The attack fromenvironmental NGOs and students at Cambridge University on the
concept of climaterepair illustrates the dangerously irrational currents of
opinion that areprevalent in the popular movement for action on climate change.
The students allege that climate repair is anOrwellian front for fossil fuel
industries, even though Sir David King, a mainadvocate of climate repair, has
publicly distanced himself from fossil fuelsand solar geoengineering and has
called for Cambridge to divest from fossilfuels, as noted in the post below.
Ihave no personal contact with Cambridge University, but am interested in
thisdebate from the perspective of seeking informed discussion on climate
change.
The scientificincoherence in the opposition to climate repair is seen in the
false logic ofmoral hazard, the fallacy that removing carbon from the air
undermines effortsto cool the planet. This moral hazardreasoning is nothing
but an incorrect conspiracy theory, as stupid anddangerous as opposition to
vaccination or chemtrails, and should be seen as socially and intellectually
reprehensible. That moral hazard thinking has a niche in the intellectual
environmentof Cambridge University shows the poor state of public information,
illustratingthe failure to inform these ignorant students of basic facts about
climatechange.
It isobviously essential to analyse the risks of climate intervention, but
advocacygroups like biofuelwatch who are behind these campaigns ignore the much
largerrisks inherent in failing to research technologies that are needed to
regulatethe planetary climate. The real moral hazard arises from failure to
addressclimate repair. The error at work hereis the false belief that cutting
emissions by decarbonizing the world economy couldpossibly be a sufficient
response to climate change. In fact, as the climate repair concept
indicates,slowing global warming requires carbon removal on large scale,
alongsideefforts to cut emissions.
A key pointto understand is that the main driver of warming is past emissions,
not presentand future emissions. The goal should beto convert past emissions
into safe and useful commodities. That requirescarbon mining at multi-gigatonne
scale, based on intensive scientific research anddevelopment programs to assess
technology options, aiming for net negativeglobal emissions as the basis of
climate repair and restoration. The Oxford University site
trillionthtonne.orgsays humans have added 635 gigatonnes of carbon to the air,
growing by 20,000tonnes per minute, about ten gigatons a year. (Climate Action
Tracker estimates the annual addition as 14GT, a significant discrepancy
against the Oxford calculation).
Moralhazard reasoning tells us to ignore that committed warming from past
emissionsis the main cause of climate change. The line is that we should do
nothingabout past emissions because removing carbon to repair and restore the
climate isa rival political strategy to the sole focus on decarbonization. But
that justignores how slowing down the speed at which the world burns new carbon
into theair may be far more hard and costly than removing the carbon already
added.
The lack ofpublic debate and media coverage on the science and politics of
climate repairis a problem that the new Cambridge Zero programs should address.
Net zero emissions, let alone the need forlarge scale net negative emissions,
can only be achieved through investment incarbon removal technology as a
primary strategy. The myth that ‘all we have todo is cut emissions’ has to be
challenged for the sake of good climate policy. Ignorantblocking of the
essential work of climate repair undermines climate securityand is profoundly
counter-productive, destroying prospects of movement toward asafe and stable
planetary climate.
It is alsoworth noting that the Guardian article linked below was edited
afterpublication to include response from Dr Shuckburgh, stating that her work
“inno way implies a ‘connection with the fossil fuel industry.’” It is
disturbing that the public informationreleased by Biofuelwatch and Econexus
appears to have contained numerouserrors.
RobertTulip
On Sunday, 24 November 2019, 07:48:12 pm AEDT, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected]> wrote:
Poster's note: this PR / ad hom was picked up by the Graun, likely among
others
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/23/students-accuse-cambridge-university-of-greenwashing-ties-with-oil-firms?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboardI
think it's relevant to share as it's such a prominent and personal attack and
the CNZ initiative is likely to be quite influential.
https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2019/cambridge-accused-of-greenwashing-after-appointing-fossil-fuel-researcher-head-of-zero-carbon-initiative/
CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER
HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’Posted on November 19, 2019 by HennaPRESS
CONTACTS:(1) AHSAN MEMON [email protected] +447471767350
(2) BETH BHARGAVA [email protected] 07702654900
Cambridge University has been accused of ‘greenwashing’ after launching a
‘carbon neutral’ initiative with significant ties to the fossil fuel
industry.Emily Shuckburgh, the director of the initiative, has worked with
Schlumberger on oil and gas projects; has accepted grants, funds and
partnerships from BP among others.Cambridge Zero is also seeking to foster
controversial geoengineering under the guise of their proposed Climate Repair
project in partnership with BP.This follows continued opposition by VC Toope
and Shuckburgh to divest the University’s endowments from the fossil fuel
industry.– Emily Shuckburgh –On November 26th, the University of Cambridge
plans to launch a new climate change initiative called ‘Cambridge Zero’. The
University has been criticised strongly for appointing mathematician Emily
Shuckburgh who has close research and material ties to Schlumberger and BP, as
a Director for its ‘carbon neutral’ initiative.
