Thanks, Veli, for the sweeping historical explanation of our ills. At times like this I turn to Erasmus's contemporary, Machiavelli, to sum things up: "It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." Machiavelli, The Prince (1513)
to which some corollaries can be added: “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” - Albert Einstein “A technological society has two choices. First it can wait until catastrophic failures expose systemic deficiencies, distortion and self-deceptions... Secondly, a culture can provide social checks and balances to correct for systemic distortion prior to catastrophic failures.” - Mahatma Gandhi In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell Greg -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6/2/15, Veli Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: RE: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering To: "Professor Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]>, "David Hawkins" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]>, "Mursalin Binte Monnaf" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015, 7:16 PM #yiv7087512149 #yiv7087512149 -- .yiv7087512149hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv7087512149 body.yiv7087512149hmmessage { font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;} #yiv7087512149 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-erase-obamas-progress-on-climate-change (The above link appeared fractured and as now above will connect to the site as intended) Motherboard: May 29, 2015 // 03:55 EST. "Some 10.2 billion tons of coal, sitting on 106,00 acres of public land, have been authorized for sale by the Obama administration today. The Department of the Interior has released its Regional Management Plan for the Wyoming Powder River Basin, and in terms of the climate, it's ugly news. The region is home to the nation's largest coal field, and these 28 new coal leases mean a trully massive stock of pure carbon is about to be mined, for cheap." To Mike MacCracken's comment: "The [Obama] Administration could have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no, leases would be at very low prices. So, first, the criticism that those of us favour geoengineering first are just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating consequences of warming lying ahead. Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the clamour over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development ring very hollow." The President Obama's decision to go ahead with the massive further expansion of coal indusrty with this latest project is based on pure political expediency keeping in mind the next Presidential elections the Democrats want to win. As the United States administration is continuously exchanging hands between the Democrat and the Republican administrations in perpetually repetitive rounds, much of the environmental progress President Obama has put down using his Executive Orders will be struck down by the subsequent Republican administrations and Obama has been made aware of this through the Republican Tea Party. The right wing Tea Party wants to refocus NASA's operations from all earth monitoring activities to the hocus pocus of deep space exploration - and the wonderful wonders the sending of satellite cameras can bring about our planetary neighbourhood in our solar system. NASA's re-focus from the low orbit operations solely to deep space manned and unmanned exploration - such as manned missions to moon, Mars and asteroids - will replace the myriad of earth monitoring programmes - with plenty of colourful pictures offered on the menu from the cameras that will be sailing and criss-crossing our solar system to-and-fro. None of this is relevant to our understanding of greenhouse gases and their role of re-shaping the world - our own planet where we walk on and must live. These same circles also want turn NOAA to become organisation which only responsibility is to manage the US marine parks with many of its ocean monitoring programmes - including and especially ARGOS - being terminated. The satellite operations will focus on only weather satellites with no continued interest on sea ice. EPA will be terminated altogether if the Tea Party has all its way. Tea Partyists are emboldened in their approach due to their belief that the global warming and climate change are scams with a hidden agenda to advance evolution theory in the US society in order to kill the God. Their mistaken world of utopia includes notions such as the virgin birth of Jesus and Mary, resurrection of the deceased by God (sometime in near future), world having been populated through the intercourse between the first couple Adam and Eve, and papa Noah sailing with the animals in his ark when God decided to destroy the world - and most damagingly - that the world will see the Millennium of prosperity based on the principles of the US-style democracy and the values of free-market economy. This land of for ever growing prosperity will see the infinite economic growth based on fossil-fuelled consumption of goods and services facilitated by money supply (low central bank interest rates). All the above is typical example of a system that has locked itself up against change or reform. We do have an excellent historical antecedents. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Conciliatory Movement tried to reform Europe from all its myriad of ills after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Church Council after Council convened the priests and princes alike to discuss how to resolve the ills of their contemporary society. But the vested interests in the opposing ends of the argument would never yield their individual privileges for the long-term common good, leading to stagnation and scholastic freeze as no one would take anything seriously. Come to time of Erasmus of Rotherdam and his leading academic colleagues trying to defend such scientific giants like Nicolas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, all their advise was blatantly disregarded by the elites in the leading end of the political decision making. The more the academics trumpeted the facts, the more resolutely the scholastics shut their ears to the reason. Today's Councils are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)'s roadshow: UN Conference of Parties (COP). COP after COP passes from the Kyoto Protocol (COP3), to the Bali Road Map (COP13), to agreed the Hopen Hagen (COP15) when all the scheduled work was abruptly dropped for the President Obama's voluntary "Copenhagen Accords". All the effort by Erasmus of Rotterdam and his colleagues to change the course of Europe was total nil. For the scholasticism and stagnation to be defeated it required an outsider, Martin Luther, to emerge and nail his 95 Theses to the Wittemberg's Church Door in 1517 for the old societal order to come tumbling down and the new one to be created from the ashes of the old paradigm. The academia was entirely impotent to carry out this change and it required a person like him to change it. The same appears often to be case wether it is slavery or segregation of the blacks from the whites in the 1950s. The USA did not change better because the politicians did anything about it to change the society to be more inclusive and fair, neither did most of the churches which just encouraged their members to sit happily in their church pews, neither did the lawyers, academia and corporations and the business elites. It was the civil