[geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full
interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green
movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I
don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/

You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of
disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?

I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing
the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I
think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes
impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The
appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It
leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So
all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our
power, will just be scaled up.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Ken Caldeira]

Naomi Klein is wrong.

I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering
who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.

For most, researching  'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the
fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions.


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full
> interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green
> movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I
> don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.
>
>
> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/
>
> You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of
> disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?
>
> I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing
> the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I
> think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes
> impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The
> appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It
> leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So
> all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our
> power, will just be scaled up.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Andrew Revkin]

All the points Andrew made below about geo-engineering were made in recent
years about adaptation (some called it immoral to even talk of adaptation).

The reality, of course, is that the epic, multi-generational path from a
fossil-fueled civilization to whatever comes next is implicitly an
all-of-the above task. John Holdren has distilled it pretty well with
"mitigation, adaptation, suffering" and that still works if you include
research on geo-engineering under "mitigation" (in other words, mitigating
warming along with emissions).


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> Naomi Klein is wrong.
>
> I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering
> who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.
>
> For most, researching  'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the
> fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions.
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full
>> interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green
>> movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I
>> don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.
>>
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/
>>
>> You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of
>> disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?
>>
>> I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing
>> the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I
>> think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes
>> impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The
>> appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It
>> leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So
>> all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our
>> power, will just be scaled up.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Keith, David]

"It's hard not to suspect that the means and
ends have been reversed, that Klein knows the political
outcome she favors and has simply latched onto
the climate threat as a way to advance it."

Enclosed are two pages from my forthcoming book that address some of Klein's 
points.

David

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:28 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate 
change deniers - Salon.com


Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full interview 
is very good. It basically describes why I left the green movement - they're 
all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I don't agree with her 
conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/

You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of disaster 
capitalism. Isn't geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?

I certainly think it's the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing the 
hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that's the appeal of it. I think 
we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes impossible 
to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The appeal of 
geoengineering is that it doesn't threaten our worldview. It leaves us in a 
dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So all the stories 
that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our power, will just be 
scaled up.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Two pages from Keith, A case for geo.pdf
Description: Two pages from Keith, A case for geo.pdf

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Lou Grinzo]

Klein never said that it was the researchers avoiding the hard work.  And 
in that, I agree with her completely.  Politicians, heads of large 
corporations and other concentrations of power are nearly all playing a 
game of "kick the can down the street".  Eventually we'll reach a point 
where whoever is in power when things hit the fan will have to reach for 
whatever solution is available, and geoengineering will be at the top of 
the list.  This is why I think it's absolutely critical that we do as much 
research into geo. technologies as possible before there's a political 
incentive for people in government to "do something about it".  I want 
those decisions to be as well informed as possible.

I also see a problem at the "retail activist" level, with all the members 
of one green group or another who are adamant that we simply can't tell 
newcomers how serious climate change is out of fear we'll scare them away 
from activism.  I've heard this dozens of times both locally as well as 
around the US from people who should be doing vigorous outreach to 
mainstream consumers and voters.  The truly frightening part is that the 
people saying this almost never understand how urgent the situation is; 
many of them still cling to the notion that we can "fix" CC in just a few 
years by recycling, changing our light bulbs, and driving a hybrid.  I 
honestly don't know how much blame the green groups should get for that, 
i.e. for not educating their own members, and how much is simply human 
psychology at work.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
> Naomi Klein is wrong.
>
> I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering 
> who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.
>
> For most, researching  'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the 
> fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions.
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science 
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu 
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full 
>> interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green 
>> movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I 
>> don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering. 
>>
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/
>>
>> You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of 
>> disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?
>>
>> I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing 
>> the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I 
>> think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes 
>> impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The 
>> appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It 
>> leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So 
>> all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our 
>> power, will just be scaled up.
>>  
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[David Lewis]

Ken Caldeira writes, plausibly, that: "for most, researching 
 'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the fact that others are 
unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions".  NPR aired an 
interview with David Keith a month ago:  Keith spoke of something else:  "*
we're* *hiding a genuine*, *and I think not-wrong joy* in the fact that we 
understand something about the world that potentially gives us the ability 
to do these things".  

I wonder if a researcher, in despair after finding patients would not 
follow his direction and be cured, could find joy after discovering the 
potential of palliative care.

Types like Klein might have a better chance at understanding what is going 
on if people didn't "hide" anything.  

