[geo] Re: Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview

[David Lewis]

The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more 
clearly in this interview.   

When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American 
Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the 
problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the 
planet, Clive said:  

"They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of 
preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the problem IS 
the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change*."

And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to 
civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are 
concerned about are one thing, i.e. "*scientific risks*" whereas Clive sees 
an additional factor, which he calls "*political* risks", he says this: 
 [edited to make my point clear]

"*the danger that geoengineering becomes...  ...a way of protecting the 
political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary"*
*
*
A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and 
political relationships as they exist* to fail* to cope with climate change 
in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make it more 
likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer term. 
Another way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to realize 
there is no way forward without a fundamental reordering of our political 
and economic relationships with each other, which is a necessary precursor 
to fundamental change.  

In "Green" philosophy, this lines up with those who say anything that 
allows this civilization to continue, such as discovering how to mitigate 
acid rain back in the 1980s for instance, is not the good thing it appears 
on the surface, because it merely allows the civilization to exist a bit 
longer which allows it to expand to a larger size, enabling it to do more 
damage to the planetary life support system, allowing it to take more of 
the rest of life on Earth with it as and when it collapses. 
 Geoengineering, even removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in this line of 
thought, is therefore something to be opposed.  

If this is the root of Clive's "thought", it would throw some light on why 
he has taken the position in his Nature 
piece,
 
i.e. "no, we should not do the research" [into geoengineering].  

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:12:10 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote:
>
> http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13653
>
> Democracy Now!/  MON MAY 20, 2013/  Geoengineering: Can We Save the Planet 
> by Messing with Nature? 
>
Amy Goodman interviews Clive Hamilton with some recorded clips of Shiva, 
Dyer, Keith, etc.  
 

>
>

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Re: Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview

[Lou Grinzo]

Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts on 
these points?  Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to some 
wildly inaccurate conclusions.

I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system in 
some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing 
with CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large 
corporations, [3] because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by 
attempting geoengineering -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about 
what to do, when, how, etc. -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and 
should instead focus on fixing the political system and making the swiftest 
possible cuts in GHG emissions.

I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published work 
and interviews, it's one possible interpretation.  And given his fairly 
high and (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to find out 
how he views this incredibly messy situation.

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote:
>
> The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more 
> clearly in this interview.   
>
> When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American 
> Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the 
> problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the 
> planet, Clive said:  
>
> "They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of 
> preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the problem 
> IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change
> *."
>
> And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to 
> civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are 
> concerned about are one thing, i.e. "*scientific risks*" whereas Clive 
> sees an additional factor, which he calls "*political* risks", he says 
> this:  [edited to make my point clear]
>
> "*the danger that geoengineering becomes...  ...a way of protecting the 
> political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary"
> *
> *
> *
> A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and 
> political relationships as they exist* to fail* to cope with climate 
> change in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make 
> it more likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer 
> term. Another way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to 
> realize there is no way forward without a fundamental reordering of our 
> political and economic relationships with each other, which is a necessary 
> precursor to fundamental change.  
>
> In "Green" philosophy, this lines up with those who say anything that 
> allows this civilization to continue, such as discovering how to mitigate 
> acid rain back in the 1980s for instance, is not the good thing it appears 
> on the surface, because it merely allows the civilization to exist a bit 
> longer which allows it to expand to a larger size, enabling it to do more 
> damage to the planetary life support system, allowing it to take more of 
> the rest of life on Earth with it as and when it collapses. 
>  Geoengineering, even removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in this line of 
> thought, is therefore something to be opposed.  
>
> If this is the root of Clive's "thought", it would throw some light on why 
> he has taken the position in his Nature 
> piece,
>  
> i.e. "no, we should not do the research" [into geoengineering].  
>
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:12:10 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote:
>>
>> http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13653
>>
>> Democracy Now!/  MON MAY 20, 2013/  Geoengineering: Can We Save the 
>> Planet by Messing with Nature? 
>>
> Amy Goodman interviews Clive Hamilton with some recorded clips of Shiva, 
> Dyer, Keith, etc.  
>  
>
>>
>>

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Re: Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview

[David Lewis]

The subhead under the title of Clive's *Nature* 
piece"
*No we should not just at least do the research*" accuses anyone who takes 
the position that geoengineering research should be undertaken of not 
carefully thinking through what they are advocating.  I.e. it states:  "the 
idea of applying geoengineering research to mitigate climate change has not 
been thought through".  So Paul 
Crutzen, 
to take an example of a mere Nobel prize winner who at one point in his 
career was the most cited author in the Geosciences, who might happen to 
read Clive's piece, would have to believe Clive means he has not "thought 
through" what he is advocating.  

