Tag Archives: conference

The sounds of the boisterous rally crowd faded behind me in the distance as I walked toward building A of Monsanto Headquarters in St. Louis Missouri for the shareholder meeting.

The security stationed on the perimeter of the property, without a word between us, relayed my pending arrival to the headquarters, “Ms. Honeycutt approaching building A.” The staff inside also knew me by name and greeted me cordially.

After a thorough security check and receiving my ‘Shareowner’ sticker, I was escorted to a conference room where Lisa from SumofUs was also sitting. Why I was being sequestered in a room instead of being brought to the conference room?

As if reading my mind, the security person explained that the conference room wasn’t ready yet. Still I thought it odd that I was not able to be in a hallway or near other shareholders.

Several minutes later, a woman walked in and said “I am Zen’s host”, looking right at me. I soon learned that “handler” would have been a better term for her. The staff were prepared.

Around 12:50, we were joined by a few other shareholders, (apparently the room really was not ready). There was another “host” for Lisa who made sure to steer the conversation cheerily to where people are from.

My host was a Mom of a 14 and 10 year old boys, a 19 year employee and a ‘Monsanto brat’. Her father worked at Monsanto for 35 years. At 1:00 we were escorted to the conference room and along the way she made a concerted effort to engage in conversation.

Do you buy organic? Yes, if there’s no GMO product available …

As we passed the cafeteria however, I stopped the chit chat about our son’s sports and asked her if the cafeteria serves organic food. She seemed to expect the question and immediately answered,

“Only if no other source is available. For instance sometimes the only mixed greens or spinach available is organic. Otherwise it is all conventional, and when Sweet Corn is in season we have GMO Sweet Corn and it is fabulous.” As much as I wanted to, I did not comment.

We had entered the shareholder meeting room. It was a huge room with a small stage at front, columns along the edges, media along the sides and refreshments in the back. Approximately 800 people were in the room and when it came time to start, every seat was filled.

I was brought to the middle of the room where there was a wide aisle. I chose to sit directly in line with Hugh Grant’s chair on the stage and behind the microphone. I was assuming she would leave me there with Lisa but no, she sat down beside me, and as she did so, my hopes of leaving my phone on and turning on the recording or video disappeared.

We had received a notice as we drove in explaining exactly what would be allowed and not allowed in the room and that recording, including with our cell phones, was forbidden. I was reminded again before the meeting and again as the meeting started.

So as much as I wanted to share this experience with our supporters, I chose not to invite a lawsuit or further trouble later. Later, with great disappointment, I turned my phone off when requested and I could sense my handler relax beside me.

As we waited, Dan a pediatrician, introduced himself to me. He shared he has left comments on my Facebook page and we had a lively exchange about how glyphosate being a chelator is not of concern to him. He even insisted that glyphosate does not harm us because we don’t have a shikimate pathway.

I replied, “but our gut bacteria does, and without our gut bacteria we don’t have an immune system.” He said something about having plenty of gut bacteria … and then said we had to agree to disagree.

Another gentleman, who ended up being the only other person on stage with Hugh Grant, introduced himself. I noticed that these men were curious and seemed to be looking for some sort of fear from me. I would not comply. I was clear and glad to be there.

Meeting Hugh Grant (no – the other one)

Before the meeting began my host let me know that Hugh Grant would likely come introduce himself to me. He did. I stood and automatically reached my hand out to shake the hand of the CEO of the ‘Most Evil Company in the World’ and said “Nice to meet you” with a small smile.

The look in my eye however said something completely different. My eyes said, “I am not afraid of you. I am here to do business and you will listen to me. Bring it on!”

I felt a shift of energy in the room and I sensed many of the eyes in the room were watching us. They knew who I was and they were wondering what we were saying This is how it feels, I thought, when two generals meet in the center of field and talk before battle.

He was slightly taller than I, staunch stature, not very good skin (a clear sign of compromised health) and of calm but commanding presence. He said, “Thank you for coming, we are glad you are here.” The look in his eye was very distant and cool, almost nonexistent, but I read his gaze as, “I am putting up with you.”

