some guidelines for the SCORAI listserv

[Philip Vergragt]

Dear SCORAI-ers,

Several of you have complained recently about the long winded “armchair” conversations among a small group of SCORAIers which clog your mailboxes and repeat the worn out exchanges that we already had on the listserv. Additionally, a question has been raised about SCORAI focus, especially regarding populations growth in the world. Here is the response from the Board.

 

• It is difficult for us to guide the participants to exercise their judgment and consideration for others on the listserv when it is time to move their conversation to the “second salon”. It is now the time to move the current two threads: “op-ed” and “renewable energy” to the second salon: https://groups.google.com/g/scorai

Instruction Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bApTnIfSgxfwz4oXDCvHyQ9bTf4cYr1f/view?usp=drivesdk

 

• We are very eager to see contributions from younger members, women, non-English native speakers, practitioners, out of the box thinkers and doers. SCORAI IS FOR YOU!  Please tell us about your work, your perspective, your progress (or lack of it) toward reduced consumption.

 

• The world needs to see two simultaneous transitions: Population control in the countries  with high birthrate, and reduced consumption in the countries with high per/capita carbon footprint. SCORAI is about the latter, not about the  former, as out Mission Statement makes clear.

 

On behalf of the SCORAI Board,

Halina and Philip

 

[Richard Rosen]

Dear Halina and Phillip,

Frankly, I completely disagree with the Board about its point #3 regarding the issue of population growth.  First of all, it is important for the population growth rate in all countries to be reduced, not just in countries with a current high birth rate.  Why did you choose to pick on those countries? Doing that could be seen as discrimination against the South to the extent that most countries with a high birth rate are in the global "South".  In fact, it is a simple logical point that it is even more important to reduce the population growth rate in countries with a high per capita carbon footprint because that will decrease the world's carbon footprint faster per capita.  Thus, I submit that you have the priorities for Scorai discussions the wrong way around. 

--- Rich Rosen

--
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to next newsletter: daniel...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/DM6PR20MB26345BECC30741859B6D4D13AA7C9%40DM6PR20MB2634.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Tom Abeles]

It is my concern that the SCORIA "board" has a proclivity to relegate posts that don't meet their "criteria" to an intellectual gulag effectively isolating them like inhabitants at Guantanamo Bay in US territory in Cuba.

An excellent example was the recent post/question, by Ashley from the Unherd blog, "Renewable energy's progressive halo" where the focus was not on energy but the metaphysical underpinnings as seen in the subtitle: The Left has been seduced by climate rhetoric.

Two of the responses were interesting and telling: One was a std academic gambit to ask for definitions rather than engagement and the second was the pointed reference by a board member to where a copy of the book, referenced in a post, could be downloaded free from a "Left-leaning" website.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTbgrZqubQfQvgiRxAWvgaQkM3oCEHrGk2Wc_U1_qgW-sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Philip Vergragt]

Tom,

SCORAI (not SCORIA) has a Board, not a “board”. As you very well know a 1500-member all-volunteer organization that maintains for 15 years a listserv, Newsletter, and website; that organizes it 5^th international conference in July together with ERSCP and the University of Wageningen; that just issued its most recent book in the Routledge-SCORAI book series; that has organized numerous workshops and working groups, requires a lot of work and perseverance by a lot of people. We will soon issue our activity report over the last three years.

We are not censuring discussions at all; we are just encouraging that not always the same people are taking about the same issues.

Finally, all reactions, personal or public, to our guidelines will be discussed by our Board.

Philip

[Tom Abeles]

Hi Philip/all

Khayyam wrote: "The Moving Finger writes and having writ moves on

In 1956 Eugene Garfield creates the Institute for Scientific Information (today, Clarivat) and in the 60's we get Dialog, one of the early searchable electronic databases

Today we have emergent generative AI's, such as the variances of the GPT's, which not only have these capabilities but can create narratives and even have predictability emergent. For academics, it is bi-directional- the ability to publish and to filter

The veritable plethora of work, over "n" years of members of SCORAI  (with full collaboration and attribution needed) which you have documented is in a large part historic and has a diminishing half-half life because "Google knows", doesn't forget and can integrate. This is a sea change for academia from bottom through research, from personally penned correspondence to listservs and "publish/perish", from creation to "scanning".

what is needed is "orthogonal thinking" not the entry of new disciples who have drunk the academic Kool Aid.