The NPR webpage describing the David Keith interview is 
*here
*

An NPR transcript of the interview is 
*here
* 

 
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:04:31 AM UTC-7, David Keith wrote:
>
>  “It’s hard not to suspect that the means and
>
> ends have been reversed, that Klein knows the political
>
> outcome she favors and has simply latched onto
>
> the climate threat as a way to advance it.”
>
>  
>
>
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Charles H. Greene]

Hi Andy:

Naomi Klein had a few interesting points, but Joe Romm certainly brought the 
discussion to a much deeper level. With regard to geoengineering, Naomi Klein 
made the same error displayed by many who have not run the numbers. It is not a 
matter of geoengineering to avoid reducing emissions; it's that we have to 
reduce emissions as rapidly as we can AND remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Even 
if we drop emissions to zero overnight, we would barely be able to stabilize 
CO2 concentration at 350 ppm and avoid a temperature increase of less than 2 
degrees by century's end.

Regards,
Chuck


On Sep 10, 2013, at 5:20 AM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

All the points Andrew made below about geo-engineering were made in recent 
years about adaptation (some called it immoral to even talk of adaptation).

The reality, of course, is that the epic, multi-generational path from a 
fossil-fueled civilization to whatever comes next is implicitly an all-of-the 
above task. John Holdren has distilled it pretty well with "mitigation, 
adaptation, suffering" and that still works if you include research on 
geo-engineering under "mitigation" (in other words, mitigating warming along 
with emissions).


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Ken Caldeira 
mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> wrote:
Naomi Klein is wrong.

I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering who 
see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.

For most, researching  'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the fact 
that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions.


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full interview 
is very good. It basically describes why I left the green movement - they're 
all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I don't agree with her 
conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/

You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of disaster 
capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?

I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing the 
hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I think 
we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes impossible 
to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The appeal of 
geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It leaves us in a 
dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So all the stories 
that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our power, will just be 
scaled up.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
_

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Bill Stahl]

Lou,
your point about the 'retail activist' problem relates to a recent thread 
about whether discussing geoengineering made focus groups more willing to 
believe in climate change. Portraying the situation as hopeless induces 
brain freeze, as in 'this is too depressing to think about'. But offering 
even a glimmer of optimism in the form of geoengineering can offer a 
foothold to start engaging with climate activism in some form - perhaps by 
a background interest in long-range prospects for CDR, with a foreground 
resolve to fight those wicked SRM types-  whatever.  It's often said that 
people have evolved to respond to immediate threats but not to a distant & 
vague threat like climate change, but sometimes it's the other way around. 
 A grand apocalyptic scenario grips the imagination in a way that distracts 
from practical action in the here-and-now. Relieved from the prospect of 
utter doom, some people will of course go straight to 'hack the sky and 
forget the rest' but others will be freed to be curious and active. Knowing 
that in the last resort there is something drastic to be done (even if you 
don't like the method) suggests that the small local action may not be 
pointless after all.

re: Romm's savage response to Klein
He dissects her method well, in way that is similar to David Keith's 
extract from his upcoming book - a compliment that would displease Romm, I 
assume :-)  I think he's committed some of Klein's sins himself now and 
again (for example on geoengineering, or in anything to do with Roger 
Pielke) but hats off to him this time. As he says, "Whatever you are trying 
to accomplish, your main obstacle is not other people trying to accomplish 
the same thing in different ways"

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:50:20 AM UTC-6, Lou Grinzo wrote:
>
> Klein never said that it was the researchers avoiding the hard work.  And 
> in that, I agree with her completely.  Politicians, heads of large 
> corporations and other concentrations of power are nearly all playing a 
> game of "kick the can down the street".  Eventually we'll reach a point 
> where whoever is in power when things hit the fan will have to reach for 
> whatever solution is available, and geoengineering will be at the top of 
> the list.  This is why I think it's absolutely critical that we do as much 
> research into geo. technologies as possible before there's a political 
> incentive for people in government to "do something about it".  I want 
> those decisions to be as well informed as possible.
>
> I also see a problem at the "retail activist" level, with all the members 
> of one green group or another who are adamant that we simply can't tell 
> newcomers how serious climate change is out of fear we'll scare them away 
> from activism.  I've heard this dozens of times both locally as well as 
> around the US from people who should be doing vigorous outreach to 
> mainstream consumers and voters.  The truly frightening part is that the 
> people saying this almost never understand how urgent the situation is; 
> many of them still cling to the notion that we can "fix" CC in just a few 
> years by recycling, changing our light bulbs, and driving a hybrid.  I 
> honestly don't know how much blame the green groups should get for that, 
> i.e. for not educating their own members, and how much is simply human 
> psychology at work.
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>>
>> Naomi Klein is wrong.
>>
>> I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering 
>> who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.
>>
>> For most, researching  'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at 
>> the fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing 
>> emissions.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution for Science 
>> Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>>> Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full 
>>> interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green 
>>> movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I 
>>> don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering. 
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/
>>>
>>> You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of 
>>> disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?
>>>
>>> I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid 
>>> doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of 
>>> it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change 
>>> becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people wi