Hi Chris,thanks for the point of clarification on the non-citation of Orwell by
Cambridgestudent activists, but that is only a false quibble. Their quoted
statements in this thread arecompletely in line with the opposition of
Biofuelwatch to climate repair, asfurther explained at the Cambridge Zero
Carbon Society twitterpost stating “We also targeted our criticism at Cambridge
Zero’s promotionof ‘climate repair’ and other forms of geoengineering.” The
Guardian article you mention is much morebalanced than the activist statements,
but the thread here does not include it exceptas a link.
Yourassertion that my comments are somehow “invalid" appears to bedefending the
Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, and associating them with theUniversity, by
suggesting the alleged invalidity of my comments about CZCS hassome broader
unspecified relevance to the University. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment?
CZCSis a group that says the naming of Cambridge Zero “is exceptionally
unhingedand morally bankrupt,” a “greenwashing initiative… to help [fossil
fuelcompanies] locate oil reservoirs”. The threadsuggests that “criticism from
students and staff at the university” includes that“under the name of ‘Climate
Repair ’, Cambridge Zero will partner with the BPinstitute” and that “fossil
fuel companies use the concept of climate repair tojustify their ongoing
extractive practises and delay legislation to cut carbonemissions.”
Now perhaps some may see the attribution of these views to Cambridgestudents
and staff as a piece of mischief by Biofuelwatch, but the twit postabove rebuts
that. My reference to Orwell is in full accord with the views ofthe Cambridge
Zero Carbon Society.
So Iam mystified Chris as to why you would seemingly imply that the
divestmentfocus of this Zero Carbon Society at all reduces their apparent
opposition to theconcept of climate repair. They are against climate repair.
Theproblem I was drawing attention to was that CZCS and their NGO
fellowtravellers have thoroughly misunderstood the meaning and importance of
climaterepair as an essential goal for addressing global warming. Far from
being “invalid”, support for climaterepair offers a different and challenging
line of thinking from the preferredstrategy of emission reduction alone.
KindRegards
RobertTulip
On Friday, 29 November 2019, 09:55:10 pm AEDT, Chris Vivian
<[email protected]> wrote:
Robert,
You did not read the Guardian report carefully enough. The Cambridge Zero
Carbon Society did not “…allege that climate repair is an Orwellian front for
fossil fuel industries…”. That statement was the view of EcoNexus and
Biofuelwatch. If you look at the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society’s website
(http://zerocarbonsoc.soc.srcf.net/) you will see that their focus is to get
Cambridge University to divest fossil fuel investments. Consequently, the
comments in your post related to the University are invalid.
Chris.
From: 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal
<[email protected]>
Sent: 26 November 2019 01:41
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>; Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL
FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch
The attack from environmental NGOs and students at Cambridge University on the
concept of climate repair illustrates the dangerously irrational currents of
opinion that are prevalent in the popular movement for action on climate
change. The students allege that climate repair is an Orwellian front for
fossil fuel industries, even though Sir David King, a main advocate of climate
repair, has publicly distanced himself from fossil fuels and solar
geoengineering and has called for Cambridge to divest from fossil fuels, as
noted in the post below. I have no personal contact with Cambridge University,
but am interested in this debate from the perspective of seeking informed
discussion on climate change.
The scientific incoherence in the opposition to climate repair is seen in the
false logic of moral hazard, the fallacy that removing carbon from the air
undermines efforts to cool the planet. This moral hazard reasoning is nothing
but an incorrect conspiracy theory, as stupid and dangerous 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
environment of Cambridge University shows the poor state of public information,
illustrating the failure to inform these ignorant students of basic facts about
climate change.
It is obviously essential to analyse the risks of climate intervention, but
advocacy groups like biofuelwatch who are behind these campaigns ignore the
much larger risks inherent in failing to research technologies that are needed
to regulate the planetary climate. The real moral hazard arises from failure to
address climate repair. The error at work here is the false belief that
cutting emissions by decarbonizing the world economy could possibly be a
sufficient response to climate change. In fact, as the climate repair concept
indicates, slowing global warming requires carbon removal on large scale,
alongside efforts to cut emissions.
A key point to understand is that the main driver of warming is past emissions,
not present and future emissions. The goal should be to convert past emissions
into safe and useful commodities. That requires carbon mining at
multi-gigatonne scale, based on intensive scientific research and development
programs to assess technology options, aiming for net negative global emissions
as the basis of climate repair and restoration. The Oxford University site
trillionthtonne.org says humans have added 635 gigatonnes of carbon to the air,
growing by 20,000 tonnes per minute, about ten gigatons a year. (Climate
Action Tracker estimates the annual addition as 14 GT, a significant
discrepancy against the Oxford calculation).
Moral hazard reasoning tells us to ignore that committed warming from past
emissions is the main cause of climate change. The line is that we should do
nothing about past emissions because removing carbon to repair and restore the
climate is a rival political strategy to the sole focus on decarbonization. But
that just ignores how slowing down the speed at which the world burns new
carbon into the air may be far more hard and costly than removing the carbon
already added.
The lack of public debate and media coverage on the science and politics of
climate repair is a problem that the new Cambridge Zero programs should
address. Net zero emissions, let alone the need for large scale net negative
emissions, can only be achieved through investment in carbon removal technology
as a primary strategy. The myth that ‘all we have to do is cut emissions’ has
to be challenged for the sake of good climate policy. Ignorant blocking of the
essential work of climate repair undermines climate security and is profoundly
counter-productive, destroying prospects of movement toward a safe and stable
planetary climate.
It is also worth noting that the Guardian article linked below was edited after
publication to include response from Dr Shuckburgh, stating that her work “in
no way implies a ‘connection with the fossil fuel industry.’” It is disturbing
that the public information released by Biofuelwatch and Econexus appears to
have contained numerous errors.
Robert Tulip
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_clipboard
I 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 Henna
PRESS 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.
Statements
A 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.
Statements
EcoNexus 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.
Statements
A 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 Editors
Cambridge 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
"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/30064676.3477447.1574732463126%40mail.yahoo.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/2066693539.4712455.1575198870987%40mail.yahoo.com.
