[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 15, Issue 39
Nikolaus Foidl
nfoidl at desa.com.bo
Sun Apr 13 14:19:48 CDT 2008
On 4/13/08 12:25 PM, "terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org"
<terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org> wrote:
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: maybe controversial (Sean K. Barry)
> 2. Re: maybe controversial (lou gold)
> 3. Re: scored (Gerald Van Koeverden)
> 4. Fwd: maybe controversial (Gerald Van Koeverden)
> 5. Re: scored (Sean K. Barry)
> 6. Re: maybe controversial (Ron Larson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:39:01 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
> To: "Ron Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>, "lou gold"
> <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Cc: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <AABEADHDZAJ7GP62 at smtpout02.dca.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>
> To: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> Cc: Terra Preta<mailto: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-ha
> nsen/<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/back-to-1988-on-co2-says-na
> sas-hansen/>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ron Larson
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto: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/~jeh1/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<http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126>
>
> and the Supporting Material is at:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135<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<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> To: Terra Preta<mailto: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<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http:
> //bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org>
>
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
> http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com<http://lougold.blogspot.com/>
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets<http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets>
> http://youtube.com/my_videos<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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/
> 20080413/be036979/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:43:21 -0300
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
> To: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Cc: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0804130343v5b04444at3e3b7747f6eb29af at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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-h
>> ansen/
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list