efficiency regulations > are far more effective a tool to manage carbon output than what > environmentalists call "site battles" (squabbling over this-or-that piece > of infrastructure). Site battles lead to haphazard and irrational > decisions. > > As an aside: The pipeline could potentially be reused in the post-oil age > to redistribute hydrogen, biofuels, water, etc. > On 11 Jan 2015 11:19, "David Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The New Yorker just published a Ryan Lizza piece on Keystone, in which >> Lizza noted that: "the philosophical gulf between Obama and congressional >> Republicans is relatively narrow". ' >> >> See: "The Keystone XL Test: Can Obama make a deal? >> <http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/keystone-xl-test-can-obama-make-deal>" >> New Yorker, January 9 2015. Ryan Lizza is the New Yorker's Washington >> correspondent. He also contributes to CNN. >> >> Lizza pointed out that Obama's "veto statement >> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr3r_20150107.pdf> >> was silent on the merits of the project itself". That is, the veto threat >> is stated to exist because the executive branch asserts that H.R.3 (the >> Keystone Pipeline Act) "conflicts with longstanding Executive branch >> procedures regarding the authority of the President", and hence, if >> Congress sends such a bill to the President to sign into law, "his senior >> advisers would recommend that he veto" it. >> >> Lizza claims to have inside information regarding Obama's view of >> Keystone: "In private, *Obama has been dismissive of environmentalist >> claims* that building Keystone XL would significantly affect climate >> change", and adds that "his State Department, with some caveats, came to >> the same conclusion in an environmental-impact statement >> <http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm>". >> >> Hence, Lizza reasons, a deal may be possible. He advocates that Obama >> make one. He speculates: "What would the G.O.P. be willing to trade to >> get Keystone approved? A carbon tax?". >> >> My question: could the US environment movement give up its adamant >> opposition to Keystone if, in exchange, Republicans signed on to a federal >> carbon tax? >> >> >> On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Robock wrote: >>> >>> You all might also be interested in my blog on the subject in March >>> last year. It seems President Obama listened to me. >>> >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/president-obama- >>> say-no-to_b_4913672.html >>> >>> Alan Robock >>> >>> >>> -- >> 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. >> > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
