Congratulations to the ETC Group

[Dan Whaley]

Just curious Diana,

What is the record setting temperature in LA (where it was 114 this
summer), or perhaps in your home town, that would give you pause
enough to consider doing some research (!) into possible emergency
measures?

118? 120? 125?

I would have thought 114 would have done it, given the hysteresis in
the system.

How much pine bark damage (i.e. biodiversity loss) is acceptable to
you in BC? It's already the size of California and NY put together...
40+M acres.
http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/two-new-bullish-signs-for/http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10236&page=2

How many biblical floods ala Pakistan?

How many raging fires throughout the breadbasket of Russia?

Is there a number? Or none, no matter what the environmental signal?

And the biodiversity loss we're already headed into as a result of the
warming that's locked in? What say you? "Bring it on"?

Are you so convinced, and on what scientific data, that your advocacy,
and your approach of "emissions only" will result in a world with more
biodiversity--despite the fact that the needle is already off the
charts and we've got 50 years ahead of us to get our emissions under
control? Will you not let scientists do the research to figure out
that answer?

Congratulations to you on your nominative 'victory'.

Just don't kid yourself that we're all not as worried about
biodiversity loss as you. In fact, I think we may be more worried.

Dan

[Ken Caldeira]

What is the practical ETC plan for protecting Arctic biodiversity? 

What is the CO2 emissions trajectory that could possibly do this? And how feasible is it to achieve this emissions trajectory?

Emissions reductions are necessary to protect biodiversity. But what makes the folks at ETC so confident that emissions reductions will be sufficient?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

[Dan Whaley]

Why am I not surprised that for serious questions that get at the heart of their irrational stance, they have no answer.

Really?  Diana, Jim, have you no response to these very simple questions?

I believe in Texas the phrase is:  "All hat, no cattle."

Dan

[Josh Horton]

I think it's interesting that ETC Group still has not offered any
response to these questions. It is entirely appropriate to ask what
the ETC Group alternative is to geoengineering research. In its
recent report "Geopiracy," ETC Group describes "the best available
multilateral responses" as "emissions reduction under the principle of
common but differentiated responsibility" (p. 37). Later in the
report ETC Group states the following:

"Since it is 'only research,' the argument goes, voluntary approaches
are more acceptable than if actual deployment were being discussed.
More research, advocated by the vast majority of scientists, may even
seem precautionary. Yes, if we lived in a perfect world, where all
nations and all peoples were equal, where technologies were carefully
assessed before they were deployed and where science was guided
uniquely by serving the long-term interests of humanity, more research
might not be such a bad idea. This, however, is not the case." (p.
39)

No, this is not the case. In the imperfect world we inhabit,
emissions reduction alone has been a failed strategy, and there is no
reason to expect this to change in the foreseeable future. It is
incumbent on opponents of geoengineering to present a plausible
scenario under which "more of the same" (which has included unanswered
calls for robust mitigation) leads to a different outcome.

Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

On Nov 2, 1:04 pm, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why am I not surprised that for serious questions that get at the heart of
> their irrational stance, they have no answer.
>
> Really?  Diana, Jim, have you no response to these very simple questions?
>
> I believe in Texas the phrase is:  "All hat, no cattle."
>
> Dan
>

> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@stanford.edu>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What is the practical ETC plan for protecting Arctic biodiversity?
>
> > What is the CO2 emissions trajectory that could possibly do this? And how
> > feasible is it to achieve this emissions trajectory?
>
> > Emissions reductions are necessary to protect biodiversity. But what makes
> > the folks at ETC so confident that emissions reductions will be sufficient?
>

> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Just curious Diana,
>
> >> What is the record setting temperature in LA (where it was 114 this
> >> summer), or perhaps in your home town, that would give you pause
> >> enough to consider doing some research (!) into possible emergency
> >> measures?
>
> >> 118?  120?  125?
>
> >> I would have thought 114 would have done it, given the hysteresis in
> >> the system.
>
> >> How much pine bark damage (i.e. biodiversity loss) is acceptable to
> >> you in BC?  It's already the size of California and NY put together...
> >> 40+M acres.
>

> >>http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/two-new-bullish-signs-for/http:/...

