permaculture

["Jeff Hine" <jhi@post.com>]

Nicholas, I have come to the conclusion that each of us must act whether 
or not there is some kind of global effort to make sweeping changes 
through the application of science. I have a scientific bent but 
nevertheless feel that the answers will not come from science. Can you 
think of anything great that science has brought us? I can sit here and 
think of two things: The eradication of many childhood illnesses and the 
internet because of its ability to educate people, though certainly the 
internet is not without its missuses and the fact that a huge amount of 
energy is needed to keep it going. I am not saying that nothing good has 
come from science, but almost always has proven to be a double edged 
sword. Through the technological and market based application of 
scientific understanding, the world stands teetering on the brink of 
ecological ruin. We are in the middle of a biological mass extinction 
event. Each of us must see ourselves as the main player in the fix. We 
must stop looking to politicians, scientific leaders, religious leaders. 
BYOL - Be Your Own Leader, and lead. If I sound fired up I apologize, 
it's not directed at you. But I am now convinced that we need to act as 
a light immediately and start shining. The children of the world, all 
the little voiceless things silently make a plea to you and you and you.

With Love,
-Jeff


Nicholas Roberts wrote:

> you might not be interested in global geo engineering solutions... but
> it is interested in you
>
> I am interested in trying to apply Permaculture to Gaia Theory
>
> how do you managed a planet ? we are managing a planet now anyway,
> just really, really badly
>
> the way that power is structured in the world system we will end up
> with a Mc Donalds Haliburton Green Zone surrounded by Darfur's
> everywhere...
>
>
> Are 'Hail Mary' Technological Solutions Our Only Hope to Prevent
> Disastrous Climate Change?
> By Steve Connor, Independent UK
> Posted on January 2, 2009, Printed on January 2, 2009
> http://www.alternet.org/story/116743/
>
> An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save
> the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of
> leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective
> international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide
> (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely
> curbing emissions may become necessary.
>
> The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global
> temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that
> either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the
> air. This "geoengineering" approach -- including schemes such as
> fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms -- would
> have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being
> seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency
> backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of
> climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.
>
> What has worried many of the experts, who include recognised
> authorities from the world's leading universities and research
> institutes, as well as a Nobel Laureate, is the failure to curb global
> greenhouse gas emissions through international agreements, namely the
> Kyoto Treaty, and recent studies indicating that the Earth's natural
> carbon "sinks" are becoming less efficient at absorbing man-made CO2
> from the atmosphere.
>
> Levels of CO2 have continued to increase during the past decade since
> the treaty was agreed and they are now rising faster than even the
> worst-case scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, a United Nations body. In the meantime the natural absorption
> of CO2 by the world's forests and oceans has decreased significantly.
> Most of the scientists we polled agreed that the failure to curb
> emissions of CO2, which are increasing at a rate of 1 per cent a year,
> has created the need for an emergency "plan B" involving research,
> development and possible implementation of a worldwide geoengineering
> strategy.
>
> Just over half -- 54 per cent -- of the 80 international specialists
> in climate science who took part in our survey agreed that the
> situation is now so dire that we need a backup plan that involves the
> artificial manipulation of the global climate to counter the effects
> of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. About 35 per cent of
> respondents disagreed with the need for a "plan B", arguing that it
> would distract from the main objective of cutting CO2 emissions, with
> the remaining 11 per cent saying that they did not know whether a
> geoengineering strategy is needed or not.
>
> Almost everyone who thought that geoengineering should be studied as a
> possible plan B said that it must not be seen as an alternative to
> international agreements on cutting carbon emissions but something
> that runs in parallel to binding treaties in case climate change runs
> out of control and there an urgent need to cool the planet quickly.
>
> Geoengineering was dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but it
> has recently become a serious topic of research. Next summer, for
> example, the Royal Society, in London, is due to publish a report on
> the subject, led by Professor John Shepherd of the National
> Oceanography Centre at Southampton University. Professor Shepherd was
> one of the scientists who said that a plan B was needed because he was
> now less optimistic about the prospects of curbing CO2 levels since
> Kyoto was agreed, and less optimistic about the ability of the Earth's
> climate system to cope with the expected CO2 increases.
> "Geoengineering options... must not be allowed to detract from efforts
> to reduce CO2 emissions directly," said Professor Shepherd, who
> studies the interaction between the climate and oceans. In answer to
