Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Yes, I think there should be promise with these technologies, but as you say, what really matters is whose hand controls the direction in which the work is done. As I have said before, there is no tool so benign that it cannot also be used as a weapon. How do we know we can trust those that have control of the technologies? Yes, Darryl. That's why I lamented the fact that Ocean Nutrition Canada, in the NYT article you posted (Canada Produces Strain of Algae for Fuel), described the oil-producing micro-organism it had found as its proprietary organism. As a matter of course. We don't seem to have faith in any authority any more. Indeed not! There are some exceptions, I suppose, but not very many. And decent, well-intentioned, human, people are to be found working for many of them, perhaps even for most of them, but that doesn't change the nature of the authority itself. I sometimes used to ask people that question. Do you have faith in your society's institutions? I'd get one of two answers - either a pause, and then What do you mean?, or, with no pause at all, Of course not! The Catholic Church, government officials - elected and otherwise, multinational corporations, their executives and shareholders, police forces and officers, medical researchers, and so on. It seems no form of authority (on a broad basis, I do believe there are individual exceptions) has managed to resist being corrupted. Or even tried to resist it. The concentration of power (wealth) apparently will always attract those with personal motives that seek to use that power (wealth, authority) for their own personal benefit or aggrandizement. It seems to repulse the sort of people dedicated to public service that I would prefer to see taking on those positions. I know it is simplistic, but my solution is to devolve power, wealth and authority to the lowest levels at which it can be effective, diluting it to the degree practicable. Yes. Localise. I don't think it's simplistic. Once it's runs its course, it might even have undermined wealth/power enough to cut them down to size. Along with that, our wondrous neo-liberal economic system can't and won't last forever. How long will it survive once carbon costs and all the other environmental costs can no longer be externalised? That's only a matter of time, and not a very long time. Genetic engineering could indeed hold great promise, but the technology appears to held by an oligopoly headed by Monsanto, Dow and a few others. But not forever. I suppose people felt the same way about the coal and petroleum industries when they started up (better than burning whale oil and peat, I expect), but in general I see these sectors as anti-human oligopolies today. Anti-life. Rudolf Diesel felt something similar. He hoped his diesel engine would help to loosen the deadly grip of the steam-power oligopoly of the time. I see the nuclear power industry (historically, a subsidiary of the arms industry) as having followed much the same path; great promise of a new technology, but a reality that has not lived up to its billing, and now hangs yet another millstone about our necks. Maybe if it wasn't so firmly wedded to the military. I don't consider myself anti-technology. I do worry about the ability of humans to deal with technologies operating on a superhuman scale. I think the evidence to date suggests we are not equipped to do it well. But we don't even attempt it. It's not we humans who do that, corporations and governments and so on do it, and they ARE NOT HUMAN. Technocrats have long felt they have answers that need to be forced upon the rest of us, for our own good. So far, their track record is not reassuring. Very unreassuring! Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I see geo-engineering as just one more mega-scale technology that we don't understand sufficiently well to implement beneficially. That's obviously correct. But why does it necessarily have to be mega-scale? And understanding is not unattainable - some things are ineffable, but this isn't one of them. When nature terraforms an area (e.g., massive volcanic eruption with lava flows), it works on a relatively small area, and then stops, and then small-scale, massively-parallel, processes take over to remediate the territory. As near as I can tell, we can't even get human-managed reforestation right, and that's a lot simpler task. Yes we can, lots of excellent tree-planting going on all over the place, though all you get to read about is industrialised monocrops of oil-palms, and of eucalyptus or whatever to produce biomass for power generation. You can't have it both ways Darryl. If it's sustainable it'll almost certainly be small-scale and local and you won't see it covered by MSM, but you're falling for it if you then conclude that it's not happening. I think we will be better off if we do things at a human scale. If 6 billion or so of us choose to take a particular
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Hi Darryl; Or more importantly (and maybe this is what you meant) we don't understand the intricacies of the natural systems already in existence in order to meddle with them in a way that won't create larger problems than we already have. That is the way of human activity that I see most often and is definitely the domain of engineering; -creating new challenges faster than it can keep up. Joe Darryl McMahon wrote: SNIP Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I see geo-engineering as just one more mega-scale technology that we don't understand sufficiently well to implement beneficially. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Keith, I'm not without hope on these matters. That is why I keep working away at solutions on many fronts. I also don't underestimate the challenges, which is not to say I understand them completely. You wrote: ... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there should be some potential for useful or helpful techno-fixes, that don't do more harm than good, nor any harm at all. I guess much depends on the mindset of the fixers. An empty mind is best, IMHO, free of expectation (and of paymaster bias), while aware that in ecology everything is connected to everything else. Plus lots of input from the Three Princes of Serendip. My concern in this is in the middle of what you wrote above. It is not the technology that concerns me, but those that wield it. Corporations are a human creation, designed originally to take on tasks that were beyond the resources of individuals (humans). They were created expressly to be our tools designed for the superhuman endeavour or mega-project. As individuals, we embody the range of motives and actions from good to evil. Even NGOs have been co-opted, or created from whole cloth as corporate pawns. (http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75259.html for a recent relevant posting on this list - The Soros Syndrome). While I recognize the issues of powers now granted corporations that were not the original intent in the days of royal company charters, I also see that they are still owned and run by people. It is a time-consuming task to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there is also a human scale in the time dimension. It's tough enough to sort the truth from the spin in our daily life (and I still get fooled from time to time). How do I create an environment that is friendly to the 'empty mind', 'free of expectation', and bars the pretenders with pre-formed political or plunder agendas? The pretenders are motivated by greed, well-resourced, and unencumbered by ethics or morals. Reforestation and having it both ways Actually, I was thinking of a local story on reforestation. According to a bush-lot owner, some of his land was logged and then reforested with softwood. Those trees were harvested and the lot replanted again. However, the anecdotal report is that the second human-planted generation is not growing as quickly as the one before, and perhaps not as quickly as land left to nature. I'm no expert, but perhaps we need the natural cycle to have a healthy tree (and forest). I expect it's more complex than just plugging in a fresh batch of seedlings, time after time. Climate Change Remediation The work being done to slow the damage is worthy in itself, and is the logical precursor and complement to remediation. I know some people that are planting trees as carbon sinks, and a couple of advocates for biochar. I have seen small local initiatives for capturing methane and burning it to produce process heat and electricity, thus reducing the potency of the greenhouse gas released to the atmosphere. I see local gardening/composting cycles as both remediation (high carbon capture back into the soil), as well as reduction (less produce trucked in over long distances). There is a movement in some Canadian cities (including mine) to permit people to raise chickens in residential areas. I do need to collect more such examples, and get back to populating the content on 10n10.ca. It's not happening on the MSM scale, but then that's one of the reasons I set up the Web site in the first place. I'm not surprised by the lack of action to date. There is a natural degree of denial and inertia in us, and it has been fostered by a spin campaign of massive proportions. Heck, our federal government officials are painting climate change as beneficial for Canada (while still denying it is happening out of the other side of their mouths). Ignore, deny, accept, act. We're past ignoring, most are past denying (though there is a vocal minority that are not). I think many of us are now accepting (I even see conferences now on climate change adaptation). I believe we are seeing the first acts, and many others are looking for easy ways to make positive changes. Our Understanding and Capability I guess it comes down to the Precautionary Principle. If we want to run small-scale experiments to further our understanding of how things work and consequences, I'm generally in favour. When it comes to 'bet-the-planet' (or significant portions of it) propositions, I'm opposed because the downside risk is simply too big, and the Law of Unintended Consequences tells us that we are not good at figuring out all the ramifications of changes to complex systems. In many ways, our capabilities have grown faster than our understanding. All best, Darryl On 18/10/2010 6:49 AM, Keith Addison wrote: Yes, I think there should be promise with
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Hi Joe, yes, I think you have captured it better than I did. Darryl On 18/10/2010 9:11 AM, Joe Street wrote: Hi Darryl; Or more importantly (and maybe this is what you meant) we don't understand the intricacies of the natural systems already in existence in order to meddle with them in a way that won't create larger problems than we already have. That is the way of human activity that I see most often and is definitely the domain of engineering; -creating new challenges faster than it can keep up. Joe Darryl McMahon wrote: SNIP Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I see geo-engineering as just one more mega-scale technology that we don't understand sufficiently well to implement beneficially. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
