As seen at Powershift! 
Only a few years ago, some companies were saying climate change wasn’t a problem. Now, as its impacts become apparent, many of the same corporations are suddenly scrambling to claim leadership on the issue. Desperate to avoid regulation that may hit their profits, they present a dizzying array of “false solutions,” quick fixes that perpetuate inequalities in our society while they cash in on the crisis. Upon closer examination, many of these technologies and policies are merely dangerous detours on the road to a just, livable planet, distracting us from the root causes of the crisis.
Rising Tide North America is pleased to announce the release of the first short yet comprehensive survey of these bogus climate change solutions.
The 20 page pamphlet — “Hoodwinked in the Hothouse” — covers topics as diverse as Clean Coal, Agrofuels, Geoengineering, Carbon Offsets and over a dozen other non-solutions to the climate crisis, all in concise, colorfully illustrated and information packed essays. Download It! (PDF)
You can also order these booklets *FREE* from Rising Tide by contacting FalseSolutions-AT-RisingTideNorthAmerica-DOT-org. (If you want a bunch, we ask that you cover shipping costs – donations to our 100% volunteer group are also greatly appreciated!).
You can also download the booklet in it’s entirety at http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/special/fsbooklet.pdf
The book includes contributions from the World Development Movement, Corporate Watch, the World Rainforest Movement, Rachel Smolker, Rory Cox, the Transnational Institute, Oscar Reyes, and Alter Eco, as well as photography and artwork from Ben Powless, Tamra Gilbertson, Mike Wells, Appalachian Voices, Jorge Alcoreza, Andy Singer and the Beehive Design Collective.
We are currently seeking funding for an expanded version of the booklet for release during the 2009 UN climate meetings in Copenhagen that would include information on several additional false solutions including waste incineration and hydrogen fuel cells as well as an expanded section on genuine climate solutions and much more.
If you are interested in supporting this endeavor, want to order copies of the book, or have other questions please contact FalseSolutions-AT-RisingTideNorthAmerica-DOT-org.
What I found most interesting (or disturbing) in the booklet was the focus on limiting economic growth. Yes the developed world can use energy more efficiently, etc, but much of the world’s population still needs economic and energy growth to realize better health and improved living standards. We will need low carbon energy sources that will supply the VAST amounts of 24/7 power needed for the world’s developing societies.
economic growth is what started this problem to begin with
The last pages (conclusion) of the booklet speak a good bit to this. Here’s the gist -
REALTY CHECK: social justice, climate and environmental justice concerned activists live JUST AS MUCH in the developing world as the developed world.
Indeed, it is these environmentalists who have been foremost in calling out “false solutions.”
We should let them lead on energy practices in their country (in both their own national *as well as* international policy) just as we want strive to take the lead on practices for *our* country — especially considering how much of their energy production is for export or for production of products for export and is, in reality *OUR* consumption.
The alternative – that the 1st world’s climate advocate’s views should for some twisted reason trump environmentalists views in the Global South, as if they had a poorer understanding of their country’s energy politics or the risks of climate change to their livelihoods than we do! — is IMHO absurd, and suggests a colonialist understanding of the developing world.
We have examples such as China that are heavy into renewables (solar, wind, hydro) as well as nuclear. I have no problem with countries individually deciding what solutions (and in what amounts) work best for them. As for the export question, even if you reduce energy production for export their own development needs are going to drive energy demand higher. China and India currently have lower per capita electric use rates than Japan or Switzerland (among the more energy efficient countries).
The booklet was almost entirely negative, and seemed to offer no realistic solutions itself.
As an advocate of carbon negative energy such as biochar and biomass/carbon storage, I found it disturbing and disquieting to have biochar (a genuinely good idea, I think) lumped in with more risky geoengineering strategies as seeding the atmosphere with sulfur particulates.
Trying to visualize the problem, it appears to me that without carbon negative energy such as biomass with carbon capture and storage or biochar, the climate will soon pass tipping points, and will spiral out of control. The eventual outcome if we do nothing will be a methane catastrophe, I believe.
Environmentalists need to be logical, flexible, and pragmatic as well during this crisis. We need to implement solutions that really work, no matter whose sacred cow gets gored. If we need to plant millions of acres of biomass plantations, and deep inject the CO2 into the earth in order to stop runaway global warming, then we will have to do this, regardless of the sensitivities of environmentalists.
I believe myself that we need to seize the coal fired power plants, and convert them into oxyfuel combustion, biocarbon fuel, and carbon sequestration. Nothing else can take the necessary billions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere in time to avert runaway global warming leading to a methane catastrophe. We need carbon negative energy, such as biochar or biomass with carbon capture and storage, on a massive scale.
It’s carbon negative energy or watch the climate destabilize and the biosphere die.
If environmentalists love the biosphere, they need to be logical, reasonable, and flexible. Nothing but science and intelligence will get us out of the terrible fix we have put ourselves in.
http://www.killerinourmidst.com
“The booklet was almost entirely negative, and seemed to offer no realistic solutions itself.”
I agree. It is just a series of complaints, not a document that actually helps us progress towards a zero-carbon future.
We don’t have the luxury of rejecting any form of energy that has any problems whatsoever. Yes, dams flood forest. Yes, nuclear is risky. Yes, wind turbines kill bats. Despite all that, we need low- and zero-carbon energy sources if we are to deal with climate change without returning ourselves to the dark ages.