According to Clive in his Nature piece, anyone who believes "we should at 
least do the research" has a "naive understanding of the world" that is out 
of touch with "reality".  That would be people like Ken Caldeira, or Alan 
Robock:  Clive is saying these researchers are not in touch with "reality".

According to Dr. Rapley, Clive actually feels "misunderstood".  

When you set yourself up as the guy who has thought things through as 
opposed to everyone else who hasn't, you really should have a bit more than 
Clive seems to be offering.  People will be looking for something original 
and coherent.   


On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:33:50 AM UTC-7, Lou Grinzo wrote:
>
> Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts on 
> these points?  Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to some 
> wildly inaccurate conclusions.
>
> I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system in 
> some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing 
> with CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large 
> corporations, [3] because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by 
> attempting geoengineering -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about 
> what to do, when, how, etc. -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and 
> should instead focus on fixing the political system and making the swiftest 
> possible cuts in GHG emissions.
>
> I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published work 
> and interviews, it's one possible interpretation.  And given his fairly 
> high and (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to find out 
> how he views this incredibly messy situation.
>
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote:
>>
>> The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more 
>> clearly in this interview.   
>>
>> When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American 
>> Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the 
>> problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the 
>> planet, Clive said:  
>>
>> "They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of 
>> preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the problem 
>> IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change
>> *."
>>
>> And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to 
>> civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are 
>> concerned about are one thing, i.e. "*scientific risks*" whereas Clive 
>> sees an additional factor, which he calls "*political* risks", he says 
>> this:  [edited to make my point clear]
>>
>> "*the danger that geoengineering becomes...  ...a way of protecting the 
>> political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary"
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and 
>> political relationships as they exist* to fail* to cope with climate 
>> change in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make 
>> it more likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer 
>> term. Another way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to 
>> realize there is no way forward without a fundamental reordering of our 
>> political and economic relationships with each other, which is a necessary 
>> precursor to fundamental change.  
>>
>> In "Green" philosophy, this lines up with those who say anything that 
>> allows this civilization to continue, such as discovering how to mitigate 
>> acid rain back in the 1980s for instance, is not the good thing it appears 
>> on the surface, because it merely allows the civilization to exist a bit 
>> longer which allows it to expand to a larger size, enabling it to do more 
>> damage to the planetary life support system, allowing it to take more of 
>> the rest of life on Earth with it as and when it collapses. 
>>  Geoengineering, even removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in this line of 
>> thought, is therefore something to be opposed.  
>>
>> If this is the root of Clive's "thought", it would throw some l

Re: [geo] Re: Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview

[Fred Zimmerman]

When I was a magazine editor I wrote many, many captions.  Bear in mind
that authors are often not responsible for the exact phrasing of headlines
and subheads. Typically this is done by magazine staff as they need to make
sure the caption fits the space available.  Magazine editors also have a
somewhat different agenda than authors: they may have a somewhat keener
interest in making the subhead "punchy" as opposed to "descriptively exact".


---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, David Lewis wrote:

> The subhead under the title of Clive's *Nature* 
> piece"
> *No we should not just at least do the research*" accuses anyone who
> takes the position that geoengineering research should be undertaken of not
> carefully thinking through what they are advocating.  I.e. it states:  "the
> idea of applying geoengineering research to mitigate climate change has not
> been thought through".  So Paul 
> Crutzen,
> to take an example of a mere Nobel prize winner who at one point in his
> career was the most cited author in the Geosciences, who might happen to
> read Clive's piece, would have to believe Clive means he has not "thought
> through" what he is advocating.
>
> According to Clive in his Nature piece, anyone who believes "we should at
> least do the research" has a "naive understanding of the world" that is out
> of touch with "reality".  That would be people like Ken Caldeira, or Alan
> Robock:  Clive is saying these researchers are not in touch with "reality".
>
> According to Dr. Rapley, Clive actually feels "misunderstood".
>
> When you set yourself up as the guy who has thought things through as
> opposed to everyone else who hasn't, you really should have a bit more than
> Clive seems to be offering.  People will be looking for something original
> and coherent.
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:33:50 AM UTC-7, Lou Grinzo wrote:
>>
>> Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts
>> on these points?  Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to
>> some wildly inaccurate conclusions.
>>
>> I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system in
>> some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing
>> with CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large
>> corporations, [3] because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by
>> attempting geoengineering -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about
>> what to do, when, how, etc. -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and
>> should instead focus on fixing the political system and making the swiftest
>> possible cuts in GHG emissions.
>>
>> I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published work
>> and interviews, it's one possible interpretation.  And given his fairly
>> high and (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to find out
>> how he views this incredibly messy situation.
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>> The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more
>>> clearly in this interview.
>>>
>>> When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American
>>> Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the
>>> problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the
>>> planet, Clive said:
>>>
>>> "They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of
>>> preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the
>>> problem IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have
>>> to change*."
>>>
>>> And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to
>>> civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are
>>> concerned about are one thing, i.e. "*scientific risks*" whereas Clive
>>> sees an additional factor, which he calls "*political* risks", he says
>>> this:  [edited to make my point clear]
>>>
>>> "*the danger that geoengineering becomes...  ...a way of protecting the
>>> political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary"
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and
>>> political relationships as they exist* to fail* to cope with climate
>>> change in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make
>>> it more likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer
>>> term. Another way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to
>>> realize there is no way forward without a fundamental reordering of our
>>> political and economic relationships with each other, which is a necessary
>>> precursor to fundamental change.
>>>
>>> In "Green" ph