The way I've explained my reticence towards all this stuff has been; When we come up with computer modeling that is able to accurately predict the weather years into the future, THEN our models will be good enough that we can think about fiddling about with altering the genetics of 'stuff' with some degree of confidence what the medium term outcomes will be. at that time, we can make these choices. Until them, we are guessing in the darkness of ignorance. Sensitive Dependence on initial conditions. Google it sometime. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Any gardener would disagree with you (and at least one of you is a gardener). There now, does that put the scale in perspective? You can't seem to help seeing it in gargantuan terms. Keith Hi Joe, yes, I think you have captured it better than I did. Darryl On 18/10/2010 9:11 AM, Joe Street wrote: Hi Darryl; Or more importantly (and maybe this is what you meant) we don't understand the intricacies of the natural systems already in existence in order to meddle with them in a way that won't create larger problems than we already have. That is the way of human activity that I see most often and is definitely the domain of engineering; -creating new challenges faster than it can keep up. Joe Darryl McMahon wrote: SNIP Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I see geo-engineering as just one more mega-scale technology that we don't understand sufficiently well to implement beneficially. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Hi Darryl I agree with all that. Just about. Yes, it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, to have an empty mind, free of expectation, but it's essential, and not impossible. We have to do the best we can - we might never get there, but we'll get a lot further than if we just rolled over and didn't try at all. Sorry, corporations are NOT human. But they're very damned good at convincing people that they are, they spend a LOT of money on it. Yes, real people work for them, and might even seem to own them, that's part of the facade. We've been through all that before, there are very good resources in the archives on all things corporate, including corporate personhood. Please check. (And I did say free of paymaster bias.) As for the reforestation project you mention, it's best to emulate nature as far as possible in such matters. Nature doesn't do monocrops and clearcuts, for good reason, and if she did, she wouldn't plant the following crop without replenishing the soil fertility the previous crop removed. Like farming, you know? What did they do with the leaves and trimmings and so on? Burn it in situ? Slash and burn, that is. The ash puts some of the minerals back, much the same as chemical fertilisers do. Shredding it and making compost is best, even just using the shred as mulch would help a lot. So many options - run some pigs on it for a few weeks, they'll do a wonderful job of ploughing and fertilising it. Biochar is nonsense. http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70170.html http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70182.html You end with the Precautionary Principle. That's how I started: ... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there... I think you're not taking much note of quite a few things I've said since. Bet the planet? Enough now. I stand by what I said. Regards Keith Keith, I'm not without hope on these matters. That is why I keep working away at solutions on many fronts. I also don't underestimate the challenges, which is not to say I understand them completely. You wrote: ... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there should be some potential for useful or helpful techno-fixes, that don't do more harm than good, nor any harm at all. I guess much depends on the mindset of the fixers. An empty mind is best, IMHO, free of expectation (and of paymaster bias), while aware that in ecology everything is connected to everything else. Plus lots of input from the Three Princes of Serendip. My concern in this is in the middle of what you wrote above. It is not the technology that concerns me, but those that wield it. Corporations are a human creation, designed originally to take on tasks that were beyond the resources of individuals (humans). They were created expressly to be our tools designed for the superhuman endeavour or mega-project. As individuals, we embody the range of motives and actions from good to evil. Even NGOs have been co-opted, or created from whole cloth as corporate pawns. (http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75259.html for a recent relevant posting on this list - The Soros Syndrome). While I recognize the issues of powers now granted corporations that were not the original intent in the days of royal company charters, I also see that they are still owned and run by people. It is a time-consuming task to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there is also a human scale in the time dimension. It's tough enough to sort the truth from the spin in our daily life (and I still get fooled from time to time). How do I create an environment that is friendly to the 'empty mind', 'free of expectation', and bars the pretenders with pre-formed political or plunder agendas? The pretenders are motivated by greed, well-resourced, and unencumbered by ethics or morals. Reforestation and having it both ways Actually, I was thinking of a local story on reforestation. According to a bush-lot owner, some of his land was logged and then reforested with softwood. Those trees were harvested and the lot replanted again. However, the anecdotal report is that the second human-planted generation is not growing as quickly as the one before, and perhaps not as quickly as land left to nature. I'm no expert, but perhaps we need the natural cycle to have a healthy tree (and forest). I expect it's more complex than just plugging in a fresh batch of seedlings, time after time. Climate Change Remediation The work being done to slow the damage is worthy in itself, and is the logical precursor and complement to remediation. I know some people that are planting trees as carbon sinks, and a couple of advocates for biochar. I have seen small local initiatives for capturing methane and burning it to produce process heat and electricity, thus reducing the
[Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there should be some potential for useful or helpful techno-fixes, that don't do more harm than good, nor any harm at all. I guess much depends on the mindset of the fixers. An empty mind is best, IMHO, free of expectation (and of paymaster bias), while aware that in ecology everything is connected to everything else. Plus lots of input from the Three Princes of Serendip. All best - Keith --0-- ETC Group Media Advisory 14 October 2010 www.etcgroup.orgwww.etcgroup.org UN TO CONFRONT SCI-FI CLIMATE SOLUTIONS AT BIODIVERSITY MEETING Civil Society Calls for Precaution As environment ministers from 193 countries take stock of the globe's dramatic loss of biodiversity at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan next week (18-29 October 2010), ETC Group warns that high-risk technological fixes that claim to hold the key for solving the climate crisis should be put on ice. The global meeting, marking the International Year of Biodiversity, will debate a de facto moratorium on the release into the environment of synthetic life forms (a form of extreme genetic engineering marketed by industry as the building blocks of the green economy) and on geoengineering activities (massive intentional manipulations of the Earth's systems). Existing international law has no adequate controls for these controversial new technologies. ETC Group is releasing three new reports and hosting three side events in Nagoya on these technofixes, explaining the interests behind them and the risks inherent in their uncontrolled development. 1. Synthetic Biology: The CBD's scientific body that met earlier this year recommended prohibiting the release of machine-made organisms into the environment. Synthetic biology, or extreme genetic engineering, threatens fragile ecosystems through potential accidental releases. Biodiversity is further endangered by the commercialization of such organisms, led by transnational corporations seeking to commodify the remaining three-quarters of the world's terrestrial biomass that has not yet been brought under their control. ETC Group's report The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods will be released on 1 November 2010; its findings will be discussed at a side event in Nagoya on 18 October (1:15 pm, Room 212A, Bldg 2, 1st floor). A pre-release briefing paper is available now at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5201. 2. Geoengineering: The CBD's scientific body proposed earlier this year that states ensure that no climate-related geoengineering activities take place until risks and impacts are fully evaluated. If accepted, this proposal would prevent real-world experimentation of controversial planet-altering schemes such as ocean fertilization, stratospheric aerosols and cloud whitening. Three influential reports on geoengineering are expected to be released in Washington in the coming weeks. Climate-hacking experiments are being opposed by a coalition of non-governmental organizations and individuals under the HOME campaign (www.handsoffmotherearth.org), among others. ETC Group's report Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering will be released 18 October and discussed at a side event in Nagoya on 19 October (1:15 pm, Room 234C, Bldg 2, 3rd floor). A pre-release briefing paper is available now at http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=35qid=12915http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5202. 3. Patents terminate biodiversity. Under the guise of developing climate-ready crops, hundreds of sweeping, multi-genome patents have been filed in the past two years. Three corporations - DuPont, BASF, and Monsanto - account for two-thirds of them. Genetically engineered, climate-ready crops are a false solution to climate change that will increase farmers' dependence on GM crops, jeopardize biodiversity and threaten food sovereignty. Governments meeting in Nagoya must put a stop to the patent grab. ETC Group's report Gene Giants Stockpile Patents on Climate-Ready Crops in Bid to Become Biomassters will be released and discussed at a side event in Nagoya on 25 October (4:30 pm, Room 236, Bldg 2, 3rd floor). Contact information for ETC Group (NOTE DIFFERENT TIME ZONES) At the CBD in Nagoya, Japan: Pat Mooney: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mobile +1-613-240-0045) Silvia Ribeiro: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mobile: + 52-1-55-2653-3330) Neth Dano: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mobile: + 63-917-532-9369) In Auckland, New Zealand Cindy Baxter, [EMAIL PROTECTED], In Montreal, Canada: Diana Bronson: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236) In San Francisco, USA Jeff Conant: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mobile: +1 575 770 2829) ETC Group or Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration ETC Group is an international civil society organization. We address the global socioeconomic and ecological issues surrounding new technologies
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
