Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Tom Wigley]

Greg,

Thanks for this addition. My carbon cycle model has a convolution model
for the ocean. This does have a long tail, but it is not as large as in 
the papers you cite. So, if these studies are correct, and I do believe 
they are, then my results are indeed optimistic.


The main point is that we cannot get back to 350 ppm by mitigation 
alone. There are still many who think we can, and my simple sums were

presented as a reality check for those people. As your papers and the
others you cite, and papers cited in these, show, this is not new news.

Tom.

+

On 10/30/2013 4:02 PM, Greg Rau wrote:

Tom,
Your CO2 trajectory would seem overly optimistic unless I'm misreading
Archer's treatment:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/TXVr5xrStR8vCEuTmECx/full/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206

Indeed, we can't get to 350 ppm any time soon with anthro emissions
reduction alone. That's why it's worth considering more proactive
measures, e.g., attached and argued here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1522.2.full

not to mention broached in AR5 and elsewhere. A daunting task to be
sure, but trying would seem better than the alternative.

One piece of encouragement - atmospheric CO2 does intra-annually decline
at most latitudes by as much as 16 ppm via natural air capture, and this
uptake is increasing*. So we are not starting with zero CDR - how tough
would it be to safely enhance/accelerate this uptake? Nor as I argue, do
we need to necessarily enhance air capture.  We can achieve the same
effect by reducing the leakiness of Nature's carbon storage, the largest
emitter on the planet by far.

*
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1085.full?sid=4adfc7d3-e42f-46e4-9f5b-3507b927672e


Greg


*From:* Tom Wigley 
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 12:19 AM
    *Subject:* Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA
ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

Dear all,

Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible
unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the
atmosphere.

Some simple calculations are attached.

Tom.

=

On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
 > List and Brian:
 >
 >I just noted a mis-statement.  See below.
 >
 >
 > On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson
mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>
 > <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net
<mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>>> wrote:
 >
 >> Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my
 >> yesterday’s response to you
 >>
 >> BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like
 >> methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are
 >> irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you
need
 >> methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. /*
 >>>
 >> *[RWL1:  Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see
 >> below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.  Brian is NOT
 >> arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so.  He is arguing for
 >> increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable
 >> at best - given the strong warming potential of increased
atmospheric
 >> carbon.*
 >
 >RWL:  The last word was supposed to be “moisture”  - NOT “carbon”.
 >  Apologies.  I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”.
 >
 > Ron
 >
 >   
 >
 > --
 > 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: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
<mailto: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

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

Tom and list:

   1.  I have no disagreement with any of your computations.  The question of 
“irreversibility” in the absence of CDR is well established.This note is to 
add CDR to your analysis, and address your helpful "unless”.  In addition to 
your program, I have tried the following 50 year 100 ppm total in a simple 
program at David Archer’s website.  A paper by Boucher etal given in AR5, 
chapter 12 talks of a very similar scenario.  (Apologies for lack of citations 
- I am in a rush today).

2.   I hope we all agree that there is a Technical (not necessarily 
Economic ) potential for CDR to achieve the (roughly) 400 Gt C removal  (half 
coming out of the ocean).  Over 50 years this requires an average of 8 Gt C/yr 
- very close to an annual 1% per year.  We all know 8 Gt C/yr is huge, but few 
would say that 1% change per year is huge.  

   3.   Of course we have to also drop fossil resources and land use changes by 
an even larger annual percentage, but renewables have been growing by a much 
larger percentage annually.  There is also a huge untapped potential for energy 
efficiency  (that can pay for the needed CDR).   We also should consider (but I 
haven’t) the externality costs of the fossil resources.  I feel we will save 
money by going to CDR.  This is NOT a financially burdensome scenario I propose.

4.  In my view of the needed 8Gt C/yr, I assign 2 to afforestation. so 
(over 50 years) we add 100 Gt C to the roughly 500 Gt C of standing biomass.  I 
believe this number is assumed by Jim Hansen.  I don’t believe he attributes 
any thing new to the roughly 1500 Gt C of soil carbon  (roots, microbes, fungi, 
etc).  I would add 100 Gt C there as well - now having gotten half way to the 
needed 400 Gt C transfer of atmospheric and ocean carbon to the biosphere.

   5.   The 4 Gt C/yr remainder must come from 8 to 10 other CDR approaches.  
My knowledge base is only in the biochar area, which I believe (hope I am wrong 
- that there is a better) is the cheapest, so I will give only the biochar 
argument.  I make a similar (not the same) assumption as for afforestation - 
that a tonne of C in char placed in soil will provide an additional tonne C of 
out-yr sequestration benefits.  Unlike the above argument for afforestation, 
which only assumed new soil carbon, here I am assuming that but also a new 
additional out-year above ground biomass C.  So this is perhaps 1 Gt C added 
above and below ground with an assumption of 2 Gt C/yr of directly-applied 
biochar  (by chance the same number as for afforestation).

   6.  The standard reference for biochar’s maximum future contribution is an 
article by Wolff, Amonette, etal - with (at about 1 Gt C/yr) half of my needed 
2 Gt C/yr total.  They assumed there was no increase in out-year carbon 
capture.   They also stated that they had made only conservative assumptions; 
they mostly used ag “wastes”.  The contributions of woody biomass and 
“plantations” were minimal.  They assumed no perennial woody species 
productivity improvement seen for the last century in ag species.  Later 
calculations by others of land use attributed land use for both ag and char 
purposes to the char column alone.  The most promising source of biomass and 
land I have seen since their paper is agave and similar plants that capture CO2 
mainly at night (and much higher water use efficiency) in the “CAM”  (not C3  
or C4) form of photosynthesis.

   7.  I recognize this is not proof of anything, but doubling a conservative 
analysis leading to 1 Gt C/yr does not seem extreme.  Authors such as Tim 
Lenton and Johannes Lehmann have given annual sequestration biochar numbers 
many times larger than my assumed placement of 2 Gt C/yr.

   8.   So now to address Tom W’s question of “cheap”.This is not the place 
for a full dialog on that, but I think biochar purchase (or local production) 
can be made for about $100/t char  ($120/t C or $35/t CO2).  If twice that, I 
believe it would still be cheap enough.  The reason for this optimism is that 
biochar provides energy and soil improvement benefits that allow the char 
production costs to be spread 3 ways - not only for sequestration.  One can buy 
char (produced badly and probably illegally) for as little as $100/t today in 
some places.