1. In 2013, Shuckburgh accepted a grant for an oil and gas project and started
to work with Schlumberger Cambridge Research.
2. Shuckbugh used data from Schlumberger streamers conducting seismic surveys
to assess offshore oil and gas reserves.
3. The results were of immediate use to Schlumberger vessels towing hydrophones
that have a damaging impact on marine life.
4. The project co-partner Timothy Grant, published the findings in multiple
publications, including in 2015 and 2017 and stated that the work carried out
with Shuckburgh has improved reservoir monitoring. Grant has also been credited
for the development of percussion drilling technologies at the University of
Cambridge in the book titled ‘ Drilling in Extreme Environments ’.
5. The publication co-authored by Shuckburgh in 2014 on accurately monitoring
reservoirs has been removed and taken down from open sources.
6. Further work is being carried out to identify other possible applications of
the findings within the oil and gas sector .
7. As early as 2011, Shuckburgh recruited postdoc(s) to work on Schlumberger
Cambridge Research project to develop a method for estimating currents from
Schlumberger vessels to be useful for Schlumberger in improving positioning.
8. And as recently as 2019, Shuckburgh became the principal investigator and
co-director of CDT AI4ER (Centre for Doctoral Training in Application of
Artificial Intelligence to the study of Environmental Risks), which received
£6.7m of funding in partnership with BP and Schlumberger (amongst other
companies).
9. Shuckburgh is the grant holder of CDT AI4ER, along with Simon Redfern from
the BP Institute, on whose recommendations Cambridge University rejected full
divestment.
10. Shuckburgh has also regularly given talks at events organised by the BP
Institute, sharing a stage with BP executives and voicing her opposition to
divestment.
StatementsA spokesperson for Cambridge Zero Carbon, a group of students and
staff that has led the campaign for the university to divest from fossil fuels
criticised the initiative and stated:
“Taking our society’s name (Cambridge Zero Carbon), which has stood for climate
and reparative justice, for the University’s fossil fuel partnered PR stunt
spin initiative (Cambridge Zero) in order to give social legitimacy to climate
criminals is exceptionally unhinged and morally bankrupt. These greenwashing
tactics won’t deceive anyone but cast further doubt over University’s
seriousness to address climate change”.
“We demand Cambridge University to come clean and shut down Cambridge Zero. We
also urge the University to abandon any future greenwashing initiatives that it
might be planning to launch next time it is caught taking donations from fossil
fuel industries to help them locate oil reservoirs”.
– Geoengineering –The initiative has been set up and claims to be creating a
zero-carbon future but has come under criticism from students and staff at the
university and from wider advocacy groups for its public partnership with BP
institute and desire to utilize geoengineering.
1. Under the name of ‘Climate Repair ’, Cambridge Zero will partner with the BP
institute , a University institute endowed and partially funded by BP, to
advance research on controversial geoengineering technologies.
2. Fossil fuel companies use the concept of climate repair to justify their
ongoing extractive practises and delay legislation to cut carbon emissions. In
2011 the Bipartisan Policy Centre (BPC), which is funded by oil majors
including Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute,
published a report advocating for research into geoengineering or “Climate
Repair” technologies.
3. Geoengineering technologies are proposed large-scale interventions in the
Earth’s System to
either ‘offset’ global warming by manipulating the solar radiation reaching the
atmosphere, or by sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The
technologies have not been proven at scale, and each of the technologies
carries severe risks, including risks of exacerbating the climate crisis.
4. Earlier this year, the US and Saudi Arabia tried to block UN regulations on
geoengineering to benefit their fossil fuel industries, in an attempt to
reverse a 2010 de facto moratorium on geoengineering under the UN Convention on
Biodiversity (CBD). The de-facto moratorium was agreed by world governments
after environmental and indegenous rights campaigners highlighted for years the
unpredictable impacts that geo-engineering would have to global populations,
ecosystems and governance.
StatementsEcoNexus and Biofuelwatch are advocacy groups that highlight the
significant risks of geoengineering. In a joint letter they respond to the
launch of the ‘Cambridge Zero’ initiative: “We are alarmed to see Cambridge has
succumbed to fossil fuel interests to research on geoengineering under the
Orwellian spin of ‘Climate Repair’. Geoengineering is a fantasy technology that
at best legitimises the ongoing ecocide and genocide perpetuated by fossil fuel
companies, and if implemented would have devastating and unpredictable impacts
on ecosystems and human communities around the world. If Cambridge wants to
continue being a scientifically-respected institution, it must cut all links
with the fossil fuel industry and stop promoting false solutions like
geoengineering.”
A spokesperson for Cambridge Zero Carbon criticised the focus on geoengineering
and added:
“This initiative is partnered with the BP Institute and aims to create a
carbon-zero future for the university by utilising the unproven science of
carbon capture, which has long been bankrolled and advocated by fossil fuel
companies as a means to postpone action on climate crisis and continue their
extractive practices. This technology pretends that business can continue
exactly as normal, encouraging us to rely on a ‘miracle cure’ for ecocide.”