>
> >> How many biblical floods ala Pakistan?
>
> >> How many raging fires throughout the breadbasket of Russia?
>
> >> Is there a number?  Or none, no matter what the environmental signal?
>
> >> And the biodiversity loss we're already headed into as a result of the
> >> warming that's locked in?  What say you?  "Bring it on"?
>
> >> Are you so convinced, and on what scientific data, that your advocacy,
> >> and your approach of "emissions only" will result in a world with more
> >> biodiversity--despite the fact that the needle is already off the
> >> charts and we've got 50 years ahead of us to get our emissions under
> >> control?  Will you not let scientists do the research to figure out
> >> that answer?
>
> >> Congratulations to you on your nominative 'victory'.
>
> >> Just don't kid yourself that we're all not as worried about
> >> biodiversity loss as you.  In fact, I think we may be more worried.
>
> >> Dan
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Climate Intervention" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com
> >> .
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> climateinterven...@googlegroups.com<climateintervention%2Bunsu bsc...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .

[Rau, Greg]

Thanks for the clarifications, Josh. Yes, I very much look forward to the
specifics on effective emissions reduction "under the principle of common
but differentiated responsibility" and "where technologies were carefully

assessed before they were deployed and where science was guided uniquely by

serving the long-term interests". But isn't this reminiscent of Copenhagen,
and isn't CO2 continuing to rise unabated?

Good to hear that technology may have a role, but what technologies does ETC
have in mind? Fair enough that scientists (and engineers) shouldn't have
the last word on R&D and deployment, that's why governance and not
technology was the focus of our international GE meeting in Asilomar. Where
was ETC? How about we work together in creating effective governance of
technologies that "serves the long term interests" AND that also have a
chance of being effective and timely?

On the other hand if ETC strategy is simply to kill all GE before it's
usefulness has been fairly evaluated, then they need to offer viable
alternatives or accept "common and differentiated responsibility" along with
the climate change deniers for contributing to the failure to protect the
planet and its inhabitants. As Al says "earth is in the balance"; for
everyone who perceives this crisis, let's work together to see if we can get
the scales tipping in the right direction while we still have a chance of
doing so.
-Greg
________________________________________
From: climatein...@googlegroups.com
[climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Horton
[joshuah...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 6:27 AM
To: Climate Intervention
Subject: [clim] Re: Congratulations to the ETC Group

I think it's interesting that ETC Group still has not offered any
response to these questions. It is entirely appropriate to ask what
the ETC Group alternative is to geoengineering research. In its
recent report "Geopiracy," ETC Group describes "the best available
multilateral responses" as "emissions reduction under the principle of
common but differentiated responsibility" (p. 37). Later in the
report ETC Group states the following:

"Since it is 'only research,' the argument goes, voluntary approaches
are more acceptable than if actual deployment were being discussed.
More research, advocated by the vast majority of scientists, may even
seem precautionary. Yes, if we lived in a perfect world, where all
nations and all peoples were equal, where technologies were carefully
assessed before they were deployed and where science was guided
uniquely by serving the long-term interests of humanity, more research
might not be such a bad idea. This, however, is not the case." (p.
39)

No, this is not the case. In the imperfect world we inhabit,
emissions reduction alone has been a failed strategy, and there is no
reason to expect this to change in the foreseeable future. It is
incumbent on opponents of geoengineering to present a plausible
scenario under which "more of the same" (which has included unanswered
calls for robust mitigation) leads to a different outcome.

Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
http://BLOCKEDgeoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

On Nov 2, 1:04 pm, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why am I not surprised that for serious questions that get at the heart of
> their irrational stance, they have no answer.
>
> Really? Diana, Jim, have you no response to these very simple questions?
>
> I believe in Texas the phrase is: "All hat, no cattle."
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@stanford.edu>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What is the practical ETC plan for protecting Arctic biodiversity?
>
> > What is the CO2 emissions trajectory that could possibly do this? And how
> > feasible is it to achieve this emissions trajectory?
>
> > Emissions reductions are necessary to protect biodiversity. But what makes
> > the folks at ETC so confident that emissions reductions will be sufficient?
>
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Just curious Diana,
>
> >> What is the record setting temperature in LA (where it was 114 this
> >> summer), or perhaps in your home town, that would give you pause
> >> enough to consider doing some research (!) into possible emergency
> >> measures?
>
> >> 118? 120? 125?
>
> >> I would have thought 114 would have done it, given the hysteresis in
> >> the system.
>
> >> How much pine bark damage (i.e. biodiversity loss) is acceptable to
> >> you in BC? It's already the size of California and NY put together...
> >> 40+M acres.
>
>

>>http://BLOCKEDwww.BLOCKEDminyanville.com/dailyfeed/two-new-bullish-signs-for/h

> >>http://BLOCKEDgroups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at

http://BLOCKEDgroups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

[Diana Bronson]

Dear Climate intervention list, 

A number of messages  have been sent on this list in reaction to the CBD moratorium on geoengineering.  The note here:  is intended to clarify some misunderstandings about the meaning of the moratorium and the rationale behind it, from ETC Group's point of view.