   9.   Is there enough land?  I say plenty given the land (2 Gha?) we have 
ruined over the last several hundred years and arid land (3 Gha?) which the 
“CAM” photosynthesis approach can hopefully turn productive.  To get 2 Gt C/yr 
from just 1 Gha of land requires only 2 t C/ha-yr  (same as 200 gms C/sqm-yr).  
Roughly half the carbon in biomass can be turned to char (much of the remainder 
being available as carbon neutral energy to back up solar and wind).  So we 
need an NPP of only 0.4 kg C/sqm-yr (or 4 t C/ha-yr) - just about what we are 
now doing in a global average sense  (using 60 Gt C/yr/13 Gha).  In many places 
we do ten times better today.

  10.  I am not claimin

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Fulkerson, William]

Dear Tom:
I agree 350ppm(V) is likely an impossible mark, but stopping at a
concentration equivalent to a two degree limit this century is not.

See, for example, the Global Environmental Assessment (GEA) published last
year by IIASA. It defines some 41 pathways that would work to stay below 2
degrees.  Further, these pathways are compatible with achieving three
other goals:achieving global energy security, assuring universal access to
clean cooking  fuels and electricity for the poor, and avoiding pollution
and other environmental damage from the use of energy. The Global Energy
Assessment is available for free at
GlobalEnvironmentalAssessment.org.  It is in hard copy from Cambridge
University Press.
The best,
Bill Fulkerson
1-865-680-0937
wf...@utk.edu
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
The University of Tennessee


On 10/30/13 3:19 AM, "Tom Wigley"  wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible
>unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the
>atmosphere.
>
>Some simple calculations are attached.
>
>Tom.
>
>=
>
>On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>> List and Brian:
>>
>> I just noted a mis-statement.  See below.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson > > wrote:
>>
>>> Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my
>>> yesterday¹s response to you
>>>
>>> BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like
>>> methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are
>>> irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need
>>> methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. /*

>>> *[RWL1:   Brian¹s ³that² refers to my just previous statement (see
>>> below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.   Brian is NOT
>>> arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so.  He is arguing for
>>> increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable
>>> at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric
>>> carbon.*
>>
>> RWL:   The last word was supposed to be ³moisture²  - NOT ³carbon².
>>   Apologies.  I am too used to following ³atmospheric² with ³carbon².
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.


-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Fulkerson, William]

Dear Tom:
I agree that returning to 350 ppm(v) would be very difficult, but what is
not out of reach is stopping anthropogenic warming at less than 2 degrees
Kelvin.  The 2012 Global Environmental Assessment managed by IIASA found
41 energy pathways for the world that met this goal.  All 41 also met the
goals of energy security, of universal access to clean cooking fuels and
electricity for the poor, and of controlling environmental damage from
energy use.
GEA is available for free, all 1865 pages are on the web at
GlobalEnergyAssessment.org
It was published by Cambridge University Press.

I think this enormous, data rich and comprehensive analysis could provide
a roadmap for each nation and for the world. Only politics stand in the
way.
The best,
Bill
1-865-680-0937
wf...@utk.edu

On 10/30/13 3:19 AM, "Tom Wigley"  wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible
>unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the
>atmosphere.
>
>Some simple calculations are attached.
>
>Tom.
>
>=
>
>On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>> List and Brian:
>>
>> I just noted a mis-statement.  See below.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson > > wrote:
>>
>>> Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my
>>> yesterday¹s response to you
>>>
>>> BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like
>>> methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are
>>> irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need
>>> methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. /*

>>> *[RWL1:   Brian¹s ³that² refers to my just previous statement (see
>>> below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.   Brian is NOT
>>> arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so.  He is arguing for
>>> increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable
>>> at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric
>>> carbon.*
>>
>> RWL:   The last word was supposed to be ³moisture²  - NOT ³carbon².
>>   Apologies.  I am too used to following ³atmospheric² with ³carbon².
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.


-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Stephen Salter]

Brian

Water vapour certainly acts like a powerful green house gas, but it also 
condenses in contact with a cool sea surface just as fast as it 
evaporates from a warm one.  Shame that this seems to be harder for CO2 
but maybe not quite impossible from a high structure at the south pole.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering 
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs


On 30/10/2013 11:12, Brian Cartwright wrote:

To Ron,

This thread is getting unwieldy but let me clarify what I was saying 
on this point.


Warming deniers sometimes bring up the fact that water vapor is a more 
significant greenhouse gas than CO2, because there is more of it -- up 
to 50,000 ppm - while scientists have generally treated it as if it 
moves in lockstep with CO2. But does it? Everyone's observed 
evaporative cooling effects such as when hot ground breathes moisture 
out after a shower. That is significant for large aridified areas of 
the earth. But then that water vapor goes into the atmosphere; will it 
then act as a greenhouse gas? That depends on whether it is in tiny 
droplets of haze or if it is coalesced into denser clouds, then 
precipitates, /resulting in more cooling. /What causes vapor to 
coalesce? The nucleation happens around various materials, but many of 
these nuclei turn out to be bacteria from forest leaves and other 
vegetative sources, which can combine in the upper atmosphere with ice 
crystals.


So please, everybody, leave room for biology to help solve climate 
problems. It's a science too, you know.


Brian

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:18:18 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote:

List and Brian:

   I just noted a mis-statement.  See below.


On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson
> wrote:


Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my
yesterday’s response to you

BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops
like methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2
levels are irreversible; my point is about warming from all
causes, and you need methods of cooling that are much quicker
than 50 years. /*
*[RWL1:   Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement
(see below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.   Brian is
NOT arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so.  He is arguing
for increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems
questionable at best - given the strong warming potential of
increased atmospheric carbon.*


   RWL:   The last word was supposed to be “moisture”  - NOT
“carbon”.  Apologies.  I am too used to following “atmospheric”
with “carbon”.

Ron

  

--
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.



--

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Brian Cartwright]

To Ron,

This thread is getting unwieldy but let me clarify what I was saying on 
this point.

Warming deniers sometimes bring up the fact that water vapor is a more 
significant greenhouse gas than CO2, because there is more of it -- up to 
50,000 ppm - while scientists have generally treated it as if it moves in 
lockstep with CO2. But does it? Everyone's observed evaporative cooling 
effects such as when hot ground breathes moisture out after a shower. That 
is significant for large aridified areas of the earth. But then that water 
vapor goes into the atmosphere; will it then act as a greenhouse gas? That 
depends on whether it is in tiny droplets of haze or if it is coalesced 
into denser clouds, then precipitates, *resulting in more cooling. *What 
causes vapor to coalesce? The nucleation happens around various materials, 
but many of these nuclei turn out to be bacteria from forest leaves and 
other vegetative sources, which can combine in the upper atmosphere with 
ice crystals.

So please, everybody, leave room for biology to help solve climate 
problems. It's a science too, you know.

