Charles It's a bad week to go around accusing those with security concerns of paranoia.
My comments were not about the Keystone protesters, and I didn't even use them as an example. I know little about the campaign. I did use the following examples : GM protesters, who *have* destroyed experiments. Animal rights protesters, who *have* targeted/threatened the homes and families of researchers. Further, I'm always pretty clear on this list as to when I'm writing as a moderator and when I'm not. I trust that addresses your comments. Feel free to contact me off list if you'd like to discuss this in more detail. A On 11 Jan 2015 18:20, "Charles H. Greene" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Andrew: > > You are supposed to be a moderator of this site. Those views are not > ones of moderation. The demonstrators against KXL have been an excellent > example of carefully conceived, non-violent protest. You make 350.org sound > like the Weathermen! If you truly want to be a moderator of this site, then > please keep your opinions moderate and avoid paranoid diatribes. > > Chuck > > On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > 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. > > > -- 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.
