David "same old mind-set of controlling nature".
Controlling nature vs controlling human behaviour. This is the issue to be discussed. Nature is more predictable and controllable. Human behavior is more unpredictable and hence less controllable. Unfortunately, many people dream of controlling human behavior. Emission reduction is a laudable goal but it involves controlling human behavior - 7 billion+ in 184 countries. regards Bhaskar > ------------------------------ > *From:* David Lewis <jrando...@gmail.com <javascript:>>*To:* > geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>*Cc:* > andrew....@gmail.com<javascript:>; > di...@etcgroup.org???; moo...@etcgroup.org <javascript:>*Sent:* Sun, > November 18, 2012 2:27:54 AM*Subject:* 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. > > > -- 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/-/5Ph0ZbTZ8QIJ. 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.