Brian 

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:18:18 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote:
>
> List and Brian:
>
>I just noted a mis-statement.  See below.
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson 
> > 
> wrote:
>
> Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s 
> response to you
>
> BC1:*But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like 
> methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are 
> irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need 
> methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years.  * 
>
> *[RWL1:   Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see 
> below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.   Brian is NOT arguing 
> for SRM here, although it may seem so.  He is arguing for increased latent 
> heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the 
> strong warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon.*
>
>
>RWL:   The last word was supposed to be “moisture”  - NOT “carbon”. 
>  Apologies.  I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”.
>
> Ron
>
>   
>
>

-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

List and Brian:

   I just noted a mis-statement.  See below.


On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson  wrote:

> Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s 
> response to you
> 
> BC1:But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane 
> deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my 
> point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that 
> are much quicker than 50 years.   
> [RWL1:   Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see below) 
> that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.   Brian is NOT arguing for SRM 
> here, although it may seem so.  He is arguing for increased latent heat 
> transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong 
> warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon.

   RWL:   The last word was supposed to be “moisture”  - NOT “carbon”.  
Apologies.  I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”.

Ron

  

-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

Brian (cc list)  This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s 
response to you

BC1:But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane 
deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my 
point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that 
are much quicker than 50 years.   
[RWL1:   Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see below) 
that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years.   Brian is NOT arguing for SRM here, 
although it may seem so.  He is arguing for increased latent heat transfer - an 
approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong warming potential 
of increased atmospheric carbon.
 I do not know enough on either SRM or the latent-heat-transfer topic to 
argue on either point.  I will say that I think there is good enough literature 
around to say that getting back to 350 ppm in 50 years would be thought by most 
analysts to be virtually miraculous.
I am all for faster means of cooling in addition to  (not instead of)  
removing the CO2.  But I cannot yet endorse either SRM or the still-unanalyzed 
hypothetical cooling attributed to latent het transfer.

BC2:  I'm just looking for biochar to be presented as a well-engineered 
component of the re-establishment of healthy carbon-rich soils worldwide. The 
difference is in the message presented and the democratic potential of 
empowering people to reverse climate change. If that empowering message doesn't 
get received then there is the potential to use climate crisis to force 
top-down solutions which tend to be heavy-handed. Bad biochar is possible in 
such circumstances.
[RWL2:   I agree with all.  Any new approach can be done badly.  It can 
also be done well.  I see enough advantages to biochar users that the latter 
seems more likely.  The argument it WILL be done badly is the only complaint 
that BFW and Dr. Shiva seem to be making - that is not science.  I repeat my 
claim that anyone finding a bad result from biochar deserves what they got.]

BC-last:  We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're 
putting the cart before the horse.
>[RWL7:   Sorry,  I am not understanding this.   What is the cart and what 
> is the horse?  
> Soil carbon is the cart. Biochar is one of the team of horses that can serve 
> to build it up, and the others are good agricultural and forestry practices 
> that bring countless ecological benefits. There needs to be a great deal of 
> public discourse and education to show these potential benefits and to show 
> how depletion of soil carbon had a great deal to do with CO2 levels being 
> where they are. That's why we need to talk about soil carbon and not just 
> biochar.
> 
> By the way, these benefits are directly threatened by the kind of 
> agricultural practices that support GMOs. Vandana Shiva has led a principled 
> fight against native seeds being displaced by GM seeds. Robust biodiversity 
> means a healthy web of microbes and other organisms in the soil. But if you 
> have a vulnerable GM seed, those organisms and all their carbon-based food 
> chain don't belong.
> 
> To put it more simply, healthy soil carbon and GMOs do not go together. For 
> all of people's legitimate worry about GMOs' health and economic side 
> effects, the harm done to soil, and by extension to climate, gets too little 
> attention.  I believe farmers need to be in the front lines of reversing 
> climate change, so to me Vandana Shiva is heroic.  And advocating 
> biodiversity in natural systems strikes me as very good science.
 [RWL3:
  a.  I also responded (see below) about my possibly asking for too 
much speed on introducing biochar.  Brian did not address that, so that is not 
the cart-horse issue.
 b.  Re para #1,  I admit to placing lots of attention on soil carbon - 
and on this list especially - to the huge sequestration potential that is 
there, without any conflict at all between the two objectives.   It seems to me 
that I am not guilty of putting your soil carbon cart ahead of your biochar 
horse.  They are to me one and the same.  If you are arguing that there are 
other ways to increase soil carbon, that is a different issue.  Good luck in 
getting them adopted as well.
c. Re para #2  - I refuse to get into anything related to GMO - 
especially on this list. In a different response to Oliver Morton yesterday,  I 
said I see zero relation between biochar and GMO materials - and said I refuse 
to talk about any purported relationship between them, as proposed by BFW (and 
probably believed by Dr. Shiva).
d.   Re para #3.  Glad to see you agree (I think) here on not 
appropriate to couple soil carbon (including biochar as the main way likely to 
increase soil carbon) and GMOs (so I don’t understand your raising it in Para 
#2).  Re Dr.  Shiva,  I hope you recognize that she is thoroughly against 
biochar (not natural enough?).  So I strong

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

List  cc Oliver

   1.  There was a message from David Hawkins after this one from Oliver - that 
seem to indicate David is better understanding Oliver’s position on CDR.  Good. 
 But I am not following that theme in this message.

  2.  This message is picking up on Oliver’s final paragraph below - returning 
to the thread title topic(couplng Dr. Shiva and “Geo”).  At the “carboncounter" 
site below, there is a 50 minute video of Mark Lynas talking mostly about GMO’s 
 (which I think has nothing to do with CDR and especially biochar - so hope we 
don’t go down that road).   There is also a video of Dr. Shiva - but only on 
GMO.

   At the 27:53 point, we find 10 seconds for one sentence re Dr. Shiva 
(emphasis added):
“The government in India is increasingly enthralled to backward looking 
ideologues like that of Vandana Shiva who idealized preindustrial village 
agriculture despite the fact it was an age of repeated famine and structural 
insecurity for everyone."

   3.  This sentence apparently caused Dr.  Shiva to respond on 3 January:  
#MarkLynas saying farmers shd be free to grow #GMOs which can contaminate 
#organic farms is like saying #rapists shd have freedom to rape”.   
I hesitated to include this, but think she would say the same with 
“Geo”replacing “GMO”.  The reference to rape didn’t go over well at this site.

   4.  A little later,  Robert Wilson, owner of the site (which heading ends 
“fanatic or fantasist”  that Oliver has sent us to) said:   "The real issue 
however is whether Vandava Shiva is simply deluded, or actively malicious. In 
either case it is high time the environmental movement recognised that she is a 
deeply dangerous figure.”

5.  I prefer to think that Dr.  Shiva, like the anti-biochar folks at BFW 
and ETC have simply forgotten how important it is to use the scientific method. 
 This (anti-science [not just a different science] - as similarly employed by 
climate deniers) is the message I got today after reading Mark Lynas.

