A Survival Guide to Geoengineering, my essay for Momentum, the journal of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment, is now available online and via PDF. It's an exploration of what would be necessary to reduce the risks associated with geoengineering, if (or, sadly, when) it gets deployed. This essay served as the basis of the talk I gave at the State of Green Business Forum last month.
The first part of the essay is a recap of the main issues around geoengineering -- the kinds of proposals out there, the uncertainties involved, and the political dilemmas. But the real focus is the list of five key steps that I believe to be mandatory to steer us away from the worst potential results of geoengineering:
Transparency
Ongoing international advisory group
A bottom-up "Ecoscientists without Borders"
Clear mechanisms for resolving disputes
Ban (with teeth) on non-state projects
Interestingly, when I gave the talk in February going over these ideas, the last is the one that I got the most push-back on. I suspect that, once real mechanisms for monitoring and managing global climate systems are in place, non-state projects could be useful and warranted. For now, however, it seems clear that non-state groups acting independently are more likely to lead to inter-state disputes than any persistent moderation of temperatures or carbon.
As defined by Michio Kaku : - Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet. - Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets. - Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization) We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
The world leaders had the same requirements at the COP15 Copenhagen summit. Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
What a humbling question.
The first thing that pops to my mind is how difficult it is to link that different scales of actions : the global political decision and the everyday individual behavior changes in little gestures. Maybe we need to proceed the other way round this time?
Would it be possible? A peaceful working global interoperability?
- Knowledge : People need to know about it.
- Desire : the proposed world need to desirable, ethical social model.
- Capacity : everyone needs to be able to participate in their own ways within earth limits.
I am working on this with this nascent project : the World Environment Organization and I am looking for programmers and lawyers for that (the website is very very bad for now, lots of work to do, contact me).
But the real question is : is a Type 1 civilzation even desirable?
The type 1 civilization Michio Kaku describes has :
- a type 1 language : english (an everyone speaks another native land language).
- a type 1 monetary system (a global currency + capitalism).
- a type 1 political system (democracry + republic).
hummmm...... I think only americans agree with themselves on this. What does a chinese, an indian, a brazilian, cuban, french, arabic, persian, african person think about supremacy? Portuguese, English, French, Japanese have attempted it not long ago, Americans are doing it now... I think this "type 1 thinking" contradicts with the values of tolerance and cohesive forces necessary for the making a durable type 1 civilization. Haven't all empires collapsed? Diversity is the driving force for competition, evolution and civilizational progress, we can't wish for ONE dominant system, there wouldn't be any more progress, just an unstoppable normative force. Myself being a japanese descent I am very surprised Kaku advocates a totalitarian type 1 civilization, as if plurality wasn't thinkable, only American domination... How sad...
As Michio Kaku describes it, the type 1 civilization is a civilization of absolute control : control over the planet, processes, including its weather, geothermal energy. So it is human domination over "nature". Which is also a questionnable desire. And Kaku suggests that's only achievable with a type 1 language, 1 monetary and 1 political system. I think this way of thinking is dangerous. Think about linguistics : why do we have so many words, so many languages, so many dialects... Why do Eskimos have so many different words to describe "snow"? Why do we have every week new artificial computer and artificial languages? Diversity is a fact, and is necessary. Kaku suggests each will have his/her own local language + english, but the fact is that local languages tend to disappear on the long term.
Kaku interestingly simplified the options for accessing the type 1 civilization conditional to :
- positive "integration forces" with tolerance, multi-cultural fabric on one hand ;
- and on the other hand "disintegration forces" : "weapons of mass destruction, germ weapons, terrorism..."
I think it is a good simplification, it does help : we need to concentrate on minimizing the disintegration forces, and maximizing integration forces. On this we can all agree, but it only is valid if no country has a domination desire... and he himself clearly declares he has!
Kaku also takes the example of the European Union, and falsely explains its inception as a counter-measure to the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is not true! Europe was born after the war as a space of political cooperation, to ensure peace - and later only - to improve economic condition. Thanks to American help on this, by the way.
The US is very different, it is a very recent rich colonized land, from which the natives have largely been subject to what many qualify a genocide. Europe is a land of a much higher diversity of languages, economies and political systems than the US today, and according to the recent economic crisis, Europe happens to be more stable and resilient. Still the US is now a dominant economic, political, military and cultural entity.
The US alone wont make the entire world access this type 1 civilization by forcing its normative military power, economy, language and values. There will be no global acceptance of the US type 1 civilization project. That would create too much friction. I like to think civilization type 0 transitioning to a civilization type 1 as the moment a plane breaks the sound barrier, or brakes itself. (video explaining sonic boom).
If our "civilization type 0" tries to transition to "civilization type 1" without enough velocity and cohesion it will fail like the early supersonic flights dramatic attempts. And we got only one chance!!!
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by forcing the entire world to speak the same language, use the same currency, have the same political ideas.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by dominating the nature.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization with our actual political democratic system inability to change efficiently individual everyday little gestures.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization if each of us doesn't have the knowledge, desire and capacity to be on that flight.