My thought when people suggest that technological fixes will solve the global climate change problem and that we don't have to worry about it... is that we already ignore all the technological fixes that have already been invented are, in the grand scheme of things, being solidly ignored. Photovoltaics, cars that can get 100mpg, mass transit instead of personal cars, superinsulated zero energy homes, etc yes, there's some interest in them, but still not the 80 to 90% acceptance that is required to really make a difference. If we respond to every technological advance that could help with but I want BETTER technology... that's not fancy enough why would we expect to ever see this as a solution? The solution has to come from societal and behavioral changes which will allow us to actually use the technology available (as well as using natural solutions like full circle agriculture systems instead of trying to separate circumvent nature there). Z On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: ... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there should be some potential for useful or helpful techno-fixes, that don't do more harm than good, nor any harm at all. I guess much depends on the mindset of the fixers. An empty mind is best, IMHO, free of expectation (and of paymaster bias), while aware that in ecology everything is connected to everything else. Plus lots of input from the Three Princes of Serendip. All best - Keith --0-- ETC Group Media Advisory 14 October 2010 www.etcgroup.orgwww.etcgroup.org UN TO CONFRONT SCI-FI CLIMATE SOLUTIONS AT BIODIVERSITY MEETING Civil Society Calls for Precaution As environment ministers from 193 countries take stock of the globe's dramatic loss of biodiversity at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan next week (18-29 October 2010), ETC Group warns that high-risk technological fixes that claim to hold the key for solving the climate crisis should be put on ice. The global meeting, marking the International Year of Biodiversity, will debate a de facto moratorium on the release into the environment of synthetic life forms (a form of extreme genetic engineering marketed by industry as the building blocks of the green economy) and on geoengineering activities (massive intentional manipulations of the Earth's systems). Existing international law has no adequate controls for these controversial new technologies. ETC Group is releasing three new reports and hosting three side events in Nagoya on these technofixes, explaining the interests behind them and the risks inherent in their uncontrolled development. 1. Synthetic Biology: The CBD's scientific body that met earlier this year recommended prohibiting the release of machine-made organisms into the environment. Synthetic biology, or extreme genetic engineering, threatens fragile ecosystems through potential accidental releases. Biodiversity is further endangered by the commercialization of such organisms, led by transnational corporations seeking to commodify the remaining three-quarters of the world's terrestrial biomass that has not yet been brought under their control. ETC Group's report The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods will be released on 1 November 2010; its findings will be discussed at a side event in Nagoya on 18 October (1:15 pm, Room 212A, Bldg 2, 1st floor). A pre-release briefing paper is available now at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5201. 2. Geoengineering: The CBD's scientific body proposed earlier this year that states ensure that no climate-related geoengineering activities take place until risks and impacts are fully evaluated. If accepted, this proposal would prevent real-world experimentation of controversial planet-altering schemes such as ocean fertilization, stratospheric aerosols and cloud whitening. Three influential reports on geoengineering are expected to be released in Washington in the coming weeks. Climate-hacking experiments are being opposed by a coalition of non-governmental organizations and individuals under the HOME campaign (www.handsoffmotherearth.org), among others. ETC Group's report Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering will be released 18 October and discussed at a side event in Nagoya on 19 October (1:15 pm, Room 234C, Bldg 2, 3rd floor). A pre-release briefing paper is available now at http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=35qid=12915 http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5202. 3. Patents terminate biodiversity. Under the guise of developing climate-ready crops, hundreds of sweeping, multi-genome patents have been filed in the past two years. Three corporations - DuPont, BASF, and Monsanto - account for two-thirds of them. Genetically engineered, climate-ready crops are a false solution to climate change that will increase farmers'
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Hear hear, Zeke, well said, I fully agree. And we definitely do have to worry about it. There's good reason to believe, though, IMHO, that the required societal and behavioural changes are coming, spreading and growing fast - like wildfire, it seems to me, and worldwide. But, exactly because these are mostly local changes, at the individual and grassroots level - ie the only kind of change that really works - it mostly goes under the radar or it's dismissed as just a minority on the fringe, without significance. Many people on this list are themselves doing such things, some very effective things, I happen to know - but how much of it gets counted so it makes a difference in the media overview? None. Right? ... At which point Robert usually accuses me of being an optimist. :-) I am indeed an optimist, but a previous list discussion agreed that it doesn't require rose-tinted specs, there's no conflict between optimism and realism. Chuck in a good dash of scepticism too, and the inevitable bit of sheer exasperation shouldn't spoil the taste too much. I should add, though, that I was referring to what ETC is looking at - direct technological intervention that's intended to reverse some of the causes and effects of the current trend of global warming. I think it's a possibility (triple the dose of scepticism though). The galloping loss of biodiversity really is sickening. There are culprits, whether human or only pseudo-human, and they have to pay. I hope I'm not the only one who feels implacable about that. All best Keith My thought when people suggest that technological fixes will solve the global climate change problem and that we don't have to worry about it... is that we already ignore all the technological fixes that have already been invented are, in the grand scheme of things, being solidly ignored. Photovoltaics, cars that can get 100mpg, mass transit instead of personal cars, superinsulated zero energy homes, etc yes, there's some interest in them, but still not the 80 to 90% acceptance that is required to really make a difference. If we respond to every technological advance that could help with but I want BETTER technology... that's not fancy enough why would we expect to ever see this as a solution? The solution has to come from societal and behavioral changes which will allow us to actually use the technology available (as well as using natural solutions like full circle agriculture systems instead of trying to separate circumvent nature there). Z On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: ... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there should be some potential for useful or helpful techno-fixes, that don't do more harm than good, nor any harm at all. I guess much depends on the mindset of the fixers. An empty mind is best, IMHO, free of expectation (and of paymaster bias), while aware that in ecology everything is connected to everything else. Plus lots of input from the Three Princes of Serendip. All best - Keith --0-- ETC Group Media Advisory 14 October 2010 www.etcgroup.orgwww.etcgroup.org UN TO CONFRONT SCI-FI CLIMATE SOLUTIONS AT BIODIVERSITY MEETING Civil Society Calls for Precaution As environment ministers from 193 countries take stock of the globe's dramatic loss of biodiversity at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan next week (18-29 October 2010), ETC Group warns that high-risk technological fixes that claim to hold the key for solving the climate crisis should be put on ice. The global meeting, marking the International Year of Biodiversity, will debate a de facto moratorium on the release into the environment of synthetic life forms (a form of extreme genetic engineering marketed by industry as the building blocks of the green economy) and on geoengineering activities (massive intentional manipulations of the Earth's systems). Existing international law has no adequate controls for these controversial new technologies. ETC Group is releasing three new reports and hosting three side events in Nagoya on these technofixes, explaining the interests behind them and the risks inherent in their uncontrolled development. 1. Synthetic Biology: The CBD's scientific body that met earlier this year recommended prohibiting the release of machine-made organisms into the environment. Synthetic biology, or extreme genetic engineering, threatens fragile ecosystems through potential accidental releases. Biodiversity is further endangered by the commercialization of such organisms, led by transnational corporations seeking to commodify the remaining three-quarters of the world's terrestrial biomass that has not yet been brought under their control. ETC Group's report The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods will be released on 1 November 2010;
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Zeke has pretty much covered what I was going to day regarding technology. What we need is here, sitting on the shelf, has been for decades. No one really speaking for it though, no adverts on TV or radio or Internet ads. Is it really as simple as there is no sure profit in selling such things? I suspect our typical consumer is so brainwashed they can't figure out the simple math for themselves. A few years ago, I was trying to convince an acquaintance to buy a compact fluorescent light (CFL). His argument, he bought the incandescent because the CFL replacement cost more. He really could not make the connection between the change in the lighting technology and the cost of the electricity used (saved). Eventually, I gave him a CFL (over the years I attracted them like flies, so I several to spare). He installed it, and liked it. Still was not enough to convince him to buy more. I have given him a few more, and he apparently has installed them as the incandescents burned out. If he made the connection to his electrical bill, he would install the CFLs right away, and keep the incandescents as spares, not vice versa. He likes the fact that the CFLs last longer, but still doesn't make the connection to his electrical bill. This is a guy with a university degree. I don't think he's alone. I have read that many consumers don't make the connection between their actual electrical consumption activities and a bill that shows up weeks or months later. When we put instantaneous read-outs on their kitchen wall, then they get it, and electrical consumption typically drops 10% or more. People don't connect driving behaviour with fuel consumption, if they are monitoring with a fuel tank gauge. Put them in an EV with an ammeter, and the connection becomes obvious. I think we should make instantaneous fuel consumption read-outs mandatory on all new vehicles, preferably with a monetary read-out beside it, such as I can program into my appliance power monitor. Some change is happening. After years of working with electric vehicles, I now have neighbours with electric bicycles, and are thrilled with them. I am seeing more adults on the short-cut footpath from my neighbourhood to the local shops. While interest in the water conservation devices I sell has always been inconsistent, sales in the past year are better than any previous year. Electric road vehicles are seriously on their way to market, and not just in California. Ethanol is now legislated to make up 5% of gasoline sold in Canada (as of last month). Wind power installations are growing, while the much-hyped nuclear renaissance still seems to be stuck in neutral. I see more and more rain barrels in use. Fox News North got a black eye from Canadians in the past few weeks. The G-8 and G-20 were held in Canada this summer, because we're polite, we have a lot of security forces, and the establishment figured they would be safe here. However, even here they got an earful from common folks - even the mainstream media felt they had to report on it. The G-20 even had to state support for removing subsidies for the fossil fuel industries. In my opinion, we have not achieved critical mass on any front yet. However, I get the sense that conversations about energy conservation and efficiency and sustainability are no longer seen as nearly subversive or curiosities, but there is serious interest in them. Folks are still reluctant to put big money into changes, but they are prepared to think about them. They are making some small-money changes. They are still hungry for information about what they can do that is affordable, sustainable and beneficial. The corporate giants are not going to provide that information, which is typically not in their self-interest. Personally, I just plan to keep providing relevant information, and stay on message, so long as time and finances permit. Darryl On 17/10/2010 9:57 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote: My thought when people suggest that technological fixes will solve the global climate change problem and that we don't have to worry about it... is that we already ignore all the technological fixes that have already been invented are, in the grand scheme of things, being solidly ignored. Photovoltaics, cars that can get 100mpg, mass transit instead of personal cars, superinsulated zero energy homes, etc yes, there's some interest in them, but still not the 80 to 90% acceptance that is required to really make a difference. If we respond to every technological advance that could help with but I want BETTER technology... that's not fancy enough why would we expect to ever see this as a solution? The solution has to come from societal and behavioral changes which will allow us to actually use the technology available (as well as using natural solutions like full circle agriculture systems instead of trying to separate circumvent nature there).
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Well, you and Zeke both know I agree with all that. But I think there might be more to be seen in it, or at least hoped for - could be wrong of course, as ever. Of course people are brainwashed, especially in North America. There's never been such a thing in the world before as the sheer 24/7 drench of opinion management that envelopes everyone there today, and of course it works as it's intended to, it doesn't matter how intelligent or well-educated they might be. Yet so many people are managing to opt out anyway - the spin and the media soporifics can be resisted. We here on this list tend to be anti-brainwashed, and not just in theory. I think that's a factor here - we flinch away from something like geo-engineering. I'm trying to be a little more critical. On a different tack, I also think genetic engineering is a very promising technology, but certainly not in the hands of the Monsantos of this world. There are other hands though. Maybe it's the same with geo-engineering. Personally, I just plan to keep providing relevant information, and stay on message, so long as time and finances permit. Please do (and so will I). All best Keith Zeke has pretty much covered what I was going to day regarding technology. What we need is here, sitting on the shelf, has been for decades. No one really speaking for it though, no adverts on TV or radio or Internet ads. Is it really as simple as there is no sure profit in selling such things? I suspect our typical consumer is so brainwashed they can't figure out the simple math for themselves. A few years ago, I was trying to convince an acquaintance to buy a compact fluorescent light (CFL). His argument, he bought the incandescent because the CFL replacement cost more. He really could not make the connection between the change in the lighting technology and the cost of the electricity used (saved). Eventually, I gave him a CFL (over the years I attracted them like flies, so I several to spare). He installed it, and liked it. Still was not enough to convince him to buy more. I have given him a few more, and he apparently has installed them as the incandescents burned out. If he made the connection to his electrical bill, he would install the CFLs right away, and keep the incandescents as spares, not vice versa. He likes the fact that the CFLs last longer, but still doesn't make the connection to his electrical bill. This is a guy with a university degree. I don't think he's alone. I have read that many consumers don't make the connection between their actual electrical consumption activities and a bill that shows up weeks or months later. When we put instantaneous read-outs on their kitchen wall, then they get it, and electrical consumption typically drops 10% or more. People don't connect driving behaviour with fuel consumption, if they are monitoring with a fuel tank gauge. Put them in an EV with an ammeter, and the connection becomes obvious. I think we should make instantaneous fuel consumption read-outs mandatory on all new vehicles, preferably with a monetary read-out beside it, such as I can program into my appliance power monitor. Some change is happening. After years of working with electric vehicles, I now have neighbours with electric bicycles, and are thrilled with them. I am seeing more adults on the short-cut footpath from my neighbourhood to the local shops. While interest in the water conservation devices I sell has always been inconsistent, sales in the past year are better than any previous year. Electric road vehicles are seriously on their way to market, and not just in California. Ethanol is now legislated to make up 5% of gasoline sold in Canada (as of last month). Wind power installations are growing, while the much-hyped nuclear renaissance still seems to be stuck in neutral. I see more and more rain barrels in use. Fox News North got a black eye from Canadians in the past few weeks. The G-8 and G-20 were held in Canada