   6.  Apologies for returning to the main point of this thread started a few 
days ago by Andrew - which I believe was that geoengineering (both CDR and SRM) 
is going to be much hampered by a very small group.  I agree with the several 
writers listed above that Dr. Shiva and supporters are dangerous, not because 
they have and anti-geo message, but because they are carrying an anti-science 
message.  I do not think they are either deluded or malicious - they only come 
from a misguided “moral?” position not supported by science.  She and her 
supporters are dangerous because they have a sizable and vocal following.  I 
hope someone/anyone can offer a best way to engage in dialog with Dr. Shiva - 
especially on whether she can support any means of CDR - and the ethics behind 
doing or not doing some form of CDR and/or SRM. 

Thanks to Oliver (who probably has a totally different take on this) for his 
additional alert (below, emphasis added) on Dr.  Shiva.

Ron



On Oct 28, 2013, at 10:17 AM, O Morton  wrote:

> Dear David
> 
> Though obviously you couldn't know this, in the context of the preceding 
> paras, it should be fairly clear that the flight deck metaphor applies to a 
> range of choices of which climate geoengineering options are only a subset 
> (new energy sources, new farming practices etc) The subsequent paras make the 
> case that considering things "carefully and thoughtfully" will lead people 
> not to wish to press the button marked OIF. So I still don't see how your 
> response differs from what I said. 
> 
> The nature discussion is probably a long one for another place; my basic 
> point is that there is nothing more socially constructed than what gets 
> counted as natural. 
> 
> On another topic, I can't speak to Vandana Shiva's publication record, but 
> those wanting to know more about her thought and rhetoric may find this 
> interesting: 
> http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/
>  
> 
> Best
> 
> Oliver

 

-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Hawkins, Dave]

Thanks Oliver.  That is the danger with out of context citation and the risk of 
using memorable language that tempts some to cite out of context.

Re "natural": I agree in the sphere of human discourse, "nature" and "natural" 
are social constructs.  But as humans, we at least believe that science is 
based on an underlying reality (with ample supporting evidence) and science 
does place humans as a component of the biosphere.  I don't think we disagree.  
The interesting topic is how the strains of human exceptionalism have 
influenced man's interactions with the rest of nature.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of O Morton [omeconom...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:17 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT 
GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

Dear David

Though obviously you couldn't know this, in the context of the preceding paras, 
it should be fairly clear that the flight deck metaphor applies to a range of 
choices of which climate geoengineering options are only a subset (new energy 
sources, new farming practices etc) The subsequent paras make the case that 
considering things "carefully and thoughtfully" will lead people not to wish to 
press the button marked OIF. So I still don't see how your response differs 
from what I said.

The nature discussion is probably a long one for another place; my basic point 
is that there is nothing more socially constructed than what gets counted as 
natural.

On another topic, I can't speak to Vandana Shiva's publication record, but 
those wanting to know more about her thought and rhetoric may find this 
interesting: 
http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/

Best

Oliver

On Monday, 28 October 2013 11:02:15 UTC, David Hawkins wrote:
Oliver,
I was reacting principally to the sentences that preceded the "carefully and 
thoughtfully" modifiers:  "We are on the flight deck, and we are alone.   We 
are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And we know where 
we want to go."
For me, this comes too close to saying if we have buttons in front of us we 
must push them; "no option but to use them" seems in conflict with "carefully 
and thoughtfully."  For some buttons, the only careful and thoughtful posture 
may be not to push them.  Again, I am not making this argument for all types of 
geo-engineering concepts; only disagreeing with the idea that if we can 
conceive of a button we must push it.

I am interested in hearing more about how humans may not be a part of nature.  
If we are talking biologically, I can't see any answer but "of course."  
Perhaps you are talking about anthropological concepts and the perceptions 
humans have about their relationships with the rest of nature.  There I would 
agree there is no "of course" about any aspect of that terrain.
best,
David

--
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[O Morton]

Dear David

Though obviously you couldn't know this, in the context of the preceding 
paras, it should be fairly clear that the flight deck metaphor applies to a 
range of choices of which climate geoengineering options are only a subset 
(new energy sources, new farming practices etc) The subsequent paras make 
the case that considering things "carefully and thoughtfully" will lead 
people not to wish to press the button marked OIF. So I still don't see how 
your response differs from what I said. 

The nature discussion is probably a long one for another place; my basic 
point is that there is nothing more socially constructed than what gets 
counted as natural. 

On another topic, I can't speak to Vandana Shiva's publication record, but 
those wanting to know more about her thought and rhetoric may find this 
interesting: 
http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/
 

Best

Oliver

On Monday, 28 October 2013 11:02:15 UTC, David Hawkins wrote:
>
> Oliver, 
> I was reacting principally to the sentences that preceded the "carefully 
> and thoughtfully" modifiers:  "We are on the flight deck, and we are alone. 
>   We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And we 
> know where we want to go." 
> For me, this comes too close to saying if we have buttons in front of us 
> we must push them; "no option but to use them" seems in conflict with 
> "carefully and thoughtfully."  For some buttons, the only careful and 
> thoughtful posture may be not to push them.  Again, I am not making this 
> argument for all types of geo-engineering concepts; only disagreeing with 
> the idea that if we can conceive of a button we must push it. 
>
> I am interested in hearing more about how humans may not be a part of 
> nature.  If we are talking biologically, I can't see any answer but "of 
> course."  Perhaps you are talking about anthropological concepts and the 
> perceptions humans have about their relationships with the rest of nature. 
>  There I would agree there is no "of course" about any aspect of that 
> terrain. 
> best, 
> David 
>

-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Oliver Tickell]

Vandana Shiva is a great woman that you really should have heard of! But 
more as a campaigner for India's small farmers, environment, human 
rights of indigenous peoples, etc, than as a scientist. If she says she 
has been published in all these learned journals it's probably true, but 
probably her articles are not deeply technical ones. Oliver.


On 28/10/2013 10:38, Tom Wigley wrote:

Folks,

I'd never heard of Vandana Shiva before this. I was intrigued by the
statement in her biosketch that she had published "300 papers in
leading scientific and technical journals".

No matter what else she has done, she certainly does not have much of
a record as a bona fide scientist, at least as far as publications
goes. From Web of Science I find ...

... under Shiva, Vandana: 4 papers, the most cited of which has been 
cited a grand total of 2 times


... under Shiva, V: 41 papers, the most cited of which has been cited
a grand total of 14 times and 21 of which have zero citations.

Whoever wrote the biosketch must be close to the record for inflation
of the facts.

Tom.

