Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
Toby Svoboda You don't get it. Ethicist are not prevented from commenti ng on geoengineering options so long as they do not int erfere with the work being funded, underway or contemplated. No one here is saying that. When it comes to implemen tation no one is saying ethic ist should not comment. Just stay out of the sand box until the research is completed all the parameters are known, and stop interfe ring. - Original Message - From: Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:01:57 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Robert, Could you please point to examples of ethicists who are trying to stymie research [and] are motivated by dubious agendas? I don't know of any who meet these conditions. As Christopher and Benjamin already implied, ethicists who work on geoengineering are much less naive than you seem to suggest. If anyone is interested, I attach a pre-print version of a paper of mine--Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies?--forthcoming in the journal Ethics the Environment . In it, I address several of the points Robert raises. The possibility that geoengineering would be ethically permissible (or even obligatory) in certain near-future scenarios is one that ethicists can and do countenance. Best, On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Benjamin, was this post related to Ken’s? I don’t see the connection, but rather a reactionary and unsubstantiated insinuation that somehow “scientists” believe that “ethicists” are a problem for geoengineering. Ken tried to clarify what seems to be an ill-defined term regarding playing God. A few days ago, Ken asked a question, and rather than having the question answered, he was criticized simply for asking it (and, it seems from the subsequent discussion, that there was no disagreement on the basic point of his question anyway). doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Benjamin Hale Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:25 AM To: kcalde...@gmail.com ; rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Ya know, it’s very hard to engage this discussion. It seems pretty reactionary: any position that is any respect critical of geoengineering is somehow treated as, at best, not serious and, at worst, a threat to science. That’s a bit surprising since, as Christopher puts it, most ethicists only ever seek to open up important values discussions and assess a narrow line of argument. Sure, we’re critical, but it’s generally in an effort to make better sense of what concerns are really in play. When ethicists argue these value dimensions, methodologically it is a priority in our field to do so in a way that is reasonably careful. So, for instance, we try to avoid broad statements about how many more people will die in one instance than another. A decent place to start thinking about these problems might be to read Christopher’s book – the collection that started this whole discussion -- since there are a number of positions taken there, none of which are so black and white as the “so-called” scientists on this blog allege. In any case, if any of you think that professional ethicists right now present a problem for geoengineering, I feel fairly certain that you’ve got another thing coming as soon you seek to deploy any of these technologies. Small scale modeling is one thing; larger scale field experiments are another. When the wider public catches wind of these? Expect blowback. Big time. Sorting out the ethical dimensions of geoengineering in advance ought to be a high priority. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy and Environmental Studies University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624 ; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com Ethics, Policy Environment From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:13 AM To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley
Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
Toby, I have read your article Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies? It confirmed my assessment that ethicists are making a largely negative contribution to the debate on geoengineering. Even so, such ethicist input is worthwhile to clarify argument, in view of Benjamin Hale’s point about possible broader public views. I consider your qualified conclusion “we ought immediately to adopt some climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering” to be morally equivalent to a first aid provider saying we ought to adopt some trauma response to a spurting artery that does not involve an emergency tourniquet, against medical advice. Your email below, with its wait and see conclusion, putting geoengineering off to ‘near-future scenarios’, abets those who are opposed to immediate climate management action, typical of disdainful academic timidity. The situation is urgent. The Arctic is melting and presenting dangerous feedback risks, as seen in the recent New York super storm. Aerosol piloting is a moral imperative. Your caveated analysis, concealing the knife in your conclusion, serves to bolster the position of those who would stymie research. Aerosol measures are necessary but not sufficient. Methods to mine carbon from the air for fuel and food production are likely to be central to longer term climate sustainability. But the ethicist input that I have seen fails to engage with such a transformative agenda. Instead, it generally fails to comprehend the real cost-benefit equations for climate management, giving credence to baseless scaremongering and ignoring the emergency of the climate peril. I can well imagine negotiators at the forthcoming Doha climate conference using articles like yours to deflect the need for research. Robert Tulip From:Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, 18 November 2012 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Robert, Could you please point to examples of ethicists who are trying to stymie research [and] are motivated by dubious agendas? I don't know of any who meet these conditions. As Christopher and Benjamin already implied, ethicists who work on geoengineering are much less naive than you seem to suggest. If anyone is interested, I attach a pre-print version of a paper of mine--Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies?--forthcoming in the journal Ethics the Environment. In it, I address several of the points Robert raises. The possibility that geoengineering would be ethically permissible (or even obligatory) in certain near-future scenarios is one that ethicists can and do countenance. Best, Toby Svoboda -- Toby Svoboda Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy Fairfield University 1073 N. Benson Rd. Fairfield, CT 06824 -- 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 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] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change -
