The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with geoengineering. The only question is whether we attempt to limit the damage and clean up the mess.
A On 12 May 2017 00:52, "Jonathan Marshall" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and > psychological change. > > If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any > solutions put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth > distribution, going - probably one reason why you can get support for > Geoengineering from people who loudly declaim that climate change is not > real. > > Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus > it will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, > catastrophic collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming > people for that warfare. > > This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the > catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier.... > > jon > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > on behalf of Adam Dorr <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM > *To:* Greg Rau > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf > > I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when > other plausible fixes are available. > > In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the > problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, > organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially > sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and > distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering. > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their >> closing statement: >> >> "Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization, >> and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the >> global community should first and foremost debate these >> aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a >> climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing” >> could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is >> too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be >> confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing >> tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective. >> Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD >> decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical >> questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate >> about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is >> ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding >> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled >> up to support implementation of proven and locally >> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the >> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes." >> >> While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to >> use them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well >> as the risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. >> Or shall we continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, >> while BECCS, DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t >> list might be risky (e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, >> etc, -let's find out for sure), how could these be "weaponized"and >> "unfair"? Interestingly I see that a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t >> list, despite serious concerns from ecologists (though weaponization is >> still not mentioned): >> https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/ >> does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/ >> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest- >> are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/ >> https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/ >> Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf >> >> Then there is this curious statement: "funding >> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled >> up to support implementation of proven and locally >> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the >> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes." >> >> Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be >> enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R&D funding >> specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted >> ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the >> planet is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in >> the time required, while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and >> clothe us?? For the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to >> also search for solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already >> overtaxed ecosystems? >> >> Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to >> why and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas >> without having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits. >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Stephen Salter <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf >> >> Hi all >> It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why putting >> sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the good >> old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the size >> distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help >> asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may >> be able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the >> climate conference budget. >> ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers. >> Stephen >> On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote: >> >> While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some >> consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a >> priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would >> be like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they >> might allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth. >> >> The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative >> side effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant >> benefits), and that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen* >> the depravity rather than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that >> valorizes self-deprivation and self-flaggelation is at work here, but that >> isn't my field. >> >> Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that >> this orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any >> scrutiny since countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of >> dentistry and all the other accouterments of modernity) immediately emerge. >> >> >> >> -- >> Adam Dorr >> PhD Candidate >> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs >> [email protected] >> [email protected] >> www.adamdorr.com >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >> Climate change, smoke and mirrors >> >> Latest missive from etc group. >> >> A >> -- >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com >> <[email protected]>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com >> <[email protected]>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering >> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout >> <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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> -- >> 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > ------------------------------ > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any > accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are > not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or > copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any > views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views > of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, > please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please > consider the environment before printing this email. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