+++

On 10/28/2013 4:26 AM, O Morton wrote:

Dear David

When you're responding to my arguments, how do you get from "carefully
and thoughtfully", in the quotation Ron offers, to "in all ways the
human imagination can conceive"? To me, and I suspect most readers,
"carefully and thoughtfully" means precisely what you say is required:
that people should asses specific climate geoengineering proposals on
their merits -- as they should assess other responses to the
carbon/climate crisis -- and pass over some that they find unsupportable

On "humans are of course part of nature"; I don't think there's any of
course about it. How much and in what ways humans are part of nature
seems to me to be the question which anthropocene politics attempt to
answer, not an agreed ground from which people start.

Best as ever

Oliver

On Sunday, 27 October 2013 21:01:22 UTC, David Hawkins wrote:

Without making an argument that we should never pursue any form of
geoengineering, let me note an obvious response to Oliver's
arguments quoted below.
The fact that we are already manipulating "nature" in many ways does
not support an argument that we should therefore manipulate it in
all ways that human imagination can conceive.  Our job is to
exercise good judgement in deciding where to go and where to stop.
  So purely as an intellectual matter, the option of not doing some
forms of geoengineering cannot be rejected.  It is not a valid
argument to respond to criticisms of specific forms of
geoengineering by saying we already manipulate nature a lot.

(I put "nature" in quotes to start because humans are of course part
of nature. We don't act on nature; we act in nature.  But our
capacity to change the functioning of many ecosystems previously
largely uninfluenced by humans, is enormous.  The fact that we are a
part of nature does mean we can argue that we should be comfortable
with any actions we take because they are "natural."  That stance
conveniently would discard any responsibility we have for
considering the impacts of our actions.)

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:34 PM, "Ronal W. Larson"
> wrote:

List   cc Andrew

 This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a
pretty strong following in environmental circles.

 I add a few comments here for three reasons

  First because she has said all of the same things about
biochar (not mentioned in the transcript below) on several
occasions.  She wrote a very confused forward (as though she hadn't
read it) to a major biochar book by Albert Bates (at his invitation)
- should anyone want to see more on her CDR/biochar views. Albert,
a leader in both fields, says that mostly the Permaculture movement
is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on biochar are
the same as given below.

 Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver
Morton’s excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He
comments on views like hers in the last chapter where he reports
(pages 389ff) on the views of (former “Geo" list member) Peter Read.
   a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging
the world……. in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do
it better should not be rejected for an unworkable if understandable
desire that we not do it at all.”
b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that
nature should be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking;
nature is everywhere under our influence already.
  c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and
we are alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to
use them.  And we know whe

RE: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Hawkins, Dave]

Oliver,
I was reacting principally to the sentences that preceded the "carefully and 
thoughtfully" modifiers:  "We are on the flight deck, and we are alone.   We 
are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And we know where 
we want to go."
For me, this comes too close to saying if we have buttons in front of us we 
must push them; "no option but to use them" seems in conflict with "carefully 
and thoughtfully."  For some buttons, the only careful and thoughtful posture 
may be not to push them.  Again, I am not making this argument for all types of 
geo-engineering concepts; only disagreeing with the idea that if we can 
conceive of a button we must push it.

I am interested in hearing more about how humans may not be a part of nature.  
If we are talking biologically, I can't see any answer but "of course."  
Perhaps you are talking about anthropological concepts and the perceptions 
humans have about their relationships with the rest of nature.  There I would 
agree there is no "of course" about any aspect of that terrain.
best,
David


From: O Morton [omeconom...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:26 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: Hawkins, Dave
Subject: Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT 
GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

Dear David

When you're responding to my arguments, how do you get from "carefully and 
thoughtfully", in the quotation Ron offers, to "in all ways the human 
imagination can conceive"? To me, and I suspect most readers, "carefully and 
thoughtfully" means precisely what you say is required: that people should 
asses specific climate geoengineering proposals on their merits -- as they 
should assess other responses to the carbon/climate crisis -- and pass over 
some that they find unsupportable

On "humans are of course part of nature"; I don't think there's any of course 
about it. How much and in what ways humans are part of nature seems to me to be 
the question which anthropocene politics attempt to answer, not an agreed 
ground from which people start.

Best as ever

Oliver

On Sunday, 27 October 2013 21:01:22 UTC, David Hawkins wrote:
Without making an argument that we should never pursue any form of 
geoengineering, let me note an obvious response to Oliver's arguments quoted 
below.
The fact that we are already manipulating "nature" in many ways does not 
support an argument that we should therefore manipulate it in all ways that 
human imagination can conceive.  Our job is to exercise good judgement in 
deciding where to go and where to stop.  So purely as an intellectual matter, 
the option of not doing some forms of geoengineering cannot be rejected.  It is 
not a valid argument to respond to criticisms of specific forms of 
geoengineering by saying we already manipulate nature a lot.

(I put "nature" in quotes to start because humans are of course part of nature. 
We don't act on nature; we act in nature.  But our capacity to change the 
functioning of many ecosystems previously largely uninfluenced by humans, is 
enormous.  The fact that we are a part of nature does mean we can argue that we 
should be comfortable with any actions we take because they are "natural."  
That stance conveniently would discard any responsibility we have for 
considering the impacts of our actions.)

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:34 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" 
<mailto:rongre...@comcast.net>>
 wrote:

List   cc Andrew

This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty strong 
following in environmental circles.

I add a few comments here for three reasons

 First because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not 
mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions.  She wrote a very 
confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by 
Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her 
CDR/biochar views.  Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the 
Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on 
biochar are the same as given below.

Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s 
excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He comments on views like 
hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of (former 
“Geo" list member) Peter Read.
  a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. 
in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do it better should not be 
rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at all.”
   b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature should 
be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; na

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Tom Wigley]

Folks,

I'd never heard of Vandana Shiva before this. I was intrigued by the
statement in her biosketch that she had published "300 papers in
leading scientific and technical journals".

No matter what else she has done, she certainly does not have much of
a record as a bona fide scientist, at least as far as publications
goes. From Web of Science I find ...

... under Shiva, Vandana: 4 papers, the most cited of which has been 
cited a grand total of 2 times


... under Shiva, V: 41 papers, the most cited of which has been cited
a grand total of 14 times and 21 of which have zero citations.

Whoever wrote the biosketch must be close to the record for inflation
of the facts.

Tom.

+++

On 10/28/2013 4:26 AM, O Morton wrote:

Dear David

When you're responding to my arguments, how do you get from "carefully
and thoughtfully", in the quotation Ron offers, to "in all ways the
human imagination can conceive"? To me, and I suspect most readers,
"carefully and thoughtfully" means precisely what you say is required:
that people should asses specific climate geoengineering proposals on
their merits -- as they should assess other responses to the
carbon/climate crisis -- and pass over some that they find unsupportable

On "humans are of course part of nature"; I don't think there's any of
course about it. How much and in what ways humans are part of nature
seems to me to be the question which anthropocene politics attempt to
answer, not an agreed ground from which people start.