this summer, because we're polite, we have a lot of security forces, and the establishment figured they would be safe here. However, even here they got an earful from common folks - even the mainstream media felt they had to report on it. The G-20 even had to state support for removing subsidies for the fossil fuel industries. In my opinion, we have not achieved critical mass on any front yet. However, I get the sense that conversations about energy conservation and efficiency and sustainability are no longer seen as nearly subversive or curiosities, but there is serious interest in them. Folks are still reluctant to put big money into changes, but they are prepared to think about them. They are making some small-money changes. They are still hungry for information about what they can do that is affordable, sustainable and beneficial. The corporate giants are not going to provide that information, which is typically not in their self-interest. Personally, I just plan
Re: [Biofuel] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting
Yes, I think there should be promise with these technologies, but as you say, what really matters is whose hand controls the direction in which the work is done. As I have said before, there is no tool so benign that it cannot also be used as a weapon. How do we know we can trust those that have control of the technologies? We don't seem to have faith in any authority any more. The Catholic Church, government officials - elected and otherwise, multinational corporations, their executives and shareholders, police forces and officers, medical researchers, and so on. It seems no form of authority (on a broad basis, I do believe there are individual exceptions) has managed to resist being corrupted. The concentration of power (wealth) apparently will always attract those with personal motives that seek to use that power (wealth, authority) for their own personal benefit or aggrandizement. It seems to repulse the sort of people dedicated to public service that I would prefer to see taking on those positions. I know it is simplistic, but my solution is to devolve power, wealth and authority to the lowest levels at which it can be effective, diluting it to the degree practicable. Genetic engineering could indeed hold great promise, but the technology appears to held by an oligopoly headed by Monsanto, Dow and a few others. I suppose people felt the same way about the coal and petroleum industries when they started up (better than burning whale oil and peat, I expect), but in general I see these sectors as anti-human oligopolies today. I see the nuclear power industry (historically, a subsidiary of the arms industry) as having followed much the same path; great promise of a new technology, but a reality that has not lived up to its billing, and now hangs yet another millstone about our necks. I don't consider myself anti-technology. I do worry about the ability of humans to deal with technologies operating on a superhuman scale. I think the evidence to date suggests we are not equipped to do it well. Technocrats have long felt they have answers that need to be forced upon the rest of us, for our own good. So far, their track record is not reassuring. Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I see geo-engineering as just one more mega-scale technology that we don't understand sufficiently well to implement beneficially. When nature terraforms an area (e.g., massive volcanic eruption with lava flows), it works on a relatively small area, and then stops, and then small-scale, massively-parallel, processes take over to remediate the territory. As near as I can tell, we can't even get human-managed reforestation right, and that's a lot simpler task. I think we will be better off if we do things at a human scale. If 6 billion or so of us choose to take a particular action, I think the result will be noticeable. I also expect that if an action is deemed beneficial, or at least benign, by most of us, then it is much more likely to favourable for our species and the biosphere than mega-projects driven by the profit motive of a small number of people with money or some other form of authority. Small is beautiful. (E.F. Schumacher) I guess that sums it up for me. Darryl On 17/10/2010 4:56 PM, Keith Addison wrote: Well, you and Zeke both know I agree with all that. But I think there might be more to be seen in it, or at least hoped for - could be wrong of course, as ever. Of course people are brainwashed, especially in North America. There's never been such a thing in the world before as the sheer 24/7 drench of opinion management that envelopes everyone there today, and of course it works as it's intended to, it doesn't matter how intelligent or well-educated they might be. Yet so many people are managing to opt out anyway - the spin and the media soporifics can be resisted. We here on this list tend to be anti-brainwashed, and not just in theory. I think that's a factor here - we flinch away from something like geo-engineering. I'm trying to be a little more critical. On a different tack, I also think genetic engineering is a very promising technology, but certainly not in the hands of the Monsantos of this world. There are other hands though. Maybe it's the same with geo-engineering. Personally, I just plan to keep providing relevant information, and stay on message, so long as time and finances permit. Please do (and so will I). All best Keith Zeke has pretty much covered what I was going to day regarding technology. What we need is here, sitting on the shelf, has been for decades. No one really speaking for it though, no adverts on TV or radio or Internet ads. Is it really as simple as there is no sure profit in selling such things? I suspect our typical consumer is so brainwashed they can't figure out the simple math for themselves. A few years ago, I was trying to convince an acquaintance to buy a