Our apologies that ETC Group cannot answer each and every concern that geoengineering entrepreneurs and scientists put to us, for it would take far too long and not likely result in a very productive dialogue, let alone any agreement.  The question of when, IF EVER, geoengineering would be "appropriate" is an international political decision, not a matter of what degree the thermostat reaches in Los Angeles, nor a threshold that scientists alone decide according to some technical criteria.  Geoengineering is a discussion that belongs in the United Nations and the consensus decision of 193 governments in Nagoya shows that governments overwhelming agree with that (every UN member except the US, the Holy See and Andorra are CBD Parties).  Our view is that climate change decision-making cannot be left to experts in northern institutions (whether they be businesses, patent-trolling outfits, think tanks, universities, NGOs)  as people on the front lines of climate change -- eg.  small-scale farmers, fisherfolk, poor countries, indigenous peoples, small island states -- are ignored.  These people, often working with local scientists and experts with very limited resources, are best placed to make the decisions that are needed to protect their land and livelihoods and adapt to our changing planet, what Bill McKibbon calls "Eaarth".  These people are feeding most of the planet, living relatively low-carbon existences and stewarding biodiversity. 

There are many complex reasons which explain why the UNFCCC is a such a disappointing failure in terms of emissions reduction, not the least of which is its excessive reliance on distracting market mechanisms such as carbon trade and offsets and the failure of wealthy countries to deliver on their Kyoto commitments, none more blatantly than my own country (Canada).  But the failure of a specific international mechanism to achieve results in a given time frame is not a reason to give up on multilateralism altogether. Indeed, if the failure of Copenhagen is due in good part to bad faith on the part of the richest countries (as we think it is), then the last thing we should do is give them a blank cheque to design the next big climate change "technofix".

Bjorn Lomborg's new propaganda film "Cool it" claims to be "rational" and "pragmatic" against the alarmist emotionalism of the environmental movement and exaggerated claims of those of us concerned with climate change. In fact however, his "rationalism" ignores all of the potential downsides of geoengineering in its confidence that more R & D will deliver a solution.  The man who put up giant posters in Copenhagen last year proclaiming : "Trying to cut CO2 Emissions Isn't Going to Work: Fix the climate.com" will aggressively pursue a pro-geoengineering agenda in theatres across the United States and elsewhere over the coming months. There is nothing precautionary about his crusade and he is clearly not following any talking points on mitigation to "sound reasonable".   Bjorn Lomborg gives not a moment's thought to the very logical proposition that there is no reason on earth for the majority of the world's peoples or governments to trust that a few wealthy countries will geoengineer the planet in a way that is even remotely in their best interest. 

The onus is not on those of us opposing geoengineering to answer every problem climate change presents us with and to provide detailed blueprints to resolve this complex problem.  The onus is on those promoting geoengineering to explain how their silver bullet will not present us with a new set of serious problems, harming many many people in the process. 

Diana Bronson

ETC Group

   

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

Have you joined the HOME Campaign against Geoengineering experiments?  You can do so now at www.handsoffmotherearth.org

Diana Bronson

ETC Group

skpe: dianaetc

di...@etcgroup.org

1 514 273 6661

[Ken Caldeira]

The short answer from ETC is

"We are too busy obstructing research that might help protect Arctic biodiversity, so we do not have the time ourselves to come up with a feasible plan to protect Arctic biodiversity."

ETC once argues against a straw man. For example, they conflate advocates of geoengineering research with advocates geoengineering deployment. And who but ETC considers geoengineering a potential "silver bullet"?

An important goal of the geoengineering research is to do the research needed to better understand the extent to which geoengineering approaches will "present us with a new set of serious problems" and understand whether there is potential for those problems to be diminished.