Best as ever

Oliver

On Sunday, 27 October 2013 21:01:22 UTC, David Hawkins wrote:

Without making an argument that we should never pursue any form of
geoengineering, let me note an obvious response to Oliver's
arguments quoted below.
The fact that we are already manipulating "nature" in many ways does
not support an argument that we should therefore manipulate it in
all ways that human imagination can conceive.  Our job is to
exercise good judgement in deciding where to go and where to stop.
  So purely as an intellectual matter, the option of not doing some
forms of geoengineering cannot be rejected.  It is not a valid
argument to respond to criticisms of specific forms of
geoengineering by saying we already manipulate nature a lot.

(I put "nature" in quotes to start because humans are of course part
of nature. We don't act on nature; we act in nature.  But our
capacity to change the functioning of many ecosystems previously
largely uninfluenced by humans, is enormous.  The fact that we are a
part of nature does mean we can argue that we should be comfortable
with any actions we take because they are "natural."  That stance
conveniently would discard any responsibility we have for
considering the impacts of our actions.)

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:34 PM, "Ronal W. Larson"
> wrote:

List   cc Andrew

 This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a
pretty strong following in environmental circles.

 I add a few comments here for three reasons

  First because she has said all of the same things about
biochar (not mentioned in the transcript below) on several
occasions.  She wrote a very confused forward (as though she hadn't
read it) to a major biochar book by Albert Bates (at his invitation)
- should anyone want to see more on her CDR/biochar views.  Albert,
a leader in both fields, says that mostly the Permaculture movement
is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on biochar are
the same as given below.

 Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver
Morton’s excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He
comments on views like hers in the last chapter where he reports
(pages 389ff) on the views of (former “Geo" list member) Peter Read.
   a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging
the world……. in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do
it better should not be rejected for an unworkable if understandable
desire that we not do it at all.”
b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that
nature should be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking;
nature is everywhere under our influence already.
  c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and
we are alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to
use them.  And we know where we want to go.  The fact that we have
only a dim idea of how to fly means we must act carefully and
thoughtfully, not that we must not act.
 All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar”
was selected (in 2007 at a biochar conference -  because of Peter).
   Dr.  Shiva’s views were probably the same then and I feel are
refuted nicely above in 

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[O Morton]

Dear David

When you're responding to my arguments, how do you get from "carefully and 
thoughtfully", in the quotation Ron offers, to "in all ways the human 
imagination can conceive"? To me, and I suspect most readers, "carefully 
and thoughtfully" means precisely what you say is required: that people 
should asses specific climate geoengineering proposals on their merits -- 
as they should assess other responses to the carbon/climate crisis -- and 
pass over some that they find unsupportable  

On "humans are of course part of nature"; I don't think there's any of 
course about it. How much and in what ways humans are part of nature seems 
to me to be the question which anthropocene politics attempt to answer, not 
an agreed ground from which people start.

Best as ever

Oliver

On Sunday, 27 October 2013 21:01:22 UTC, David Hawkins wrote:
>
> Without making an argument that we should never pursue any form of 
> geoengineering, let me note an obvious response to Oliver's arguments 
> quoted below. 
> The fact that we are already manipulating "nature" in many ways does not 
> support an argument that we should therefore manipulate it in all ways that 
> human imagination can conceive.  Our job is to exercise good judgement in 
> deciding where to go and where to stop.  So purely as an intellectual 
> matter, the option of not doing some forms of geoengineering cannot be 
> rejected.  It is not a valid argument to respond to criticisms of specific 
> forms of geoengineering by saying we already manipulate nature a lot. 
>
> (I put "nature" in quotes to start because humans are of course part of 
> nature. We don't act on nature; we act in nature.  But our capacity to 
> change the functioning of many ecosystems previously largely uninfluenced 
> by humans, is enormous.  The fact that we are a part of nature does mean we 
> can argue that we should be comfortable with any actions we take because 
> they are "natural."  That stance conveniently would discard any 
> responsibility we have for considering the impacts of our actions.) 
>
> Sent from my iPad 
>
> On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:34 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" 
> 
> > wrote: 
>
> List   cc Andrew 
>
> This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty 
> strong following in environmental circles. 
>
> I add a few comments here for three reasons 
>
>  First because she has said all of the same things about biochar 
> (not mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions.  She wrote a 
> very confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar 
> book by Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more 
> on her CDR/biochar views.  Albert, a leader in both fields, says that 
> mostly the Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her. 
>  Her views on biochar are the same as given below. 
>
> Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver 
> Morton’s excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He comments 
> on views like hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on 
> the views of (former “Geo" list member) Peter Read. 
>   a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging the 
> world……. in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do it better 
> should not be rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we 
> not do it at all.” 
>b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature 
> should be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is 
> everywhere under our influence already. 
>  c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and we are 
> alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And 
> we know where we want to go.  The fact that we have only a dim idea of how 
> to fly means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not 
> act. 
> All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was 
> selected (in 2007 at a biochar conference -  because of Peter).   Dr. 
>  Shiva’s views were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely 
> above in these three excerpts.  These apply as well to George Monbiot, 
> whose similar views are on p 389.  They were also given recently even more 
> strongly in an e-mail response to Albert Bates, saying: 
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> > wrote: 
>
>
>
> http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/
>  
>
> TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW 
>
> NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because 
> you’re an incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. 
> and it’s great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with 
> you. It’s something that embraces everything: food and water and what is 
> happening now in the world in a situation of climate change, and

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

List  and David

   1.   David Hawkins responded today with a longer piece and then this 
correction:
"Whoops. In my penultimate sentence I left out an important "not."  
The sentence should read--
> The fact that we are a part of nature does NOT mean we can argue that we 
> should be comfortable with any actions we take because they are "natural." 


This is partly to make sure that everyone understands that Oliver is not 
guilty of the charge which David is rightly saying must not occur.  I think my 
three short excerpts from a very long book make clear that Oliver is well aware 
of this.  
 Conversely,  Dr.  Shiva seems to believe it impossible to do ANYTHING 
right.   Unfortunately the same seems true of George Monbiot and his 
BiofuelWatch sources.  

 I hope we can have some additional dialog on the ethics of doing nothing 
in the CDR arena.

   2.   I have excerpted all but a few lines of what I wrote earlier, as I 
inadvertently sent two versions - neither complete (still learning my new Mac). 
 Below I finish my thoughts about a map mentioned in the interview.