> the question of whether scientists were more optimistic or less
> optimistic about the ability of the climate system to cope with
> increases in man-made CO2 without dangerous climate change, just one
> out of the 80 respondents to our survey was more optimistic, 72 per
> cent were less optimistic, and 23 per cent felt about the same.
>
> Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia
> hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism, is one of
> those who is less optimistic. He believes that a plan B is urgently
> needed. "I never thought that the Kyoto agreement would lead to any
> useful cut back in greenhouse gas emissions so I am neither more nor
> less optimistic now about prospect of curbing CO2 compared to 10 years
> ago. I am, however, less optimistic now about the ability of the
> Earth's climate system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric
> carbon levels compared with 10 years ago," he told The Independent. "I
> strongly agree that we now need a 'plan B' where a geoengineering
> strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2
> emissions."
>
> Among those who oppose geoengineering is Professor David Archer, a
> geophysicist at Chicago University and expert on ocean chemistry.
> "Carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere will continue to affect
> climate for many millennia," he said. "Relying on geoengineering
> schemes such as sulphate aerosols would be analogous to putting the
> planet on life support. If future humanity failed to pay its 'climate
> bill' -- a bill that we left them, thank you very much -- they would
> bear the full brunt of climate change within a very short time."
>
> Gummer set for green role
>
> The former Tory cabinet member who publicly fed his daughter a
> beefburger during the outbreak of so-called "mad cow disease" is in
> line for a leading role in helping the Government fight against global
> warming, writes Nigel Morris.
>
> John Gummer, who served as Environment Secretary in the previous
> Conservative government, has been shortlisted for the post of chairman
> of the Committee on Climate Change. He is one of three candidates
> being discussed in Whitehall to succeed Baron Turner of Ecchinswell.
> The others are Rachel Lomax, a former Treasury official who has
> recently retired as a deputy governor of the Bank of England, and Sir
> John Harman, former chairman of the Environment Agency.
>
> Mr Gummer, 69, has been a Conservative activist for almost half a
> century and has spent 34 years as an MP. He represents the safe seat
> of Suffolk Coastal. A 16-year spell in government culminated with his
> promotion by John Major to Environment Secretary, when he was regarded
> as a pioneering minister, introducing the landfill tax and the
> fuel-price escalator.
>
> Mr Gummer said last night he knew nothing about the vacant post.
>
> Fixing the planet Could technology help save the world?
>
> Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight
>
> Volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of sulphate particles into the
> upper atmosphere, where they reflect sunlight. After Mount Pinatubo
> erupted in 1991, sulphates reflected enough sunlight to cool the Earth
> by 0.5C for a year or two. The Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen suggested
> in 2006 that it may be possible to inject artificial sulphate
> particles into the upper atmosphere -- the stratosphere. However, the
> idea does not address ocean acidification caused by rising CO2 levels.
> There may be side-effects such as acid rain and adverse effects on
> agriculture.
>
> Creating low clouds over the oceans
>
> Another variation on the theme of increasing the Earth's albedo, or
> reflectivity to sunlight, is to pump water vapour into the air to
> stimulate cloud formation over the sea. John Latham of the United
> States National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
> is working with Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University and Mike Smith
> at Leeds to atomise seawater to produce tiny droplets to form
> low-level maritime clouds that cover part of the oceanic surface. The
> only raw material is seawater and the process can be quickly turned
> off. The cloud cover would only affect the oceans, but still lower
> global temperatures.
>
> Fertilising the sea with iron filings
>
> This idea arises from the fact that the limiting factor in the
> multiplication of phytoplankton -- tiny marine plants -- is the lack
> of iron salts in the sea. When scientists add iron to "dead" areas of
> the sea, the result is a phytoplankton bloom which absorbs CO2. The
> hope is that carbon taken up by the microscopic plants will sink to
> deep layers of the ocean, and be taken out of circulation. Experiments
> support the idea, but blooms may be eaten by animals so carbon returns
> to the atmosphere as CO2.
>
> Mixing the deep water of the ocean
>
> The Earth scientist James Lovelock, working with Chris Rapley of the
> Science Museum in London, devised a plan to put giant tubes into the
> seas to take surface water rich in dissolved CO2 to lower depths where
> it will not surface. The idea is to take CO2 out of the short-term
> carbon cycle, cutting the gas in the atmosphere. Critics say it may
> bring carbon locked away in the deep ocean to the surface.
>
> Giant mirrors in space
>
> Some scientists suggest it would be possible to deflect sunlight with
> a giant mirror or a fleet of small mirrors between the Earth and the
> Sun. The scheme would be costly and prompt debate over who controls
> it. Many scientists see it as contrary to the idea of working with the
> Earth's systems.
>
> (c) 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved.
> View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/116743/
>
>   




-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com