[jim thomas]

And the short reply from ETC is

As Diana said, global decisions and discussions over what should be done to protect arctic biodiversity or anywhere else in the face of climate change, need to be led by those  whose way of life would be most  affecte . ETC is the wrong group of people to dream up a  glib blueprint for protecting Arctic biodiversity. It is more appropriate to ask that question to indigenous communities of the north who are already living with the impacts of climate change and fighting the root causes. For example here is a recent statement from REDOIL (an indigenous environmental group fighting oil exploration and climate change):

http://climatevoices.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/statement-on-geoengineering-from-faith-gemmill-pit-river-wintu-and-neetsaii-gwichin-athabascan-from-arctic-village-alaska-and-executive-director-of-redoil-resisting-environmental-destruction-o/

As for confusing deployment with research - no confusion here at all. We consider deployment to be any activity that moves geoengineering outside of the laboratory into the real world where it affects real people and real biodiversity. Deliberately blurring the boundaries between contained and open air  research as the same thing is  a bit dishonest. For our part we have consistently stated that  we see no need to restrict  geoengineering research activities carried within a strictly contained setting (in a lab or in a computer model). Go ahead and geoengineer Daisyworld all you like  - but geoengineering the real world engages thornier issues and requires much broader permissions. 

I'm glad you think Lomborg is a straw man.  His film just opened in over 140 locations and for the next few months will be the first and only voice advocating geoengineering that most  the public will hear. Public clarifying statements by geoengineering advocates who believe in Plan B to show the practical differences from from his agenda (namely that geoengineering is Plan A ) would be helpful. Especially when both camps are asking for the same thing in the first instance (Open air "research"). 

best

Jim

Jim Thomas

ETC Group (Montreal)

j...@etcgroup.org

+1 514 2739994

[John Gorman]

I agree with Diana Bronson that the UN is the only forum where decisions on geoengineering implementation could be made. When they are made they will apply to the whole world and some will probably be disadvantaged but this is the only forum with the right to make such decisions. However, to extend this principle to experiments that could not conceivably affect the worlds climate or weather is to return to the 17thcentury, the catholic Church and galileo. This attitude to science has no part in the modern world.

 

I also agree with Diana that  "carbon trading ,offsets etc" are  "distracting market mechanisms" which are allowing countries to claim reductions which dont exist. My analysis of Copenhagen shocked me.(1) Everyone is fudging the numbers.(2) Our senior delegates cant be so stupid as not to understand what they and other countries are doing. Lane Lee seems to have understood this in his paper "Organised Hypocracy" As with Diana my country is as bad as any. The UK  is ofering a 20% reduction by 2020--but basing this on 1990. In the Kyoto round the Uk already claims to have achieved 20% so in effect we are offering nothing-which is probably just what we can achieve. The US Environment Information Administration only credits the UK with a1% reduction 97-07.

 

Actually the USA is one of the few countries that did offer a genuine reduction by 2020 . 17% based on 2005 so a genuine reduction. (probably not achievable now!!)

 

The fact is that 2020 emissions will be 20% higher than now even based on countries unrealistic offers so any hope of keeping to the 2deg limit has gone. What then will the trajectory be in 2030 , 2040? We havnt a clue. The numbers are so distorted by fudges that we cant make any prediction. All countries estimates of emissions dropped during the economic recession  from 2007 giving a distinct dip in world emissions. Does this show up in teh Moana Loa curve? No sign -suggesting the many country numbers are simply calculated from GDP.

 

The fact is that countries simply cant change their whole energy systems quickly enough to avoid the likelyhood of major problems- possibly irriversible. This is why so many of us are in favour of developing geoengineering to the stage where we can go to the UN with solid suggestions.

 

john gorman

1 http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm

2 http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm   last page

[Andrew Lockley]

Jim,

Your arguments bear no scrutiny.

Much as we might all be concerned about the fate of the Inuit, or any other tribal peoples, the Arctic is not some parochial local concern, as it helps regulates the entire planet's climate.  Any rational person would speak to a climate scientist about climate science, and I'm not aware of any World-leading research universities in indigenous communities in the high Arctic, or among 'fisherfolk' either.  

Your organisation continues to attack geoengineering whilst not only failing to propose a credible alternative, but whilst also opposing the research which would prove or refute your case.  You argue for continued ignorance without justification.

ETC's implicit blind faith in emissions reduction as the silver bullet shows a comprehensive misunderstanding of the basic facts of climate science, namely that it's the concentration of CO2e and not the flux which is the problem.  Cutting emissions to zero instantly won't make the problem go away, and that's not in our gift in any event.  By opposing geoengineering, you're advocating a non-geoengineering solution - so can you please explain how it's going to work?