disobedience of the blacks themselves, the outsiders, to change it. Thus there is no hope that the academia on its own, by its theories, opinions and debates will turn the mindset of people - especially those who see climate change as introduction of evolution through back door to 'kill the God'. In the mean time, the happy clappy paa, paa, paa is repeated throughout conservative fundamentalist - evangelical churches across the USA - that there is a good millennium and the best times ahead, and the environmentalists are just a bunch of anti-biblical alarmists trying to venerate their false prophet and antichrist Darwin. In these circumstances - for the lack of action on real crisis - there will be a constant parade of new international crises portraying the Palestinians as abandoned people and Arabs to be defeated as Satan's heresy due to their false prophet Muhammad. The same way North Korea, Russia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, etc will remain the eternal threats to the world's security - and solution to solve the world's crisis is to have a war after war to defeat these real and perceived enemies of the USA, the UK and the West. The current focus of the Tea Party is to stop Pope Frances to issue a new Papal Encyclical on Climate Change later this month. Many US businesses have made threats to withdraw their support against this sensible move largely based on good scientific advice. My view is that the change is not possible from within these systems like it was not for Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Emperor of Holy Roman Empire, or Pope Leo X. It requires an outsider who is from none of these parties, elites and socio-political classes. This has been my approach to help UN General Assembly motion 101292 which tries to suggest another approach, that of non-European, non-American idea put forward by some nations that the Ice Ages ended very rapidly by the ice sheets responding and collapsing due to sustained climatic warming of the Polar Regions at the end of the Ice Ages. 101292 approach suggest that the cogitative ability, or evolution of man, has not substantially changed our ability to recall the past - to remember our past fears, successes, disappointments, nostalgias, frustrations and hopes much like we do that today. Based on these nations different case history how the Ice Ages ended, they conclude that the response from any sustained climatic warming will be both rapid and severe as before. We may succeed or may not succeed with this UN General Assembly motion - but try to put out various experiments which the various nations recollections claim to be the true case history of the ice ages (geothermal forcing from subsea lava flooding leading to massive winter-time lake snow effect [Maurice Ewing - William Donn precipitation event of warm high latitude oceans] which runaway tight feedback loop was ended by the sea level drop destabilising methane clathrates then driving the snow back to oceans and ultimately stabilising the system instability by the onset of Holocene. I cannot give more sussinct desription of our own political efforts to try to alter the disasterous and locked in course where our world has been put by the leading elites. In this kind of work we have been attacked by many kinds of oil and other interests, and also the scientific community that jealously tries to defend its own corner. Our immediate hope is best set to wish that the Pope Frances' Papal encyclical is changing the course within establishments, and perhaps after that the countries like Indonesia, India, China and Brazil will increasingly understand that a crash is inevitable if we all want to fly holidays abroad, drive cars indefinite miles, have cruises over the oceans etc. Today 10% of Chinese own their own car and soon India and Indonesia follow. Already bicycles have gone into bin and been replaced by motorcycles. No one will agree to curtail the increasing use of these while the West have given them the economic initiative and model of mimicry. Any politician will lose his post straightaway. Because of these constraints and the growing populations, geoengineering is the next best try! Many thanks Mike rising the points, and hope the above observations would help you to clarify the reasons why the things are as they are... > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:53:36 -0400 > Subject: Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected] > > So far I've been unable to download the files at the BLM site and look at > their very lengthy materials, but it was possible to do a search on the > draft, and (no guarantees I did it right) I did not find a single mention of > "climate" or "carbon dioxide". That, I think, gives a hint at how much they > care about the President's Plan and the global situation. > > Mike > > > On 6/2/15, 8:44 PM, "David Hawkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it > > stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009, > > ignoring what happened in the six years since then. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > See attachment > > > > > > On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mike cc List > > > > I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a travesty > > is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA¹s Clean > > Power Plan activities. I have found some very lengthy documents just released > > late last week on this - but can¹t find anything resembling the reference you > > make to ³page 4-130². Can you give a more specific citation? > > > > The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at: > > https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-F > > EIS.pdf > > > > Ron > > > > > > On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the > > only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as > > described in: > > > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras > > e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change > > > > that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits > > trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could > > have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the > > consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they > > have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis > > starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have > > imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use > > the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no, > > leases would be at very low prices. > > > > So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are > > just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this > > keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether > > geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and > > deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating > > consequences of warming lying ahead. > > > > Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world > > is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a > > difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the > > clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development > > ring very hollow. > > > > Mike MacCracken > > > > -- > > 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]<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscribe@ > > googlegroups.com>. > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > <Powder River Basin-08chap4-1.pdf> > > > -- > 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.