I said “I am glad to be here, and I am thankful for the opportunity, especially to John Harrington.” He said “You know after all these years I have never met Mr. Harrington.” Interesting, I thought … enough of the small talk. I will not be charmed by your heavy Scottish accent.

I said, “You know Mr. Grant, I look forward to the future where Monsanto moves in a new direction, one that does not involve toxic chemicals and hurting our children.” He said something like “Well, we will take strides to move forward and it will always be based on science. And I think we have done a good job in engaging in conversation.”

Ha! I thought, you mean your TV commercials about having a conversation that invaded my living room and made me want to punch the TV? I looked him straight in the eye and said firmly, “We have science to show that Monsanto’s products are hurting our children, sound science. If you are wrong, think about the consequences, they are huge.”

He said “And if you are wrong you are scaring an awful lot of people.” I responded: “And the consequences for them are that they are eating organic, like food used to be. There was nothing wrong with how food used to be.”

Then I lowered my voice just a bit and looked deeper into his eyes. “You know it takes a big man to make such a big and powerful company but it takes and even bigger man to acknowledge when it is not working and change direction.”

He looked taken aback for the tiniest moment. I said, “I implore you, mothers implore you to change direction.” He shifted his eyes away from me. “We appreciate you being here” and he nodded at his assistant who was beckoning him away.

Naive? Perhaps …

Many will call me naïve for thinking that speaking with him will change anything. Many might be outright angered. But I was raised by a mother who chooses to see the good in everything. Now I am not saying there is good in Hugh Grant, but there is a desire to appear good.

He is extremely brilliant and strategic and he knows it does not look good to appear to not care about doing good. So if one can speak to him on the level of finding a way to appear to be doing good, he will be interested. In fact people can be compelled to do good simply because it looks bad to not do good and they never have to actually be interested in doing good.

So, if you follow me, please know that I intended to appeal to the concept of goodness being done. I do not expect Hugh Grant to be good. I do expect him to do what is right for the sake of the future of his company and their profits.

I planned to share with the shareholders a myriad of ways in which Monsanto’s products were hurting children and people and therefore were not a method of business which should continue. The goodness in the shareholders will pressure Monsanto to change ways. I am sure of this in my bones.

The meeting started at 1:30 with the expected video about how great Monsanto is. “Working with farmers to provide sustainable agriculture, helping to nourish an ever growing world … “. It took everything I had not to stand up and yell “YOU LIE!”

As I listened to Hugh Grant introduce several farmers from the Midwest that they had flown in for a visit, I wished I could talk to each and everyone of them personally and share what I know. Then I realized I would be able to.

This was an opportunity to speak directly to some of the largest farmers in the country, not just shareholders, and my excitement increased ten fold. I could not believe I had actually made it in the room and was going to speak. I was so grateful to John Harrington!

Before I spoke there was other business to attend to. They’re elected the same board of directors, they discussed electing Deloitte and Touche as their accounting firm and someone talked about how great Monsanto was doing, then it was time to address the referendums.

Lisa from SumOfUs got up and asked a question about conflict of interest. Hugh Grant is on the board of PG&E and members of PG&E are on the committee that helps to decide his salary. Surely this is a conflict of interest? He replied that the salaries are recommended by a third party of professionals and so no there was no conflict.

Next, a ninety something year old woman with stark white hair and a red suit spoke on behalf of a referendum to disclose Monsanto’s lobbying efforts. I admired her commitment. There were no comments after she spoke and Hugh Grant advised the shareholders to vote no because “we are leaders of transparency in the field.” I imagined a chorus of laughter from our supporters. He told them which page to turn to vote and they did.

I was next. Hugh Grant introduced me. This is it, I thought. I went to the microphone took a breath and began:

Under the spotlight

“My name is Zen Honeycutt and I am representing John Harrington of Harrington Investments. We are asking for shareholder support for Item No. 5, Shareowner Proxy Access-an essential mechanism for accountability supported by institutional investors and the SEC.

“As the founder of Moms Across America, I speak on behalf of millions of mothers.