It interesting to note that in 2014 the largest IPO of 25 billion on the NYSE (share price 68) was Alibaba (and its many parts)  It's why the PRC is now the largest economy with its BRI, why business adoption of ESG's are having a greater impact than the UN's SDG's and the Suzuki Foundation is underwriting the Wellbeing Economic Government Alliance (Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Iceland, Finland, Canada) which is part of the larger Wellbeing Economic Alliance.  

Incidentally, I found the post and discussion on the 15 minute community or variances interesting and worthy of pursuit. Dig deep, think globally and it raises issues that should push SCORAI.

[Ilan Kelman]

Thank you to the Board for this helpful summary--and especially for your openness and willingness to engage with the points, as we have seen from the ensuing and enriching discussion. I would be curious why the focus below is stated as being on "carbon footprint"? Considering that SCORAI stands for "Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative", it would presumably mean all consumption, not just carbon-based consumption? In fact, the SCORAI website begins with this point by stating "SCORAI (Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative) is an international knowledge network of researchers and practitioners committed to building a flourishing and ecologically-sound society by changing the way we consume."--so not just carbon, nor even solely greenhouse gases or a particular focus on human-caused climate change.

Even in the context of human-caused climate change, some of the most potent greenhouse gases are not carbon-based. Carbon footprint cannot capture all of human-caused climate change. Beyond climate change, extensive work exists on ecological/environmental footprint to which we might wish to add social footprint.

Might the Board consider that SCORAI should remain as addressing all consumption, not highlighting "carbon"? Thank you for your work and with best wishes,

Ilan

[Philip Vergragt]

Hi Ilan, you are absolutely right; and our apologies for this confusion. Of course we are all very focused on climate issues, but as you say some of the most potent GHG-es are not CO2 but methane and fluorocarbons (which actually also contain carbon but act in different ways).

We definitively need to focus on our consumption-based ecological footprint, which contains much more than just GHG emissions. I really like your idea of a social footprint.

The bottom line that we need to address overconsumption, to consume differently, or less, and try to create conditions and policies to achieve that. For that we need deep changes in the economic system as well as in our culture of consumerism; we need individual examples of “change makers” as well as a different culture celebrating less material consumption.

How to achieve that in an equitable way is one of the objectives of our upcoming conference; and I look forward to see many SCORAI-ers in Wageningen,

Philip

 

From: 'Ilan Kelman' via SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 8:33 PM
To: sco...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] some guidelines for the SCORAI listserv

 

Thank you to the Board for this helpful summary--and especially for your openness and willingness to engage with the points, as we have seen from the ensuing and enriching discussion. I would be curious why the focus below is stated as being on "carbon footprint"? Considering that SCORAI stands for "Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative", it would presumably mean all consumption, not just carbon-based consumption? In fact, the SCORAI website begins with this point by stating "SCORAI (Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative) is an international knowledge network of researchers and practitioners committed to building a flourishing and ecologically-sound society by changing the way we consume."--so not just carbon, nor even solely greenhouse gases or a particular focus on human-caused climate change.

--

- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to next newsletter: daniel...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/761976651.3272712.1685147597505%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ilan Kelman]

Thank you, Philip, and appreciated! Sounds like a suitable agenda and I learn so much from these discussions. Noting that non-carbon based greenhouse gases, even more potent than CH₄  and CFCs, include SF₆ and NF₃ so no carbon at all. Thus, we could question actions highlighting only decarbonisation rather than all pollution prevention: If we eliminated all greenhouse gases with carbon, what would human-caused climate change look like?

Best wishes to everyone,

Ilan

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Just a stray thought, Ilan... (By the way, I am very aware of what you are trying to ask, and think it is worth asking)

If we eliminated all greenhouse gases with carbon, what would human-caused climate change look like?

Way outside my own ability imagine...but:

what would human civilization look like?

