Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Geo-Engineering Could Be the Road to War

The message from the World Economic Forum is loud and clear:  we're heading for trouble if we fall back on geo-engineering to save us from global warming.

A major drawback to geo-engineering technologies is that there is no "one size fits all" option.   One country may need more water.  In another corner of the globe other countries may want less water or less sunshine or cooler skies.   Geo-engineering is sort of like moving one's food around on the plate.   The hash browns still wind up somewhere.   In other words, geo-engineering can export crises from one part of the planet to another.   It truly is robbing Peter to pay Paul and some military experts believe it could be the road to war.

The deployment of independent, large-scale "geoengineering" techniques aimed at averting dangerous warming warrants more research because it could lead to an international crisis with unpredictable costs to agriculture, infrastructure and global stability, said the Geneva-based WEF in its annual Global Risks report before the Davos economic summit later this month. It also warned that ongoing economic weakness is sapping the ability of governments to tackle the growing threat of climate change.

"The global climate could, in effect, be hijacked. For example, an island state threatened with rising sea levels may decide they have nothing to lose, or a well-funded individual with good intentions may take matters into their own hands," the report notes. It said there are "signs that this is already starting to occur", highlighting the case of a story broken by the Guardian involving the dumping of 100 tonnes of iron sulphate off the Canadian coast in 2012, in a bid to spawn plankton and capture carbon.

The top two global risks identified for the WEF by more than 1,000 business leaders and experts were the growing wealth gap between rich and poor and a major financial economic crisis. But the next three on the list of 50 were environmental, including climate change, and water and food supply crises.

...The authors fear that climate change could become a centre of litigation. "Although the Alaskan village of Kivalina – which faces being "wiped out" by the changing climate – was unsuccessful in its attempts to file a $400m lawsuit against oil and coal companies, future plaintiffs may be more successful. Five decades ago, the US tobacco industry would not have suspected that in 1997 it would agree to pay $368bn in health-related damages. For some businesses, investing in climate change mitigation now could be as much about enterprise risk management as about mitigating a global risk."

Wait a second.   Does that mean that Canada, even Alberta perhaps, could wind up facing mega-billion dollar liability claims for their role in facilitating the exploitation of heavy-carbon bitumen?  What if?


Anonymous said...

"Wait a second. Does that mean that Canada, even Alberta perhaps, could wind up facing mega-billion dollar liability claims for their role in facilitating the exploitation of heavy-carbon bitumen?"
From my reading, no. But the companies involved in the extraction and processing might. However it is unlikely because the oil/energy companies are far more powerful than the tobacco companies. One of the major companies is state owned by China, no tobacco company had that kind of pull.

opit said...

Good grief. Decades of brainwashing are taking hold. And there is no telling Chicken Little the sky is not falling.
I've compiled lists on the nature of bafflegab promoted as science.
One article I wish I had noticed before came to my attention a few minutes ago : Catastrophic Global Warming”, Ecological Brainwashing and World Government http://www.globalresearch.ca/catastrophic-global-warming-ecological-brainwashing-and-world-government/16494

ScruffyDan said...

The way I have been saying it is Geo-engineering can stop global warming, but not climate change.

This works to help get across the difference of the two terms.

The Mound of Sound said...

Dan, I think you've summed it up quite accurately. So what do you think we ought to be focusing on from here on in? What holes in the hull must we patch if we're to go forward?

I hate to say this Dan but I'm becoming dispirited. I actually have my eyes on a 12-acre tract (500' sheltered waterfront) up north on the mainland side. It has abundant elevation, two streams suitable of micro-hydro, abundant land for crops and a septic field all surrounded by vast tracts of forests.

Who knows? The idea scares the hell out of me but it might be worth a go.

Dana said...

Hey MoS, if you can swing it do it, don't wait. And don't forget to think defensively when you plan.