Whilst all but the most extreme geoengineering advocates would not call for instant, untested deployment, your suggestion that only lab-based research be permitted is risible.  We can't possibly learn the most basic fundamentals of geoengineering's real-world behaviour without open air trials.  Squirting a little sulphur around is not going to cause the extinction of polar bears - as well you know.  So please stop pretending that small trials are dangerous when you know full well that they're not.

A cynic might argue that your organisation is keen to wilfully misrepresent the facts, and the views of others, in order to gain a short-term increase in your political influence among the ignorant.  I've been an active campaigner in the environmental movement for nearly 20years now, working up to board level in highly respected NGOs.  In my view, ETC's conduct is a disgrace to itself and the environmental movement as a whole. 

A

[Rau, Greg]

Diana,
Indeed the onus is on all of us to see if GE or any other "technofix" might be safe and useful. ETC's hypothesis is that GE is the work of the devil. Let's test that hypothesis at some safe scale just in case the answer is "no". At the same time let's test out lots of other ideas too (surely ETC must have some favorites; biochar, reforestation, solar energy?), so that we can make intelligent choices as to what combination (there are no "silver bullets") would do the most good with the least impact and cost to humanity and the planet. Otherwise, we are indeed faced with a "set of serious problems, harming many many people"; failure to mitigate CO2 and it effects. And unlike GE, this is not a hypothesis, it's a fact. In the relatively brief time we have to try to solve this problem shouldn't we be working together to find and test solutions and not to prematurely scuttle potentially useful ideas?
Regards,
Greg
________________________________________
From: climatein...@googlegroups.com [climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Diana Bronson [di...@etcgroup.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Climate Intervention

Subject: Re: [clim] Re: Congratulations to the ETC Group

Dear Climate intervention list,

A number of messages have been sent on this list in reaction to the CBD moratorium on geoengineering. The note here<http://BLOCKEDwww.BLOCKEDetcgroup.org/en/node/5236>: is intended to clarify some misunderstandings about the meaning of the moratorium and the rationale behind it, from ETC Group's point of view.

Diana Bronson
ETC Group

Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com<mailto:joshuah...@gmail.com>
http://BLOCKEDgeoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

On Nov 2, 1:04 pm, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why am I not surprised that for serious questions that get at the heart of
their irrational stance, they have no answer.

Really? Diana, Jim, have you no response to these very simple questions?

I believe in Texas the phrase is: "All hat, no cattle."

Dan

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@stanford.edu>wrote:

What is the practical ETC plan for protecting Arctic biodiversity?

What is the CO2 emissions trajectory that could possibly do this? And how
feasible is it to achieve this emissions trajectory?

Emissions reductions are necessary to protect biodiversity. But what makes
the folks at ETC so confident that emissions reductions will be sufficient?

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just curious Diana,

What is the record setting temperature in LA (where it was 114 this
summer), or perhaps in your home town, that would give you pause
enough to consider doing some research (!) into possible emergency
measures?

118? 120? 125?

I would have thought 114 would have done it, given the hysteresis in
the system.

How much pine bark damage (i.e. biodiversity loss) is acceptable to
you in BC? It's already the size of California and NY put together...
40+M acres.

http://BLOCKEDwww.BLOCKEDminyanville.com/dailyfeed/two-new-bullish-signs-for/http:/...

How many biblical floods ala Pakistan?

How many raging fires throughout the breadbasket of Russia?

Is there a number? Or none, no matter what the environmental signal?

And the biodiversity loss we're already headed into as a result of the
warming that's locked in? What say you? "Bring it on"?

Are you so convinced, and on what scientific data, that your advocacy,
and your approach of "emissions only" will result in a world with more
biodiversity--despite the fact that the needle is already off the
charts and we've got 50 years ahead of us to get our emissions under
control? Will you not let scientists do the research to figure out
that answer?

Congratulations to you on your nominative 'victory'.

Just don't kid yourself that we're all not as worried about
biodiversity loss as you. In fact, I think we may be more worried.