I have a dream that we will all enter type 1 civilization with cohesion in our diversity of languages, currencies, political ideas.
I have a dream that we will enter type 1 civilization in harmony with nature, not dominating it.
I have a dream that each of our everyday gestures would reflect our many better political systems.
I have a dream that, not only a rich minority, but all of us will enter type 1 civilization with the capacity, knowledge and desire to, in their own ways.
Open_Sailing has been invited in Barcelona by the CCCB for a lecture (below you can see the slideshow) and for a day-long workshop, as a part of the NOW festival and Atopia.
NOW is a reflection on the present based on the scientific, technological, artistic, social and spiritual transformations that are taking place at the start of the 21st century. It is a process of research, creation and dissemination that aims to bring together different local and international agents involved in the actions that are promoting a change of paradigm in the information and knowledge society and in globalised cultures.
Lecture
The first day, Cesar Harada presented Open_Sailing on a more historical perspective, explaining how it developed and where it is going, slideshow below.
Here is the structure of the workshop as a simpler array of instructions :
Dance
1. walk
2. run
stretch
3. walk eyes closed
4. run eyes closed
5. linear network - walk eyes closed
6. linear network - walk eyes closed - somebody takes the lead
7. branched network - walk eyes closed
8. branched network - walk eyes closed - somebody takes the lead
9. complex network - walk eyes closed
10. complex network - walk eyes closed - somebody takes the lead
11. splitting the group is sub-groups
Map
1. cover the floor with a large paper
2. draw YOUR world map
Tag
1. have 2 colours stikers : one "like" color, one "dislike" color
2. tag the map, write words on tags
3. map the whole world
Individual desire
1. think of where you personaly would prefer to live according to your map and tags
Group decision of a location
1. make a decision, as group, of one location, where you all agree to go together
Group decision of activities
1. as a group decide one activity in this new location
Individual involvment
1. as an individual, choose your activity within this group
Craft of the system
1. describe your location, group activity, personal activity, how the system would work (food, energy, political, technology ...)
Design of the system
1. optimize your system
Fabrication of models
1. as a group, fabricate the physical model of what you have been describing
Public presentation and debate
1. present your group work to other groups of works
2. compare, discuss.
3. general debate : what happened? what did you enjoy? what did you not enjoy? what did you learn? what will remain in your memory? How will this workshop affect your future life?
We got a new member! Today we talked to Ed and again, the project took a refreshing turn. Ed's suggestions are roughly described below, to which I added some notes... Where's the "edit" button.
We can make the choice to survive on our own and design an individual system, but what's the point of it? We don't want to be forever on our own, and we have observed that many people are excited about the perspective we are forming.
We technically can survive on the oceans, but we can only do it together, so we want to design collectively the system the community will use and modify over time, we need to build the community.
But we cannot wait for everybody to agree on our model, so we need to propose some ideas, designs (compatible standards), constitution, an architectural API.
Ed says :
A modular society can only function efficiently if there is an API (application Programming Interface) standard that all entities joining the society adheres to.
Rules:
share knowledge
security
Property (intellectual, see creative commons)
Philosophy:
Ethics
All people equal...
Cesar made a presentation on the theme of APIs and there application in the context of the "Open Sailing platform" at Future Karaoke, a lot about the same topic...
As a matter fo fact we want to become "ocean farmers". Fish farms are super interesting structures to look at. http://wwz.ifremer.fr/aquaculture/filieres
We want to grow as many things as possible, especially stuff we can eat.
We need to learn so many things, meet so many people...
Sea farming can look like this (source Kames sea farming products) :
OH! Made with tyres! Of course! Where shall we put all these tyres?
Peter von Bartheld sais:
There are quite a few companies constructing very fancy fish pens which can with stand violent storms and attacks from pretators. I would certainly be worth it to drag your fresh supply of fish along, right? One of those companies is Ocean Spar.
Appropriate technology (AT) is technology that is designed with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social and economical aspects of the community it is intended for.[neutrality disputed] With these goals in mind, AT typically requires fewer resources, is easier to maintain, has a lower overall cost and less of an impact on the environment compared to industrialized practices.[1][neutrality disputed]
The term is usually used to describe simple technologies suitable for use in developing nations or less developed rural areas of industrialized nations.[1] This form of appropriate technology usually prefers labor-intensive solutions over capital-intensive ones, although labor-saving devices are also used where this does not mean high capital or maintenance cost. In practice, appropriate technology is often something described as using the simplest level of technology that can effectively achieve the intended purpose in a particular location. In industrialized nations, the term appropriate technology takes a different meaning, often referring to engineering that takes special consideration of its social and environmental ramifications.[2]
November 12 – 21, 2009
10 Days for Oppositional Architecture
New York City
...
When I think about it, Open_Sailing is really not opposition architecture... I think History is too powerful to go against it, instead we can deviate its course progressivly, by a silent patient powerful work.