“One out of two children in America today have a chronic illness such as asthma, allergies, autism, autoimmune disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes. All of these conditions and more can be directly linked to GMOs and Glyphosate – to Monsanto’s products.

“I am here to say on behalf of struggling parents, STOP POISONING our children! Glyphosate – a patented antibiotic-has been detected in the air, water, food, our children’s urine, our breast milk, Fruit Loops and in nutrients fed to children with cancer, at levels THOUSANDS of times higher than what has been shown to destroy GUT BACTERIA – where 70% of the immune system lies.

“Shareholders must know that: Without proper gut bacteria our bodies cannot make Tryptophan, Melatonin or Serotonin. Serotonin regulates insulin-and therefore diabetes, which is on course to bankrupt US Healthcare in 13 years.

“Without serotonin and melatonin, our bodies cannot prevent insomnia, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. 57.7 million American have mental illness today.

“When the gut bacteria is destroyed, food particles and pathogens escape through the intestines, causing allergies and autoimmune diseases. Allergy ER visits have increased 265% since GMOs. Glyphosate is

A DNA mutagen and cell disintegrator allowing toxins into the brain,
A chelator, causing mineral deficiency and the inability to fight cancer,
An endocrine disruptor, causing infertility, sterility, miscarriages and birth defects.

“I am submitting hundreds of testimonials from mothers describing what Monsanto products are doing to their children and showing our children get better when they get off GMOs and glyphosate.

“I submit studies and papers today showing how glyphosate impacts the gut brain connection, leading to Parkinson’s, Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Alzheimer’s, Celiac’s and Autism and more. Based on our current diagnosis, we can expect that in 20 years, 50% of our children born will get autism.

“I understand no one wants to believe this is true, but has anyone on this Board seen and read the newest studies and reports?

“What if the very investments shareholders are making to BUILD a foundation of security for our children and grandchildren are the same investments which are DESTROYING their future? What if instead of creating health and prosperity, you are causing ECONOMIC RUIN?

“What if instead trying to help feed millions of people with GMOs, you are in fact hurting GENERATIONS TO COME? Mothers say, STOP IT. STOP IT NOW!

“You can make a difference that will alter the future of YOUR family and OUR Country. Access and vote a pediatrician onto this board. Have the courage to create a new future for Monsanto and America. Thank you.”

The sweet smell of victory!

As I turned to sit I looked around. I felt all eyes on me. I felt my face looked serious and maybe slightly angry, slightly emotional.

I was aware that other presentors might be able to look cool and detached. I was not. I was in it full throttle. I am passionate. I will allow my concern and commitment to show. I think it is one of my greatest strengths. I love my kids and I want all kids to be able to be well. My emotion fuels me.

Hugh Grant said exactly what I thought he would say, that the issues I raised were not actually pertaining to the Shareholder Access Proxy and that the shareholders would be advised to turn to the proxy description and vote according to the topic of the referendum.

He said that he would address my concerns later in the Q&A. He advised the shareholders to vote no, because basically things are fine as they are, everyone voted and we moved on. I did not expect it to pass.

Tracy from Harrington Investment had shared that it had support and it had a chance of passing, but I have to admit I didn’t expect that it would pass at all. My body was buzzing with energy as I wondered what I would ask next. I knew this was my one chance to cover some topics that I had not covered in the previous three minutes.

Lisa from SumOfUs got up and made her presentation about separating the position of CEO and Chairman of the Board as two separate people, not one, not Hugh Grant as both. It was of course totally rational and clearly should be adopted. Hugh Grant advised the shareholders not pass the referendum, because basically things are fine as they are. The shareholders voted.

Next an employee shared about how great Monsanto is doing. He and Hugh Grant repeatedly mentioned their commitment to feed people and I knew that I needed to address that in the form of a question.

I had not prepared questions because my husband said I had a habit of over preparing. “Be in the moment”, he said. “Your preparation for that part should be to not prepare. Listen to what is being said and ask questions based on what needs to be put in.”