Dan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
climateinterven...@googlegroups.com<climateintervention%2Bunsu bsc...@googlegroups.com>
.
For more options, visit this group at

http://BLOCKEDgroups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://BLOCKEDgroups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

Have you joined the HOME Campaign against Geoengineering experiments? You can do so now at www.BLOCKEDhandsoffmotherearth.org<http://BLOCKEDwww.BLOCKEDhandsoffmotherearth.org>

Diana Bronson
ETC Group
skpe: dianaetc

di...@etcgroup.org<mailto:di...@etcgroup.org>
1 514 273 6661

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://BLOCKEDgroups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

[Dan Whaley]

The ETC argument that a plan for protecting Arctic biodiversity should be left to indigenous peoples in the Arctic is completely utterly bankrupt on numerous levels.  It is about the most completely looney tune thing I've heard in a long time.

1) We live on one planet, the arctic is not some sort of separate area whose 'preservation' or biodiversity blueprint can be conceived of in isolation.  And spouting some politically correct line about how those people should be in charge of the plan because they live up there doesn't hold water, it is about as ridiculous as saying that Russian wheat farmers should be in charge of the climate plan to keep their wheat from burning up next year.  Good luck with that!

2) What is this 'blueprint for biodiversity'.  Lets get real.  There are many sustainability issues on the planet, but when it comes to potential impacts on Arctic biodiversity we're really only talking about one thing:  temperature.  It is 99% more important than nearly any other factor.  In fact, I'm struggling to think of another one-- maybe pipelines cutting across grazing lands.

3) So, you're going to put indigenous peoples in the Arctic in charge of their temperature?  What about pakistani floods, or BC pine bark beetles, or disappearing islands, or breadbaskets at risk of burning?  We've got big global problems, and running around saying you're going to put these balkanized stakeholder groups in charge of their own emergency response plan doesn't pass even the most modest sniff test.

4) You argue that they should be in charge and you beg off the responsibility for the plan because "that's their job".  But the ETC group via your advocacy is very much influencing the dialogue on this, and very much part of the decision.  You are making a decision on future global temperature by advocating that research into potential emergency measures be delayed or aborted.  And, in fact, the influence you are having is in the wrong direction.  If these techniques prove useful, they will help reduce temperature.  Without them, we only get BAU minus whatever mitigation the world is able to negotiate.  The argument that they are a distraction is unsubstantiated.  Do fire extinguishers encourage more fires?  (or substitute any one of a dozen equivalent analogies).  Yes, Newt Gingrich and Lomborg run around promoting geoengineering, but do their errant voices somehow mean we shouldn't do the research?  You haven't offered a cogent argument as to why that's the case.  These kind of false dilemmas and slippery slope arguments have another name: fallacies.

5) The link you provide has emotional appeal.  Certainly no one can argue that these groups have a certain moral high-ground, however that doesn't change the fact that their arguments are as technically weak as your own.  I would ask them the same question that we all continue to ask ETC group, and which you continue to ignore:

How bad will it have to get?  What temperature in downtown LA would it take to really scare the daylights out of you?  How much of the Russian wheat harvest-- or god help us over here, the Central plains breadbasket will burn up before you admit that it might make sense to investigate an emergency backup plan?   All of it?  How many people will go hungry because commodity prices go up another 25%, 50% or 100s of points before you'll admit perhaps we need two strategies and not just one?

Does ETC group really have such hubris to believe they've got the right to limit our choices like this without any scientific basis whatsoever on the behalf of the planet?

The stakes are high.  What if you're wrong?  What if by your actions you delay measures by 10 years that could make the difference?

Dan

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Ms. Bronson is dead wrong and reveals a basic intellectual flaw. Perhaps
broad based geoengineering implementation is an issue for international
politicians. It certainly is not their concern or say when I turn on the AC
in my home; that is my own personal business and decision. If climate
control and any associated negative effects were localized within a country
there might be some serious debate about who decides; and I would suggest
not the international community decides. However, to suggest that careful
and cautious experimentation is not in order in advance of and to provide a
basis for international discussion is surely wrong. On what basis would a
decision be made? No basis, because the necessary information to make a
decision would not be available. This uneducated lady (I am containing
myself) surely gives away her bias or nefarious objectives.

Dear Climate intervention list,

Diana Bronson
ETC Group

Dan

Just curious Diana,

118? 120? 125?

http://BLOCKEDwww.BLOCKEDminyanville.com/dailyfeed/two-new-bullish-signs-for
/http:/...

