Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
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.comjavascript:; 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.
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
The ETC paper is quite interesting - Harvard physicist and geoengineering advocate, David Keith, describes geoengineering in the context of climate change as ‘a countervailing measure, one that uses additional technology to counteract unwanted side effects without eliminating their root cause, “a technical fix”’ (Keith, 2010a: 494) I disagree with Dr Keith. SRM addresses the side effects of climate change but CCS technologies do address the root cause by removing carbon. Only the world’s richest countries can really muster the hardware and software necessary to attempt rearranging the climate and resetting the Earth’s thermostat. The recent experiment by Old Masset village of the Haida nation does disprove this. This is the first private geoengineering experiment and was initiated by one village acting alone. What’s wrong with ocean fertilisation? Phytoplankton are the foundation of the marine food chain. Iron may well stimulate the growth of algae blooms but their potential to capture and eliminate any significant amount of carbon is unproven. The list of potential side effects is long: » Changes in marine food webs: Artificial plankton production may lead to changes in marine ecosystems at the base of the food chain, of particular concern when ocean ecosystems are already fragile and under stress. We have been regularly using a pond and lake fertilization technology for many years, with excellent results. » Reduced productivity in other areas: Iron-induced blooms may consume and deplete other vital nutrients such that areas down current from the fertilised area could suffer reduced plankton productivity and carbon fixation. The paper discusses the overall decline in phytoplankton in the oceans and Iron fertilization is intended to be used only in HNLC areas of the oceans, so only the 'excess' nutrients would be consumed. » Some scientists have raised concerns that iron fertilisation could in turn deplete oxygen levels at deeper levels of the ocean. We have been fertilizing ponds and lakes to increase dissolved oxygen level. » Artificially elevated nutrient levels could give rise to harmful algal blooms that produce toxins associated with shellfish poisoning, fatal to humans. We have been fertilizing ponds and lakes to solve the problem of harmful algal blooms. » The production of dimethyl-sulphide (DMS), methane, nitrous oxide and volatile methyl halides can alter weather patterns unpredictably, cause ozone depletion and open a Pandora’s box of impacts on atmospheric chemistry and global climate. When oxygen level is increased methane and nitrous oxide emissions decline. » Ocean acidifiation could be exacerbated. When CO2 is consumed ocean acidification can only decline not be exacerbated. » Coral reefs can be dramatically afected by tiny increases in nutrient levels, especially nitrogen, potentially provoking the growth of toxic dinoflagellates. Our fertilization solution will reduce dinoflagellates. » Devastating impacts on the livelihoods of people who depend on healthy marine systems, most notably fisher folk. Fishermen are using our fertilization solution to protect their livelyhood. regards Bhaskar On Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:05:59 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote: A more direct link here: http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible. It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more vulnerable states or peoples in mind. There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32).228 Development Dialogue September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and Equity It is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
List - with ccs to Greg and others (including at ETC) I write mainly to bring the CDR technologies into our discussion about ETC's views. I hope the following will also be considered as an input into the ethics/philosophy discussion that is taking place simultaneously on this list. I view the immediate support for biochar implementation (more than experimentation, which is occurring in hundreds of locations today, mostly for postive ethical reasons) as something for philosophers to support, rather than question. CDR directly attacks the acknowledged root problem, which will not be solved without action. Why have we seen so little support from Philosophers for activities that remove atmospheric carbon? Are there differences for biochar, which [essentially alone] a) supplies needed renewable (not fossil) energy (both biopower and biofuels), b) provides benefits for at least centuries (is an investment, not a cost), and c) provides positive benefits much wider than the direct sequestration impact (ie reduced fertilizer and irrigation needs, reduced N2O and CH4 release, replacement of needed nutrients, rural economic development, improved food supply and biodiversity, jobs, etc, etc). Below I add my rebuttals to the list of seven (all negative) characteristics that Greg has kindly provided as the nub of the ETC anti-geoengineering report. I should note that ETC has itself barely analyzed biochar, instead relying on BFW, whose slanted views are usually what we see re biochar for all the seven reasons given below. I welcome debate, especially from ETC and BFW, on what I have written. See 7 inserts below, all in bold, preceded by my initials. - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: di...@etcgroup.org???, moo...@etcgroup.org Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:35:56 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth A more direct link here: http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? 1. It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible. RWL1: Biochar testing experiments are taking place in many dozens of countries. They are delivering valuable data on climate effects. The biochar impacts are predominantly positive and locally, if not yet globally, massive. ETC score #1 here re biochar is an F. 2. It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more vulnerable states or peoples in mind. There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32). 228 Development Dialogue September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and Equity RWL2 : B iochar maybe even favors developing countries (which have so ils need ing biochar - a s well as the potential for much larger food and biomas s harvests ). I agree with the first sentence, but not the second, nor much in the Piracy citation. ETC's score # 2 here re biochar is a D. 3. It is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to manipulate Earth ecosystems RWL3. ETC is talking here only of a few SRM approaches that might be considered cheap (although they say in the text that they are talking of CDR as well as SRM). There is nothing unilateral about biochar - some of the world's poorest are doing some of the best work now - and have, beginning thousands of years ago with practice of Terra Preta. Re ETC 's last sentence, there is zero need to protect biochar from unilateral manipulation; biochar is inherently multilateral. ETC's score #3 is D, from a biochar perspect ive . 4. It is risky and unpredictable: The side effects of geoengineered interventions are unknown. Geoengineering could