Before Q&A however it was time to hear the results of the vote. Hugh Grant read the results of the referendums … the accounting referendum passed with 97% yes, the lobbying one only had 24% yes and did not pass. Then … the Shareholder Access Proxy got a 53% yes – and therefore passed.

I felt an actual pat on my back and I turned and saw smiling faces. The shareholders had passed it! And they were smiling at me. Amazing! Astounding. I felt myself choke up and tears welled up in my eyes. I put my face in my hands and took a deep breath. I was overwhelmed with emotion. I did not hear the results of the Chairman/CEO referendum, but it did not pass.

I looked at Lisa and she said “Great Job!” I knew the credit primarily belonged to the investment group, John Harrington and especially Tracy Geraghty’s work. She made sure it was approved by the SEC and investment institutions To be a small part of the process, to be able to feel like I made a difference, was pure joy in the face of great adversity.

Now Monsanto’s patenting GMO soil microbes!

Then it was Q&A time. I rose to my feet as soon as he invited people to come to the microphone. I was nervous. I didn’t know exactly what I would say and I didn’t have a plan for the whole three minutes, but I had to bring up the ‘feeding the world’ issue.

So I asked, from what I can remember, “You have said many times that you are committed to feeding the world. It is a noble cause, I understand that. But there are wonderful farmers like Will Allen in Wisconsin who grows 1 million pounds of food on three acres every year, through Aquaponics, (fish and veggies) both a protein and vegetables. Without toxic chemicals and without hurting the soil. If Monsanto is truly committed to feeding the world, why aren’t you supporting programs like this?

He responded, basically that Monsanto is implementing all kinds of methods and that they are continually innovating etc. He said that they are also not the only agriculture company, that there are many other systems and we need all of them. He mentioned the soil and their newest research is in microbes in the soil and their benefits. I was aware that they bought a company in 2013 called Novozymes, which focus on soil microbes.

This was bad, and I felt it in my gut. Here is a corporation that had damaged the soil with their toxic chemicals and they were now going to try to profit from repairing it. I had heard this was true and wanted to hear it from him. So I asked him “Are you planning on patenting microbes in the soil?”

Without actually saying yes, he basically described that yes, they were researching the soil microbes and how they can alter them to enhance the performance of the soil to benefit the farmers. My head was spinning.

I remember him saying something about how many companies have patented the bacteria for instance, in yogurt, that it was quite common and widely accepted. I was so mad I didn’t have an immediate question or comment and he rambled on about my previous comments during the proxy statement about children.

Roundup: ‘not one link to harm’!

He declared that Roundup has been used for 40 years and there is not one link to harm. I interrupted and said: “That’s what they said about DDT and PCB’s!”

He looked at me firmly, obviously annoyed. I had broken the rule stated on the agenda not to interrupt. He continued without commenting on my comment. He talked about Germany and how they have continually conducted reviews and reapproved glyphosate for 40 years. He claimed over and over again that Roundup was safe.

I said, “Actually the EPA does not have one single safety study showing the safety of Roundup.Not one. It only has 40 year old studies of glyphosate, not of ALL of the chemical ingredients showing harm.”

He interjected that I had jumped topics and that we were addressing the children and that other people needed to ask questions. I could come back and ask another question after we gave them a turn.

I was frustrated, there was so much more I could say about the Seralini study that did test for Roundup and showed sex hormone changes, liver and kidney damage at 0.1ppb of Roundup, the fact that all the studies were done by Monsanto, there were no studies funded by independent sources …

I silently (and I hope not too obviously) fumed as I sat down. I want to remain in the room and not get hauled off by security, so I contained myself.

Holding Monsanto to account

The next person at the podium was so obviously a plant I wanted to laugh out loud. He rambled on and on about how Monsanto has saved him money and time and all the benefits has helped his family tremendously. He sounded flat, like a robot. It didn’t sound authentic at all.

He got a huge round of applause though, and the next person did basically the same thing. A Jesuit from South America complemented Monsanto for the benefits they brought but also stated that the spraying of Roundup has had a huge detrimental impact to their farmers. Could they “please stop the aerial spraying over the farms? And thank you for the good work.”