Dan

http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Group,

it seems to me that CO2 increases at SPO have slowed down recently, perhaps due to the recession.  A bigger decrease was observed during the recession of the late 90's.  Perhaps some one with more knowledge of economics could say if there is much correlation to global gross product.  Thanks,  Oliver Wingenter

[Josh Horton]

I'm glad to see a response from ETC Group, but it is a dishonest one.
ETC Group places the "onus" on advocates of geoengineering research to
demonstrate that climate intervention is a feasible and responsible
strategy. But ETC Group also works to outlaw geoengineering
research. In other words, "show us the research" and "no research
allowed."

So either ETC Group doesn't understand elementary logic, or it is
opposed to geoengineering in principle and uses whatever arguments are
available to press its case. ETC Group is certainly entitled to hold
and promote Luddite views. But it's something else to claim to speak
for "small-scale farmers, fisherfolk, poor countries, indigenous
peoples, small island states." That's a lot of people--when did they
invite ETC Group to represent them? And if you represent them, then
isn't it your responsibility to offer a plausible climate plan that
secures their long-term welfare and interests?

Josh Horton

> > joshuahorton...@gmail.com

> >>>> climateintervention
> >>>> +unsub...@googlegroups.com<climateintervention%2Bunsu bsc...@googlegroups.com

>
> >>>> .
> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> > Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com
> > .
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en
> > .
>
> Have you joined the HOME Campaign against Geoengineering experiments?  
> You can do so now atwww.handsoffmotherearth.org
>
> Diana Bronson
> ETC Group
> skpe: dianaetc
> di...@etcgroup.org

> 1 514 273 6661- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alvia Gaskill]

One major difference this time is that India and China never went into recession and China is now the largest emitter of CO2.  This will also explain somewhat why while the number of U.S. vehicles sold dropped dramatically from 2008 to present day (you may recall the government took control of GM and Chrysler for a time), Chinese production and fuel use did not decline.  It's truly a global economy and that's reflected not only in GDP numbers but also in the price of crude oil which remains relatively high considering the situation we are still in.

--

[Veli Albert Kallio]

In fact, as we had geoengineering meeting at the CMPCC meeting (which I sponsored), the indigenous peoples themselves have had a form of geoengineering in their traditional approach to engineer rains by their traditional rain-dancing. To claim that the indigenous people are traditionally and fundamentally postitioned against humans trying to influence their climate is historically totally false.
 
What I believe is happening is that the ETC uses the leverage mechanisms where the environmental lobby groups push their agenda to the indigenous people and sells it and repackages it as their own initiative. In Brazil this has already backfired for Greenpeace when the indigenous communities have accepted compensations for Belo Monte power station and for loss of livelihood and turned back on Greenpeace propaganda. The First Nations, like all inidgenous people are impoverished and feel themselves powerless. This makes them to seek alliances with the Western donor organisations as they perceive them often as powerful advocates against the big corporate and other neo-colonial interests of the North Americans and Europeans. 
 
If geoengineering slows sea level rise, how then it could be considered to be against the small low lying island states and other low lying communities. There are many inidgenous people for whom geoengineering is a modern-day version of rain dancing of the past.
 
I think there is this utilitarian approach by ETC Group and Greenpeace: nuclear-scare, GM-food-scare, biofuel-scare, geoengineering-scare, climate-scare... And in this big game of ETC and Greenpeace the indigenous people are thought as small cogs in big clock work which can be manipulated for their own purposes at will. This is not the case as we have learned that Belo Monte affected communities have learned the negotiation skills and are becoming increasingly independent and able to defend themselves without outsiders like Greenpeace or ETC. So, the ETC is overplaying its representation and making exaggerate claims.
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:22:50 -0800
> Subject: [clim] Re: Congratulations to the ETC Group
> From: joshuah...@gmail.com
> To: climatein...@googlegroups.com

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

[Diana Bronson]

There are many misrepresentations in the emails in this thread (not to mention ad hominem attacks).   

Let me address only one to clearly on the record: 

 ETC Group has never claimed... " to speak

for "small-scale farmers, fisherfolk, poor countries, indigenous
peoples, small island states."  That's a lot of people--when did they
invite ETC Group to represent them?  And if you represent them, then
isn't it your responsibility to offer a plausible climate plan that
secures their long-term welfare and interests?

What we said was the following: 

Our  
> > view is that climate change decision-making cannot be left to experts  
> > in northern institutions (whether they be businesses, patent-trolling  
> > outfits, think tanks, universities, NGOs)  as people on the front  
> > lines of climate change -- eg.  small-scale farmers, fisherfolk, poor  
> > countries, indigenous peoples, small island states -- are ignored.  
> > These people, often working with local scientists and experts with  
> > very limited resources, are best placed to make the decisions that are  
> > needed to protect their land and livelihoods and adapt to our changing  
> > planet, what Bill McKibbon calls "Eaarth". 