On Oct 27, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Ronal W. Larson  wrote:

> List   cc Andrew
> 
> This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty 
> strong following in environmental circles.
> 
> I add a few comments here for four reasons

   

> 
>  4.  Lastly,  Dr.  Shiva’s interviewer below wanted her to talk about 
> “the map” (produced by a third campaigner against geoengineeering:  ETC).  
> That map can be seen at 
> 
 [RWL:  What I meant to add was the website for that map that I consider as 
uninformed about CDR as I do the comments of Dr. Shiva and George Monbiot:
  
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/world-geoengineering

   This map is at least 16 months our of date, claiming only 300 
“Geoengineering” projects.  Roughly half of them seem to be biochar - and I am 
sure the number was much higher 16 months ago, but would probably be in excess 
of 1000 by now.  One example of their being badly out of date is the fact  they 
show zero biochar activity in China, whereas that Country has at least 3 
regional groups (shown at the the IBI site, along with conferences in China).  
My guess is that China either is or will be the premier biochar country shortly 
- exactly as they have done for wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal heating 
(something like 2/3 of the world totals), and afforestation.

   The interviewer and Dr. Shiva seemed to think it reprehensible that a 
map exists with 300 “Geo” entries.  I view the number 300 differently.   I hope 
that ETC will quickly update, so as to show that there are huge and growing 
numbers of researchers who take the opposite ethical view of Dr. Shiva, George 
Monbiot, ETC,  and the interviewer.   

 On the other hand - maybe that is the ETC reason for not keeping this map 
current.

Ron

 

-- 
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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Hawkins, Dave]

Whoops. In my penultimate sentence I left out an important "not."  
The sentence should read--
> The fact that we are a part of nature does NOT mean we can argue that we 
> should be comfortable with any actions we take because they are "natural." 
Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 27, 2013, at 5:01 PM, "Hawkins, Dave"  wrote:
> 
> Without making an argument that we should never pursue any form of 
> geoengineering, let me note an obvious response to Oliver's arguments quoted 
> below.
> The fact that we are already manipulating "nature" in many ways does not 
> support an argument that we should therefore manipulate it in all ways that 
> human imagination can conceive.  Our job is to exercise good judgement in 
> deciding where to go and where to stop.  So purely as an intellectual matter, 
> the option of not doing some forms of geoengineering cannot be rejected.  It 
> is not a valid argument to respond to criticisms of specific forms of 
> geoengineering by saying we already manipulate nature a lot.
> 
> (I put "nature" in quotes to start because humans are of course part of 
> nature. We don't act on nature; we act in nature.  But our capacity to change 
> the functioning of many ecosystems previously largely uninfluenced by humans, 
> is enormous.  The fact that we are a part of nature does mean we can argue 
> that we should be comfortable with any actions we take because they are 
> "natural."  That stance conveniently would discard any responsibility we have 
> for considering the impacts of our actions.)
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:34 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" 
> mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
> List   cc Andrew
> 
>This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty strong 
> following in environmental circles.
> 
>I add a few comments here for three reasons
> 
> First because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not 
> mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions.  She wrote a very 
> confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by 
> Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her 
> CDR/biochar views.  Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the 
> Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on 
> biochar are the same as given below.
> 
>Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s 
> excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He comments on views 
> like hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of 
> (former “Geo" list member) Peter Read.
>  a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. 
> in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do it better should not 
> be rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at 
> all.”
>   b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature 
> should be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is 
> everywhere under our influence already.
> c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and we are 
> alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And 
> we know where we want to go.  The fact that we have only a dim idea of how to 
> fly means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not act.
>All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was 
> selected (in 2007 at a biochar conference -  because of Peter).   Dr.  
> Shiva’s views were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely above 
> in these three excerpts.  These apply as well to George Monbiot, whose 
> similar views are on p 389.  They were also given recently even more strongly 
> in an e-mail response to Albert Bates, saying:
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/
> 
> TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW
> 
> NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because you’re 
> an incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. and it’s 
> great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with you. It’s 
> something that embraces everything: food and water and what is happening now 
> in the world in a situation of climate change, and great change, and risk of 
> collapse at every level. I saw the interview you had with Amy Goodman. So, 
> first, what is, for you, at this moment, the role of geoengineering?
> 
> 00:55 Vandana: the role of geo-engineering should, in a world of 
> responsibility, in a world of scientifically enlightened decision making and 
> ecological understanding, it should be zero. There is no role for 
> geo-engeneering. Because what is geoengineering but extending the engineering 
> paradigm? There have been engineered parts of the earth, and aspects

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Hawkins, Dave]

Without making an argument that we should never pursue any form of 
geoengineering, let me note an obvious response to Oliver's arguments quoted 
below.
The fact that we are already manipulating "nature" in many ways does not 
support an argument that we should therefore manipulate it in all ways that 
human imagination can conceive.  Our job is to exercise good judgement in 
deciding where to go and where to stop.  So purely as an intellectual matter, 
the option of not doing some forms of geoengineering cannot be rejected.  It is 
not a valid argument to respond to criticisms of specific forms of 
geoengineering by saying we already manipulate nature a lot.

(I put "nature" in quotes to start because humans are of course part of nature. 
We don't act on nature; we act in nature.  But our capacity to change the 
functioning of many ecosystems previously largely uninfluenced by humans, is 
enormous.  The fact that we are a part of nature does mean we can argue that we 
should be comfortable with any actions we take because they are "natural."  
That stance conveniently would discard any responsibility we have for 
considering the impacts of our actions.)

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:34 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" 
mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:

List   cc Andrew

This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty strong 
following in environmental circles.

I add a few comments here for three reasons

 First because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not 
mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions.  She wrote a very 
confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by 
Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her 
CDR/biochar views.  Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the 
Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on 
biochar are the same as given below.

Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s 
excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He comments on views like 
hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of (former 
“Geo" list member) Peter Read.
  a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. 
in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do it better should not be 
rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at all.”
   b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature should 
be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is everywhere 
under our influence already.
 c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and we are 
alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And we 
know where we want to go.  The fact that we have only a dim idea of how to fly 
means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not act.
All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was selected 
(in 2007 at a biochar conference -  because of Peter).   Dr.  Shiva’s views 
were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely above in these three 
excerpts.  These apply as well to George Monbiot, whose similar views are on p 
389.  They were also given recently even more strongly in an e-mail response to 
Albert Bates, saying:



On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:


http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/

TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW

NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because you’re an 
incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. and it’s 
great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with you. It’s 
something that embraces everything: food and water and what is happening now in 
the world in a situation of climate change, and great change, and risk of 
collapse at every level. I saw the interview you had with Amy Goodman. So, 
first, what is, for you, at this moment, the role of geoengineering?