There were so many thoughts buzzing around in my head, I do not remember if Hugh Grant responded to him or not.

Lisa from Sumofus got up and addressed the Shareholder Access Proxy that had passed. She pointed out that it was an advisory, not a compulsory proxy and asked if Monsanto planned on actually implementing it. Hugh Grant looked extra thoughtful for a moment and then the baloney rolled off his tongue.

He rambled on about how they are always engaged in discussion and increasing the dialogue between shareholders and the board. He said that of course he expected to see Lisa back next year and by then he expected that there would be some modifications.

This was brilliant that she asked that question because he was suddenly being held accountable for whether or not he was going to acknowledge the majority vote of the shareholders.

If this is what Roundup does to oysters …

I was in line again. Then it was my turn. I chose to focus on the studies this time. I said,

“I want to address the studies you mentioned early showing safety, but first I want to share with you why I personally am here. I have three sons, 12, 9 and 6 and they all have food allergies and my husband and I never did.

“Two have life threatening nut allergies and one son we almost lost twice, I held his hand in the hospital and prayed to God for his life. But when we went organic his allergies went from a 19 down to a .2. He no longer has life threatening allergies.”

I addressed the shareholders and looked into their eyes.

“And my other son at 8 years old, had a rash around his mouth, a sudden onset of autism symptoms, his grades dropped from A’s to D’s, he was hitting and had erratic behavior. I got him tested and he had c.diff, fungus, clostridia, leaky gut, 19 different food intolerances and gut dysbiosis. These are all things cows have when they are exposed to glyphosate.

“I got him tested for glyphosate and he had 8.7 ppb in his urine, 8 x higher than was found in anyone in Europe. So we went all organic to avoid glyphosate and within 6 weeks, we tested him again and his levels of glyphosate were undetectable. His autism symptoms were also gone and he has not had a single autism symptom since.

“And I am not the only one, we have hundreds of testimonials. We see our kids get better from autism, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders.” Then I turned back to Hugh Grant.

“I want to address the EPA studies now. You mentioned there are studies going back for 40 years. Well, I have seen those studies and they don’t all show safety. For instance, one study on oysters, showed that after 4 days the oysters were closed and not feeding. Well, what happened on the fifth day? And closed and not feeding…isn’t that akin to a coma? How is that supposed to prove safety?”

You cannot ignore this!

I turn back to look at the shareholders. I am making eye contact and addressing them personally. I want them to get my authenticity. I want them to get that I am not just an angry mother. I am an informed citizen.

“Another study showed that white shrimp died after 4 days at levels that were below what is allowed on our food. A study out this past week showed that glyphosate does not biodegrade as the company once claimed. In fact, it remains viable in dark salt water for 351 days. What is in our womb? Dark salty water. How big is a six week old fetus? The size of a shrimp.” I paused.

I saw the gears turning in their heads, I saw faces change with the realization that I might be saying something relevant. I shared how the pig study in Denmark by Ib Pedersen with 3,000 pigs clearly showed how when pigs were fed glyphosate sprayed grains their miscarriages increased to 30%, when they did not eat glyphosate, miscarriages went down to 3%, then back up to 30% with glyphosate sprayed grains … at levels BELOW what we eat on our food. I said that we currently have the highest rate of infertility and sterility in recorded history, 30%.

I turned to Hugh Grant and said “You cannot ignore this. With the widespread contamination of our water, urine, breast milk, Fruit Loops and feeding tube liquid, you must be responsible for ways to cut back exposure to our children. Roundup use increased in 2013 by 73%. Why? Because it’s not working. Farmers are using more to kill the same weeds!

“Some farmers get it though, one for instance, Amish Farmer John Kempf, said that at his farmers conference of 150 farmers, two years ago when asked if they use Roundup, every single one raised their hands. This year only eight did. They understand that Roundup is not working for their soil. It’s destroys the microbes.

“Can you not see the correlation between destroying the microbes in the soil and the good bacteria in the gut? Without healthy soil we don’t have healthy plants or gut bacteria or healthy people. In addition, the use of Roundup has increased because of the encouragement to spray Roundup as a drying agent at harvest!”