Standing in solidarity with people who want to be and should be involved in decision making is very different from claiming to represent them. 

Diana

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Ms. Bronson:

 

No the farmers et al did not invite. You simply did claim on their behalf and you are doing it now. There are lots of people to represent; not just small scale farmers etc. The issues are highly complex. No the farmers et al are not best placed to protect themselves. They have a narrow, parochial view of the issues and may ignore important issues that they are unaware of or do not understand. You too are simple and do not understand the full extent, yet you advocate. You are free to do that but don’t complain when you get dumped on by people with different or greater perspectives. The entire discussion that you initiate is really out of order because you do not know what you are talking about. If people jump on you, you deserve it and more. But feel free! The internet is free and we can learn to ignore.

 

Eugene Gordon

[Dan Whaley]

Diana--

"The onus is on those promoting geoengineering to explain how their
silver bullet will not
present us with a new set of serious problems, harming many many
people in the process."

No one here presents geoengineering as a silver bullet, we don't even
know what its efficacy could be.

We are proposing research to get you the very answers you ask for.

It's quite simple.

Dan

> > joshuahorton...@gmail.com

> >>>> climateintervention
> >>>> +unsub...@googlegroups.com<climateintervention%2Bunsu bsc...@googlegroups.com

>
> >>>> .
> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> > Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com
> > .
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com
> > .

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Indeed what you say is simple and moreover correct. But you make the
assumption that she wants the answers. Clearly she does not as a result of
doing experiments. The answers have to be conjured up.

-----Original Message-----
From: climatein...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:20 PM
To: Climate Intervention
Subject: [clim] Re: Congratulations to the ETC Group

Diana--

It's quite simple.

Dan

climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

[Rau, Greg]

Here’s the Mauna Loa CO2 conc record.  I see no evidence of a significant recent decline in growth rate.  Pretty scarey considering the multi trillion $ downturn in GDP.  What will it ultimately take/cost to induce a significant dent in this growth?

BTW, what is “Monthly increase in CO2 in percent” below? Percent relative to what? The same month in the preceding year?
-Greg

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record.html



Description:
Monthly average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration versus time at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (20°N, 156°W) where CO2 concentration is in parts per million in the mole fraction (p.p.m.). The curve is a fit to the data based on a stiff spline plus a 4 harmonic fit to the seasonal cycle with a linear gain factor.

Data from Scripps CO2 Program.

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Greg,

What is plotted at the bottom of this thread is the difference in concentration of CO2 between consecutive months divided by the earlier month in red and the 12 month running average in blue for the South Pole (SPO).� The blue curve is thus seasonally detrended.� Percent is used to normalize for the increases in CO2 with time.� Mauna Loa has greater variation in dynamics, thus is influenced by more airmasses of different origins than in comparison to SPO.� I believe SPO observations are a better indicator of short term trends because of this, although there is about a 1 year lag for air from the Northern Hemisphere to reach this station.� Below is the seasonally normalized growth of CO2 at Mauna Loa (Flask samples).�� Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter


�
� On 11/17/2010 5:34 PM, Rau, Greg wrote:

Here�s the Mauna Loa CO2 conc record. �I see no evidence of a significant recent decline in growth rate. �Pretty scarey considering the multi trillion $ downturn in GDP. �What will it ultimately take/cost to induce a significant dent in this growth?

BTW, what is �Monthly increase in CO2 in percent� below? Percent relative to what? The same month in the preceding year?
-Greg

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record.html



Description:
Monthly average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration versus time at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (20�N, 156�W) where CO2 concentration is in parts per million in the mole fraction (p.p.m.). The curve is a fit to the data based on a stiff spline plus a 4 harmonic fit to the seasonal cycle with a linear gain factor.

Data from Scripps CO2 Program.

On 11/16/10 2:23 PM, "Oliver Wingenter" <oliver.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

��Dear Group,
�
�it seems to me that CO2 increases at SPO have slowed down recently, perhaps due to the recession. �A bigger decrease was observed during the recession of the late 90's. �Perhaps some one with more knowledge of economics could say if there is much correlation to global gross product. �Thanks, �Oliver Wingenter
�
�
