Seems like the global agricultural system would fit ETC's definition of geoengineering.
> ETC group defines geoengineering as the intentional, large-scale > technological manipulation of the Earth’s systems, Under this definition, geoengineering is already a widely deployed and broadly accepted practice. Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Nov 18, 2012, at 13:00, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > In looking at ETC funding sources I see that the HKH Foundation has been a > major donor: > http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/report/ETC%20Audited%20Financial%20Statements_2010%20copy.pdf > > "The HKH Foundation is named for Harold K. Hochschild, who was for many years > the executive head of the American Metal Company, which merged in 1957 and > eventually became AMAX Inc." > http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=125 > > "This company [American Metal Company] was co-founded by his father in 1887 > and became a leading custom smelter and refiner of ores and scrap metal in > the United States." > http://iarchives.nysed.gov/xtf/view?docId=MS_64-4.xml;query=;brand=default#overview > > "In 1957, Climax Molybdenum Company merged with The American Metal Company > (Limited) to form > American Metal Climax, Inc.; the company was renamed “AMAX Inc.” in 1974. In > 1993, AMAX merged with Cyprus Minerals Company to form Cyprus Amax Minerals > Company. > Following the acquisition of Cyprus Amax by Phelps Dodge in 1999, Climax > Molybdenum became a subsidiary of Phelps Dodge Corporation. In 2007, > following the acquisition of Phelps Dodge, Climax Molybdenum became a > Freeport-McMoRan company. " > http://www.climaxmolybdenum.com/aboutus/companyinformation/History.htm > > ----- > One can therefore infer that a significant piece of ETC's very existence is > derived from the extractive, profit-making exploitation of the earth (and the > sky, considering the many Gts of fossils fuels that smelting in the 19th and > 20th century required), the type of activity ETC so publicly condems. > > So I suggest that ETC cut the holier-than-thou, anti-technology bs and join > the rest of us in objectively evaluating (rather than subjectively killing) > options for saving the earth. Like or not, the urgency of the situation > requires us to carefully consider social-, political-, and geo-engineering at > a global scale, and to deploy those options that prove to be most cost > effective and least impactful. Let's cut the posturing and collectively get > to work in the short time we've got left to find out what our options are (if > any). > > -Greg > > > > From: David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com>To: > geoengineering@googlegroups.comCc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; > di...@etcgroup.org???; mooney@etcgroup.orgSent: Sun, November 18, 2012 > 2:27:54 AMSubject: Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and > whiten the earth A few more "revealing" "nuggets": > > ETC says it wants all reference to climate taken out of definitions of > geoengineering, i.e. ""the laudable goal of combating climate change has no > place in the definition of geoengineering, as it suggests that geoengineering > technologies do, in fact, combat climate change". Their preferred > definition? ETC placed their preferred definition in a separate box on page > 216, highlighted in red: "ETC group defines geoengineering as the > intentional, large-scale technological manipulation of the Earth’s systems, > including systems related to climate". > > I swear, I didn't make this up. > > Some practices likely to have global impact if implemented broadly are given > a free ETC pass: ""changing consumption patterns or adopting agroecological > practices" "do not qualify" as geoengineering, "although either could have a > noticeable impact on the climate". This is because, according to ETC: > "Geoengineering is a high-technology approach". Fortunately, ETC is here, > ready to explain to us what is high technology, and what is not. Given ETC > hostility to the 120 tonnes of fertilizer dumped by the Haida off the back of > a boat into the Pacific ocean recently, there can be no doubt: that was high > technology. > > Some solutions are too evil to contemplate. In a section entitled "The > Lomborg Manoeuvre...." ETC laments: "if we have the means to suck up > greenhouse gases... emitters can, in principle, continue unabated", which, > obviously, no one should want, even if a way to do this was found that was > economic. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is an "end-of-pipe" solution. > > ETC quotes Vanadan Shiva and Simon Terry in a paragraph condemning the > "Western, male-dominated, technological paradigm" which seeks to "solve the > problems" with some "same old mind-set of controlling nature". > > Without this ETC publication to guide me, I wouldn't have known that a > solution isn't good enough unless it is conceived by the right people with > the right mind-set. > > > > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:35:59 PM UTC-8, Greg Rau wrote: >> >> A more direct link here: >> http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. 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.