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 I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? . -Greg -- *From:* Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com javascript: *To:* geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Sent:* Fri, November 16, 2012 5:51:27 PM *Subject:* [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/mooney-pat-et-al-2012-darken-the-sky-and-whiten-the-earth.html Mooney, Pat; Wetter, Kathy Jo; Bronson, Diana (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth. The dangers of geoengineering. In: What Next Forum (Hg.): Climate, Development and Equity. Uppsala (What next?, 3), pp. 210?237. Critical review of CE. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- 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/-/w5fytWDZU9EJ. 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.
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
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.comTo: 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 I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? . -Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comTo: geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups. comSent: Fri, November 16, 2012 5:51:27 PMSubject: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth Mooney, Pat; et
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
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.comTo: 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.
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
What about dams, fertilizer production, forestry, deep sea fishing? In fact the actual existence of industrialized humanity has precipitated the anthropocene, so from ETC's perspective the industrial revolution seems like a pretty bad idea. Smash up the looms, luddites! I'm going to spear a fish for my supper, once I've finished sewing this reindeer skin tunic. Hang on a minute - didn't megafauna get wiped by the large scale hunting from early humans wielding spears? Best put that spear away, and go back to berries and grubs! A On 18 November 2012 22:25, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote: 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.com*Cc:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; di...@etcgroup.org???; moo...@etcgroup.org*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
[geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/mooney-pat-et-al-2012-darken-the-sky-and-whiten-the-earth.html Mooney, Pat; Wetter, Kathy Jo; Bronson, Diana (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth. The dangers of geoengineering. In: What Next Forum (Hg.): Climate, Development and Equity. Uppsala (What next?, 3), pp. 210?237. Critical review of CE. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
A more direct link here: http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible.It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more vulnerable states or peoples in mind.There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32).228 Development Dialogue September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and EquityIt is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to manipulate Earth ecosystems. It is risky and unpredictable: The side effects of geoengineered interventions are unknown. Geoengineering could easily have un- intended consequences due to any number of factors: mechanical failure, human error, inadequate understanding of ecosystems and biodiversity and the Earth’s climate, unforeseen natural phenom- ena, irreversibility, or funding lapses. It violates treaties: Many geoengineering techniques have latent military purposes and their deployment would violate the UN Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD), which prohibits the hostile use of environmental modification. It is the perfect excuse: Geoengineering offers governments an alternative to reducing emissions and protecting biodiversity. Geoengineering research is often seen as a way to ‘buy time’, but it also gives governments justification to delay compensation for damage caused by climate change and to avoid taking action on emissions reduction. It commodifies our climate and raises the spectre of climate profiteering: Those who think they have a planetary fix for the climate crisis are already flooding patent offices with patent ap- plications. Should a ‘Plan B’ ever be agreed upon, the prospect of it being privately controlled is terrifying. Serious planet-altering technologies should never be undertaken for commercial profit. If geoengineering is actually a climate emergency back-up plan, then it should not be eligible for carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism or any other offset system. Unfortunately, the article fails to mention that non-geoengineering approaches to the CO2 problem are failing miserably. To therefore automatically vilify any untested, new technology that might have a positive, global scale impact on this problem would seem to be a little premature and short sighted if not extremely dangerous for the planet considering the lack success by more acceptable(?) strategies. -Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, November 16, 2012 5:51:27 PM Subject: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/mooney-pat-et-al-2012-darken-the-sky-and-whiten-the-earth.html Mooney, Pat; Wetter, Kathy Jo; Bronson, Diana (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth. The dangers of geoengineering. In: What Next Forum (Hg.): Climate, Development and Equity. Uppsala (What next?, 3), pp. 210?237. Critical review of CE. -- 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. -- 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