00:55 Vandana: the role of geo-engineering should, in a world of 
responsibility, in a world of scientifically enlightened decision making and 
ecological understanding, it should be zero. There is no role for 
geo-engeneering. Because what is geoengineering but extending the engineering 
paradigm? There have been engineered parts of the earth, and aspects of 
ecosystems and organisms through genetical engineering: the massive dam 
building, the re-routing of rivers. These were all elements of geoengineering 
at the level of particular places and we have recognized two things: one, that 
when you don’t take into account the way ecological systems work, then you do 
damage. Everyone knows that in effect climate change is a result of that 
engineering paradigm. We could replace people with fossil fuels, have higher 
and higher levels o

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

List   cc Andrew

This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty strong 
following in environmental circles.

I add a few comments here for four reasons

 1.   Because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not 
mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions.  She wrote a very 
confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by 
Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her 
CDR/biochar views.  Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the 
Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on 
biochar are the same as given below.

2.   Because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s 
excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He comments on views like 
hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of (former 
“Geo" list member) Peter Read.
  a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. 
in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do it better should not be 
rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at all.”
   b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature should 
be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is everywhere 
under our influence already.
 c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and we are 
alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And we 
know where we want to go.  The fact that we have only a dim idea of how to fly 
means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not act.
All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was selected 
(in 2007 at a biochar conference -  because of Peter).   Dr.  Shiva’s views 
were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely above in these three 
excerpts.  

  3.  These sentences apply as well to George Monbiot, whose similar views 
are on p 389.  They were also given 4 days ago even more strongly in an e-mail 
response to Albert Bates, replying to a posting on the recent biochar 
conference by Albert at 
   http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-21/post-modern-moonshots
George wrote to Albert, saying 
 I find this utterly terrifying: one of the worst examples of mindless 
cornucopianism since the untimely demise of Peter Read.
>>  
>> Beware of what you want to believe!
>>  
>> George
 I include this because I think George is even more dangerous to most CDR 
(certainly biochar) than Dr.  Shiva

 4.  Lastly,  Dr.  Shiva’s interviewer below wanted her to talk about “the 
map” (produced by a third campaigner against geoengineeering:  ETC).  That map 
can be seen at 


On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:

> http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/
> 
> TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW
> 
> NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because you’re 
> an incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. and it’s 
> great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with you. It’s 
> something that embraces everything: food and water and what is happening now 
> in the world in a situation of climate change, and great change, and risk of 
> collapse at every level. I saw the interview you had with Amy Goodman. So, 
> first, what is, for you, at this moment, the role of geoengineering?
> 
> 00:55 Vandana: the role of geo-engineering should, in a world of 
> responsibility, in a world of scientifically enlightened decision making and 
> ecological understanding, it should be zero. There is no role for 
> geo-engeneering. Because what is geoengineering but extending the engineering 
> paradigm? There have been engineered parts of the earth, and aspects of 
> ecosystems and organisms through genetical engineering: the massive dam 
> building, the re-routing of rivers. These were all elements of geoengineering 
> at the level of particular places and we have recognized two things: one, 
> that when you don’t take into account the way ecological systems work, then 
> you do damage. Everyone knows that in effect climate change is a result of 
> that engineering paradigm. We could replace people with fossil fuels, have 
> higher and higher levels of industrialization, of agriculture, of production, 
> without thinking of the green-house gases we were admitting, and climate 
> change is really the pollution of the engineering paradigm, when fossil fuels 
> drove industrialism. To now offer that same mindset as a solution is to not 
> take seriously what Einstein said: that you can’t solve the problems by using 
> the same mindset that caused them. So, the idea of engineering is an idea of 
> mastery. And today the role that we are being asked to play is a role based 
> on informed humanity.
> 
> 2:45 NoGeoingegneria
> In my eyes geoengi

Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria

[Ronal W. Larson]

List   cc Andrew

This interview is of course not good news;  Dr.  Shiva has a pretty strong 
following in environmental circles.

I add a few comments here for three reasons

 First because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not 
mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions.  She wrote a very 
confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by 
Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her 
CDR/biochar views.  Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the 
Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her.  Her views on 
biochar are the same as given below.

Second,  because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s 
excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis.  He comments on views like 
hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of (former 
“Geo" list member) Peter Read.
  a.  Oliver wrote p 392:   “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. 
in a decentralized, slapdash way.  The idea we might do it better should not be 
rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at all.”
   b.  A paragraph later:  “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature should 
be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is everywhere 
under our influence already.
 c.  One more paragraph later.   We are on the flight deck, and we are 
alone.   We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them.  And we 
know where we want to go.  The fact that we have only a dim idea of how to fly 
means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not act.
All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was selected 
(in 2007 at a biochar conference -  because of Peter).   Dr.  Shiva’s views 
were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely above in these three 
excerpts.  These apply as well to George Monbiot, whose similar views are on p 
389.  They were also given recently even more strongly in an e-mail response to 
Albert Bates, saying:  



On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:

> http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/
> 
> TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW
> 
> NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because you’re 
> an incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. and it’s 
> great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with you. It’s 
> something that embraces everything: food and water and what is happening now 
> in the world in a situation of climate change, and great change, and risk of 
> collapse at every level. I saw the interview you had with Amy Goodman. So, 
> first, what is, for you, at this moment, the role of geoengineering?
> 
> 00:55 Vandana: the role of geo-engineering should, in a world of 
> responsibility, in a world of scientifically enlightened decision making and 
> ecological understanding, it should be zero. There is no role for 
> geo-engeneering. Because what is geoengineering but extending the engineering 
> paradigm? There have been engineered parts of the earth, and aspects of 
> ecosystems and organisms through genetical engineering: the massive dam 
> building, the re-routing of rivers. These were all elements of geoengineering 
> at the level of particular places and we have recognized two things: one, 
> that when you don’t take into account the way ecological systems work, then 
> you do damage. Everyone knows that in effect climate change is a result of 
> that engineering paradigm. We could replace people with fossil fuels, have 
> higher and higher levels of industrialization, of agriculture, of production, 
> without thinking of the green-house gases we were admitting, and climate 
> change is really the pollution of the engineering paradigm, when fossil fuels 
> drove industrialism. To now offer that same mindset as a solution is to not 
> take seriously what Einstein said: that you can’t solve the problems by using 
> the same mindset that caused them. So, the idea of engineering is an idea of 
> mastery. And today the role that we are being asked to play is a role based 
> on informed humanity.
> 
> 2:45 NoGeoingegneria
> In my eyes geoengineering started in the 50s with atomic tests, because in 
> this period they started to make geoengineering of the atmosphere of earth in 
> a global sense, in a bigger sense, and a lot of projects in the 50s started 
> to organize the earth, the planet, in a new way, with a new idea of 
> engineering really the whole planet. With the power of atomic bomb scientists 
> made a shifting in their mind, in my eyes. So in this period, in the 50′s 
> weather modification also started very energically. It is part of geo 
> engineering, and you have here the map of the ETC group, in the whole world, 
> they are doing it, and you cannot do local modifications without