Re: [geo] Re: Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview

[Gregory Benford]

Hamilton misses an essential element: Much economic history shows that
broad, demand-driven commodities cannot be suppressed by regulation.
Blaming evil corporations for supplying fossil fuels (for combustion,
plastics, etc) is childish. Suppressing the second largest industry in the
world (#1 is agriculture) is impossible. Modifying technologies is slow
work. Having a backup plan for an uncertain future is prudent. Research
will either be done carefully now or in the panic to come as CO2 increases.
In 2030 I'll bet Hamilton will wish he hadn't taken this absurd position .

Gregory Benford

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Fred Zimmerman
wrote:

> When I was a magazine editor I wrote many, many captions.  Bear in mind
> that authors are often not responsible for the exact phrasing of headlines
> and subheads. Typically this is done by magazine staff as they need to make
> sure the caption fits the space available.  Magazine editors also have a
> somewhat different agenda than authors: they may have a somewhat keener
> interest in making the subhead "punchy" as opposed to "descriptively exact".
>
>
> ---
> Fred Zimmerman
> Geoengineering IT!
> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, David Lewis wrote:
>
>> The subhead under the title of Clive's *Nature* 
>> piece"
>> *No we should not just at least do the research*" accuses anyone who
>> takes the position that geoengineering research should be undertaken of not
>> carefully thinking through what they are advocating.  I.e. it states:  "the
>> idea of applying geoengineering research to mitigate climate change has not
>> been thought through".  So Paul 
>> Crutzen,
>> to take an example of a mere Nobel prize winner who at one point in his
>> career was the most cited author in the Geosciences, who might happen to
>> read Clive's piece, would have to believe Clive means he has not "thought
>> through" what he is advocating.
>>
>> According to Clive in his Nature piece, anyone who believes "we should at
>> least do the research" has a "naive understanding of the world" that is out
>> of touch with "reality".  That would be people like Ken Caldeira, or Alan
>> Robock:  Clive is saying these researchers are not in touch with "reality".
>>
>> According to Dr. Rapley, Clive actually feels "misunderstood".
>>
>> When you set yourself up as the guy who has thought things through as
>> opposed to everyone else who hasn't, you really should have a bit more than
>> Clive seems to be offering.  People will be looking for something original
>> and coherent.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:33:50 AM UTC-7, Lou Grinzo wrote:
>>>
>>> Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts
>>> on these points?  Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to
>>> some wildly inaccurate conclusions.
>>>
>>> I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system
>>> in some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing
>>> with CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large
>>> corporations, [3] because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by
>>> attempting geoengineering -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about
>>> what to do, when, how, etc. -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and
>>> should instead focus on fixing the political system and making the swiftest
>>> possible cuts in GHG emissions.
>>>
>>> I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published
>>> work and interviews, it's one possible interpretation.  And given his
>>> fairly high and (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to
>>> find out how he views this incredibly messy situation.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote:

 The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more
 clearly in this interview.

 When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American
 Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the
 problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the
 planet, Clive said:

 "They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of
 preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the
 problem IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have
 to change*."

 And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to
 civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are
 concerned about are one thing, i.e. "*scientific risks*" whereas Clive
 sees an additional factor, which he calls "*political* risks", he says
 this:  [edited to make my point clear]

 "*the dan