http://metadelusion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/geoengineering-is-ultimate-business-as.html?m=1
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Geoengineering is the ultimate business as usual
You may have read Naomi Klein’s recent Salon interview in which she posits
that Green groups may be more damaging than climate
Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full
interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green
movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I
don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.
Naomi Klein is wrong.
I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering
who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.
For most, researching 'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the
fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of
All the points Andrew made below about geo-engineering were made in recent
years about adaptation (some called it immoral to even talk of adaptation).
The reality, of course, is that the epic, multi-generational path from a
fossil-fueled civilization to whatever comes next is implicitly an
Alan
It's true that the hardware does not exist, but it is misleading to say that
the technology does not exist because most people will interpret this as
meaning that something cannot be done using standard commercial engineering
practices.
Since we are talking aerospace, compare two
It's hard not to suspect that the means and
ends have been reversed, that Klein knows the political
outcome she favors and has simply latched onto
the climate threat as a way to advance it.
Enclosed are two pages from my forthcoming book that address some of Klein's
points.
David
From:
There are a number of people who are interested in squeezing geoengineering
into their pre-established worldview, wherein geoengineering is somehow
another manifestation of the evils of crony capitalism and the current
world order, and that therefore research into geoengineering as seen as an
Klein never said that it was the researchers avoiding the hard work. And
in that, I agree with her completely. Politicians, heads of large
corporations and other concentrations of power are nearly all playing a
game of kick the can down the street. Eventually we'll reach a point
where
Ken Caldeira writes, plausibly, that: for most, researching
'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the fact that others are
unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions. NPR aired an
interview with David Keith a month ago: Keith spoke of something else: *
we're* *hiding a
In response to could be a good idea... wouldn't help in an emergency:
Achieving soil carbon sequestration in the United States, Lal, Follett
and Kimble 2003
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/745281/soil-carbon-amp-challenes-to-policy-makers.pdf
Better to talk about it now
To Ken,
I don't think Naomi Klein was questioning the motives of geoengineering
researchers, rather saying that there could be a passive drift toward
geoengineering because emissions aren't reduced and climate change
continues; indeed even with big emission reductions there will be continued
Hi Andy:
Naomi Klein had a few interesting points, but Joe Romm certainly brought the
discussion to a much deeper level. With regard to geoengineering, Naomi Klein
made the same error displayed by many who have not run the numbers. It is not a
matter of geoengineering to avoid reducing
12 matches
Mail list logo