The point below is that ethicists do in fact already play an important role _inside the lab_ and _in the development of scientific research_, not just after the fact or with regard to implementation. That’s what IRBs do, that’s what professional codes are in place for, and that’s what many practical ethicists write about. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe Environment From: euggor...@comcast.net [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:31 AM To: Benjamin Hale Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; christopherpreston1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Why do you persist in ignoring what I and others say? I have said clearly there is a role for ethicists and many others when it comes to implementation of a technique in the world outside the laboratory of geoengineering technology development but it is not needed in the laboratory during early RD. Scientists exercise controls for safety etc. They do not need ethicists to tell them how to do experiments or what safety measures are needed in the laboratory. Cut it out and stop repeating the same claptrap. _ From: Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu To: euggor...@comcast.net, christopherpreston1...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:52:28 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Every major scientific organization has codes of ethics to which their practitioners and researchers must abide. Almost all major research institutions have Institutional Review Boards which are committed to ensuring that scientific research meets with basic ethical protocols. There are reams of articles on the ethics of research and on the perils of not attending to the multitudinous ethical concerns in play. Ethics is not in any respect limited to the implementation of technologies and it will not go away, no matter how much you may wish it to. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe Environment From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of euggor...@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:10 PM To: christopherpreston1...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Nobody says it is hostle. Ethics just has no role in influencing research and development of basic principles of geoengineering. As soon as you say 'course of action' and apply it to geoengineering you have lost the argument. What you are talking about is implementation and geoengineers will not decide that but will participate in discussion with others including ethicists. Give up the transparent argument. It doesn't become ethicists. _ From: Christopher Preston christopherpreston1...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:11:20 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Yesthere are activist groups set on preventing research and trying to stymie progress in understanding geoengineering. Ethicists, however, do something much differentgenerating discussion about values, uncovering the complexities about participation and just distribution of goods, looking for both moral benefits and moral costs of a proposed course of action, seeking ways to broaden the conversation. There is a much richer discussion here that we can all participate in as research into geoengineering
Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
Robert, Are you suggesting that aerosol geoengineering should be deployed now, as your tourniquet analogue seems to imply? That would be a rather controversial opinion. Note that we ought immediately to adopt some climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering is a normative claim about what we ought to do (e.g., cut our emissions substantially), not a prediction about what we will do. So the claim can be true even if you think we won't get serious about cutting emissions. Also, the fact that the research of ethicists could be abused by non-ethicists in some (unspecified) way to stymie research does not support your earlier contention that ethicist are trying to stymie research. Best, Toby Svoboda On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Tulip rtulip2...@yahoo.com.auwrote: Toby, I have read your article *Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies? *It confirmed my assessment that ethicists are making a largely negative contribution to the debate on geoengineering. Even so, such ethicist input is worthwhile to clarify argument, in view of Benjamin Hale’s point about possible broader public views.