– Divestment Opposition –In recent years, the University of Cambridge has come
under scrutiny for revelations revealing its entanglement with the fossil fuel
companies and executives. Despite this, it has been actively engaged in
negotiating donations from fossil fuel industries for extractive research while
appointing members who have a conflict of interests with the oil giants to
assess divestment and lead climate change initiatives.
1. In October 2019, after campaigning for four years, Cambridge Zero Carbon
Society released a new investigative report which explains the complex
entanglement of the university with oil giants.
2. The report reveals that research carried out by Andy Woods, the head of the
BP Institute at the University of Cambridge, has facilitated increased oil
extractions and resulted in profits for the fossil fuel industry of up to $3bn
annually.
3. The University of Cambridge most recently, after obtaining a leaked copy of
the recent report written by Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, took down the CASP
(Cambridge Arctic Shelf Programme) website.
4. CASP was formerly affiliated with the Earth Sciences Department at Cambridge
University and (as the report reveals) has been entirely funded by oil and gas
companies to explore further extraction sites.
5. The communications office responded by claiming that the site had “appeared”
and stayed for more than 18 years on Cambridge University’s “internet
ecosphere”. They further claimed that website deletion was not connected to the
report but rather part of “cleaning” University’s “internet ecosphere”. However
they were unable to provide any other examples of this cleaning.
6. In November 2019, The Guardian further revealed that the university had
accepted a £6m donation from Shell for oil extraction research which was
approved in March of this year.
StatementsA spokesperson for Cambridge Zero Carbon criticised the University’s
opposition to divestment and said:
“As much as it is unsurprising at this point that the University, despite being
an educational institute, would actively prioritise the benefits of fossil fuel
corporations over its members, these revelations just go to show the extent to
which our University management is compromised by the fossil fuel executives.
Furthermore, University’s communications office publishing inaccurate and
unsubstantiated claims to hide the complicity of oil giants and their influence
over academic research is shamefully disgraceful and should not go unchecked.
It is high time that the richest higher education institute of Europe starts
acting socially responsible and commit to full divestment. And should cut all
ties with planet-polluting, resources-devouring fossil fuel companies and their
executives.”
– END –Notes to EditorsCambridge Zero Carbon Society website, including details
on the campaign’s history in Cambridge, reports and open letters can be found
at http://zerocarbonsoc.soc.srcf.net/.
The University of Cambridge has faced severe pressure to divest from fossil
fuels over the last four years from both its own democratic channels and direct
actions by its students, as well as from a wider public.
In 2017, the Paradise Papers revealed the extent of Cambridge University’s
multi-million pound investments in the fossil fuel industry In 2018, BP CEO Bob
Dudley warned Cambridge University against divestment and said: “We donate and
do lots of research at Cambridge so I hope they [Cambridge University] comes to
their senses on this [divestment]”.Following this, Cambridge University Council
voted against divestment from fossil fuels, following a report produced by a
Divestment Working Group (DWG) which advised against it.In 2019, The Guardian
revealed the corruption of the DWG : most notably, a member of the DWG (Simon
Redfern) had simultaneously negotiated a donation to the university worth £22m
from BP and BHP Billiton.A chain of high-profile individuals have expressed
support for divestment at Cambridge. These include prominent politicians (e.g.
John McDonnell, Caroline Lucas and Diane Abbott), national figures such as
Rowan Williams, and renowned academics (e.g. Robert Macfarlane, Sir David King
and Sir Thomas Blundell) .This support culminated in an open letter to the
University, calling upon it to divest ahead of last year’s Council decision,
which accrued over 350 signatures from Cambridge academics.A second open letter
with over 200 academic signatures carried this momentum forward, criticising
the findings of the University’s divestment working group report, on which the
decision was to be based.Student outrage has been expressed in several recent
protests. Summer 2018 saw three students launch a six day hunger strike in
support of divestment, which was quickly followed by a week-long student
occupation of the University’s financial and administrative centre Greenwich
House. In November 2018, 300 students marched through Cambridge in support of
University Divestment, Decolonisation and Demilitarisation.After the Council’s
decision against divestment last summer, anger within Cambridge has mounted,
compounded by more recent revelations in November regarding the disturbing
extent of college investments in the fossil fuel sector .In December, the
University Council faced landmark internal dissent, not seen in over 20 years,
as 5/25 councillors refused to back its annual report due to their anger over a
lack of investment transparency. Over 200 Cambridge academics, with support
from Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and Rowan Williams, wrote an open letter calling
for significant reform to the investment office along the line of
‘transparency, accountability and divestment’ (full info here).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05MXqGFrBMAFz0zNsJWAsPXA%3D6p2tEye_6v3DyzgZhtgg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/30064676.3477447.1574732463126%40mail.yahoo.com.
[geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch
'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:43:39 -0800
- [geo] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING... Andrew Lockley
- [geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED O... 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
- [geo] RE: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUS... 'Chris Vivian' via geoengineering
- [geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE A... 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