Would we even bbe around to find out?

Then do the same thought exercise with the passionate and heart-felt activist call--stop fossil fuels now...

-- 

     Ashwani
        Vasishth         vasi...@ramapo.edu          (201) 684-6616 (Jabber-enabled)
                   http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth
          --------------------------------------------------------
                      Professor of Sustainability
                  Convener, Sustainability Program (BA)
              Convenor, Environmental Studies Program (BA)
                    Director, Center for Sustainability
                      http://ramapo.edu/ramapo-green
                     http://ramapo.edu/sustainability

You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week,
              at: https://calendly.com/vasishth/webex-meeting

                       Ramapo College of New Jersey
              505 Ramapo Valley Road, SSHS, Mahwah, NJ 07430
         --------------------------------------------------------

I respectfully acknowledge that Ramapo College is located on the ancestral and traditional Indigenous territory of the Ramapough Lenape Nation.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/441591646.3375397.1685199160456%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Rees, William E.]

If we eliminated all GHGs that contain carbon, plant-dependent life (including humans) on Earth would cease. No human civilization.

Bill

---

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ashwani Vasishth <ashwani....@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 11:41:31 AM

To: sco...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] some guidelines for the SCORAI listserv

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/d9299a42-62f4-51a5-82dd-3634164a999e%40gmail.com.

[Ilan Kelman]

I retract my original question and rephrase it as:

If human emissions of greenhouse gases with carbon were reduced to the levels before 1780 (or your preferred year), and the excess greenhouse gases with carbon since that year were absorbed from the atmosphere and water bodies, then how much human-caused global climate change would happen if we continued with emissions and lack of uptake of greenhouse gases without carbon at current rates and at current rates of change; that is, how much human-caused global climate change would occur based on human emissions of greenhouse gases without carbon?

Thank you!

Ilan

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/6c1d182d02ca40cf8e7aff65c67bbdad%40mail.ubc.ca

.

[Richard Rosen]

Remember, Ilan, that the strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, followed by CO2, and then methane.  But methane has carbon in it also -- CH4.  So the main non-carbon greenhouse gases are NOx, and trace chemicals which probably contribute only about 10% or less together to climate change.  For more precise numbers check in the IPCC Working Group 1 AR6 report from 2021. So a big policy issue is how to reduce methane emissions along with CO2 emissions.

--- Rich Rosen

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/2103939855.778927.1685216764743%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ricardo da Silva Vieira]

Dear Ilan, just a quick note, GHG without carbon are N2O, HFCs (and not CFCs), SF6, NF3. With carbon we have CO2 and CH4.  

[Ilan Kelman]

Thank you, Ricardo and Rich, for your helpful thoughts on greenhouse gases:

1. HFCs are hydrofluorocarbons and so they have carbon, e.g. HCF₃ and CH₂FCF_3.

2. NO_x as a greenhouse gas is not straightforward. NO and NO₂ act indirectly and so contribute to greenhouse gases, but are not greenhouse gases per se.

3. N₂O (sometimes included in NO_x and sometimes not) as a greenhouse gas has a GWP two orders of magnitude greater than CO₂ and one order of magnitude greater than CH₄.

My original message was orientated around "some of the most potent greenhouse gases are not carbon-based" using IPCC AR6 WGI Tables 7.15 and AIII.4f (neither of which lists water vapour). After refining my question, thanks to Bill's apposite point, to pinpoint human emissions of greenhouse gases, water vapour's potency effectively disappears as a greenhouse gas contributing to human-caused climate change. Again highlighting potency metrics, my baseline comment can thus be refined as "some of the most potent greenhouse gases contributing to human-caused climate change are not carbon-based".

As a group, we might therefore consider challenging the omnipresent carbon blinkers, including carbon tax, carbon neutral, carbon offsets, carbon budget, carbon footprint, and zero carbon. Decarbonisation (although not entirely, as per Bill's remark) is necessary but far from sufficient to stop human-caused climate change.

Further thoughts, suggestions, and corrections would always be welcome. Thank you so much for this helpful discussion and to SCORAI for providing the platform for exchange and learning,

Ilan