[Terrapreta] maybe controversial

[lou gold]

I first encountered James Hansen fifteen years ago. We were speaking at the
same National Wildlife Federation conference 15 years ago. I've got to admit
the I was wrapped up in my own save-the-forest work that I didn't pay much
attention. But I'm listening now. His truth and reputation are so powerful
that he has been able to stand firm against  the enormous forces that have
been arrayed against him.

In a famous example of religion and politics working together, Ghandi called
the force satyagraha. *Satya <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya>* is the
Sanskrit word for "truth"; *agraha* means "firmness. The two words combined
may be rendered as "the firmness of truth."

Yes, we will need to have many previously antagonistic forces working
together in order to deal with the "inconvenient truth." They say necessity
is the mother of invention. A challenge of the magnitude of global warming
may force us to bury many hatchets. As I keep saying, this could be very
good.

But we should not be naive. It is also possible to go to war (many of them)
in response to a changing world. It's our (the big WE) choice. This is where
religion and politics may play a huge role. At present the performance is
mostly unproductive. I want to help change it to something more ... to
something (do I dare say it?) ... to something more audacious like hope.

hugs,  lou

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

>  Hi Lou, and all, again, today,
>
> I think this is a super site you've referenced.  I've been reading James
> Hansen all afternoon and evening.  This Dr. James E. Hansen from NASA sure
> speaks to me.  He says things in a way I want to say them.  I think we
> understand and see the urgency and the scope of this GW/GCC problem, its
> anthropogenic genesis, and etc. the same way.
>
> Dr. Hansen rose to prominence when, after testifying at a Senate hearing
> in the record-warm summer of 1988, he said, *"It is time to stop waffling
> so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is
> here."*
>
> I just keep liking the clarity and the prescience of this guy the more I
> read from him.  I agree with his statement applied today as much as I think
> he was right to say it 20 years ago.
>
> He also said, in "Target CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" ...
>
> *A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that
> sequester carbon could remove the current CO2 overshoot*. With
> simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it appears still
> feasible to avert catastrophic climate change. Present policies, with
> continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture,
> suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation.
> We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued
> growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically
> eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition
> beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.
>
> *Do you see that first sentence?  I think that is a clear call to action
> for Terra Preta advocates around the world.*
>
> There are great potential benefits in doing climate remediation vs.
> business-as-usual, says Dr. Hansen, including the economic benefit of "green
> jobs", other important environmental anti-pollution benefits, assuages for
> lingering and growing climate-related problems like drought, famine, floods,
> and inundation of millions of people's homes and perhaps millions of
> hectares of arable land by saline ocean water within the century.
>
> These would be nice benefits for the world after we die, even some of
> them.
>
> Is this a no brainer?  Is there no connection between neo-cortex and
> opposable thumbs?  I think WE DO HAVE TO SEE THIS AND ACT AGAINST IT NOW and
> I want people to respond in support.  This seems clear to me.  More than me
> and guys like Dr. James E. Hansen are saying this.
>
> Hopefully a politician or a cleric or two could react positively to this
> message, also.  Right?  I mean if we need to call in all the forces.  You
> know, too, anyone of us could tell our politicians and/or clerics what to
> think and talk about as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *Cc:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
>
> Ron, thanks for bringing up Hansen's latest urgent warning.
>
> There is a great set of links and discussion (full of controversy) at Andy
> Revkin's Dot.earth.
>
>
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/back-to-1988-on-co2-says-nasas-hansen/
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >  Greg and list members:
> >
> >    I am primarily involved actively in promoting biochar because of my
> > conviction that we are facing a very dire future because of global warming.
> > I have come to this conclusion over many years - but find my best source of
> > information on this from the writings of Jim Hansen.  He sent a citation for
> > a new short piece out a few days ago:
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080410_YankeeTicketPrices.pdf<http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/20080410_YankeeTicketPrices.pdf>
> >
> >     This is by far the most serious warning I have heard him make.  If
> > anyone knows of a better authority on the subject than Jim Hansen, I hope
> > they will let us know.
> >
> >     In this latest "Yankees" writing, there is reference to another
> > unpublished article (submitted to Science) that is the best single piece I
> > have seen on the evidence for man's involvement.  I hope you will read
> > especially this second one, which can be found at
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
> >
> > and the Supporting Material is at:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135
> >
> >     Jim mentions biochar there.  If you (or anyone) remain unconvinced,
> > I hope you will let us know why.
> >
> >     Apologies to all who think this is off target for this list.  I
> > think we need to understand why some list members are disbelievers and do
> > what we can to convert them.  If we do not have climate urgency going for
> > us, the biochar topic will move much too slowly.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> > *To:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:44 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
> >
> >          <snip>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos_______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080413/0ffcee95/attachment.html