I'm no fan of Guardian reporting on GE, but note that this story is a year old (published 10/6/11).
Josh On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:44:09 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: > > Posters note: The Guardian has forgotten to take its medicine again. > Apparently David K, Ken C and John S are about to take over the world and > get really rich. This sounds awesome fun and I'd love to join in. > > A > > > http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article > > 12.10.12 > > Big names behind US push for geoengineering > > A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific > and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profitsBritish > scientists have pulled back from geoengineering projects but the US is > forging ahead. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty ImagesJohn VidalGuardian > Weekly, Thu 6 Oct 2011 12.04 BSTBlogpostShare on twitterShare on > facebookShare on emailMore Sharing Services0UK scientists last week > "postponed"one of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the > upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle > Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray > thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a > volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the > sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for > climate change.The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was > that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre > that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when > 60 global groups wrote to the UK governmentand the resarch groups behind > the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to > critics.Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just > days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank > the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)published a major report calling for the > United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale > climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as > "climate remediation", the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, > but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the > nascent technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to experiment > together, large-scale testing and big government funding.So what is the BPC > and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys > - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the > British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, > pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to > "represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent > views," it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, > military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US > military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a > "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists > who want to make war on Iran".Their specially convened taskforce is, in > fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering > lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political > sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, > academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.Notable among the group is > David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on > the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people > as Boeing's chief scientist working on "ways to find new solutions to > world's most challenging problems".There are signs of cross US-UK > pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently > wrote for the Guardian: "I've concluded that geoengineering research – and > I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary." But he cautioned: > "what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get > that information is through appropriate research."It also includes several > of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere > scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the > National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the > ill-fated "star wars" weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at > the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira > manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both > scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were > members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which > in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company > developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented > ideas to stop hurricanes forming.In sum, this coalition of US expertise is > a group of people which smell vast potential future profits for their > institutions and companies in geo-engineering.Watch out. This could be the > start of the next climate wars. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/dq5b23ighrwJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