** ** ** I consider your qualified conclusion “we ought immediately to adopt some climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering” to be morally equivalent to a first aid provider saying we ought to adopt some trauma response to a spurting artery that does not involve an emergency tourniquet, against medical advice. Your email below, with its wait and see conclusion, putting geoengineering off to ‘near-future scenarios’, abets those who are opposed to immediate climate management action, typical of disdainful academic timidity. ** ** The situation is urgent. The Arctic is melting and presenting dangerous feedback risks, as seen in the recent New York super storm. Aerosol piloting is a moral imperative. Your caveated analysis, concealing the knife in your conclusion, serves to bolster the position of those who would stymie research. ** ** Aerosol measures are necessary but not sufficient. Methods to mine carbon from the air for fuel and food production are likely to be central to longer term climate sustainability. But the ethicist input that I have seen fails to engage with such a transformative agenda. Instead, it generally fails to comprehend the real cost-benefit equations for climate management, giving credence to baseless scaremongering and ignoring the emergency of the climate peril. I can well imagine negotiators at the forthcoming Doha climate conference using articles like yours to deflect the need for research. ** ** Robert Tulip ** ** ** ** *From:* Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com *To:* rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, 18 November 2012 6:01 AM *Subject:* Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library ** ** Robert, Could you please point to examples of ethicists who are trying to stymie research [and] are motivated by dubious agendas? I don't know of any who meet these conditions. As Christopher and Benjamin already implied, ethicists who work on geoengineering are much less naive than you seem to suggest. If anyone is interested, I attach a pre-print version of a paper of mine--Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies?--forthcoming in the journal *Ethics the Environment*. In it, I address several of the points Robert raises. The possibility that geoengineering would be ethically permissible (or even obligatory) in certain near-future scenarios is one that ethicists can and do countenance. Best, Toby Svoboda -- Toby Svoboda Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy Fairfield University 1073 N. Benson Rd. Fairfield, CT 06824 ** ** ** ** -- Toby Svoboda Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy Fairfield University 1073 N. Benson Rd. Fairfield, CT 06824 -- 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] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change -
Well, look, not to press, but since this seems to get under your skin, I might as well. ATT most certainly had a legal department. None of the research in which you were engaged would’ve gotten off the ground without passing through legal. The legal department, no doubt, would’ve been aware of all relevant laws, as well as any relevant political controversies. In telephone research, one can’t imagine much that would be particularly controversial, but there probably were a few things that raised fundamental questions – maybe something about the rights of one researcher to import or export findings from another lab, say. Those kinds of questions are the kinds of questions that ethicists who work in responsible research conduct raise, though they do so less with an eye toward to law and more with an eye toward what is right. I think, in other words, that it’s probably also false that ATT never grappled with challenging research ethics questions. If you never encountered an ethicist, that probably just speaks more to the cloistering of your particular job than to the reach of ethics into the laboratory. Beyond this, however, research into geoengineering is a far more complicated undertaking. Depending on the nature of the research proposed -- whether, say, through models or field experiments -- it may require further consideration of impacts on vulnerable populations, much in the same way that sociological research sometimes impacts populations, or even demographic or ethnographic research impacts populations. It may also affect sensitive ecosystems. These are the kinds of things, again, that ethicists are concerned to address, and we can either help with that task, so that research can get off the ground without trampling the rights of others, or hinder that task, so that dangerous research never sees the light of day. Sure, if you’re just fantasizing about spraying particles into the sky from the comfort of your armchair and you’re calling this “research,” then this isn’t particularly controversial. Go ahead. Have a great time researching. But if you’re actually doing something with that research – perhaps affecting people or wildlife – you’d better get your ethical ducks in a row… because as I said, there’s gonna be blowback. Peace, Ben Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe Environment From: euggor...@comcast.net [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:02 PM To: Benjamin Hale Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; christopherpreston1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Great, terrific; then there is nothing more to discuss. Thank you. Good discussion Somehow I missed it all. I never met an ethicist in a 55 year career of transformative research and development, half of it at ATT Bell Labs. It was all about providing the best and least expensive telephone and video service everywhere including at the bottom of the various oceans. The big requirement was that the telephone doesn't break when it falls off the desk or the lasers for the digital repeaters last for 25 years at 18,000 feet down. No ethicist could have taught how to do that. Fortunately my scuba gear stayed in the box and the system was retired without a single failure. In contrast the French and English systems had very early laser failures and ATT came to the rescue. I doubt they used ethicists; at least they did not admit it. -.gene _ From: Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu To: euggor...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, christopherpreston1...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:07:00 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library The point below is that ethicists do in fact already play an important role _inside the lab_ and _in the development of scientific research_, not just after the fact or with regard to implementation. That’s what IRBs do, that’s what professional codes are in place for, and that’s what many practical ethicists write about. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/
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