It was flowing out of my mouth almost without thought. I have spoken so many times about this topic that it was automatic. I was passionately making my case. I felt unstoppable.

Is Roundup recommended as a pre-harvest dessicant? Yes or no?

“Wheat, peas, dry beans/legumes, sugar and more crops are reportedly being sprayed with glyphosate upon harvest to speed up harvest. So it’s not being sprayed just on GMOs.

“Unless you are eating organic you are likely exposing yourself and your children to levels of glyphosate far above what has been shown to destroy gut bacteria. So considering the widespread contamination, would you at least advise farmers to stop spraying Roundup as a drying agent?”

To my best recollection he said something about how Roundup has the function of being useful in wet areas where fungus or pathogens grow in the crops when they are damp. But then I heard him say that Roundup is recommended to be used as a weed killer on crops before harvest.

Interesting. “So Roundup is NOT recommended as a drying agent to be sprayed before harvest?”

Grant: “As legal would say, the question has been answered. Roundup is recommended be used as a weed killer on crops before harvest.”

I wanted him to say it. “So Roundup is NOT recommended as a drying agent?” I asked again.

He replied that this was the third time we had addressed this and that it was time to move on to the next person who had a question. He said I could of course come back in line after others had a turn. I sat down and two more people got in line. Apparently a nun got up and spoke about the reduction of water and thanks Monsanto. I don’t remember.

Am I too pushy?

I do remember when a pediatrician who is an employee of Monsanto, Dan, the pediatrician who introduced himself to me, got up to speak. He declared all his credentials and how he reviews the studies and knows full well how glyphosate works. He sees not one shred of evidence that glyphosate is harmful.

He was emphatic and somewhat angry and I couldn’t help but think, completely brainwashed and or extremely well paid. It is impossible to read the studies I have read and not see harm from glyphosate! Birth defects, miscarriages, tumors, sex hormone changes, allergies, etc … I could go on and on.

I was incredulous that this doctor was saying what he was saying, really stupendous. I was compelled and I stood up and got back in line. This time some people chuckled in the crowd. There she goes again they probably thought … and it would not be the first time. I have been told “There goes Zen again about the parades … you’re too pushy … “ and it is that very same quality in me that had me stand again.

I could not let the moms struggling with health issues down. I could not let this doctor alter the minds of the shareholders and reassure them to continue to support this toxic farming. I could not let this opportunity go without giving it everything I had.

“Of course, I would not expect a pediatrician who works for Monsanto to say that Monsanto’s products are harmful”, I said when I was once again in front of the microphone. Several people laughed. I could tell they appreciated my willingness to say what needed to be said.

“The fact is, however, that even the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that pesticide exposure is harmful to children and that children should avoid pesticides.”

I don’t remember what else I said that that turn at the microphone. I do remember that a farmer got up between one of my turns and he was practically shaking and crying. He was very upset. He said

“I cannot sit here and be attacked while Ms. Honeycutt says that wheat is being sprayed with Roundup as a drying agent. I am the Director of the Wheat Growers association in Texas and I assure you that wheat is NOT being sprayed with Roundup as a drying agent. And as far as labor goes … I cannot find labor. If you want to come work on my farm I will give you my card and you can come work on my farm.”

He got a round of laughter and some applause. He continued to talk about how many people cannot afford organic, and how they need food on the table. He handed me his card and I was glad to take it.

I was especially glad that he was upset that someone would suggest that Roundup is being sprayed as a drying agent … he must see that as an undesirable practice … I wonder why?

Another farmer got up and after discussing how useful Roundup has been how he feeds 6,000 families with his corn crops … and then said “but the thing is, if not Roundup what then?” My heart leapt with joy! They were wondering what else they could use! They were starting the inquiry! My mission had been accomplished.

‘Food is Love’ – how dare they?

Another pediatrician employee of Monsanto got up, a mother, and claimed that all of the studies she saw showed safety. She was very stern and very clear and decided right then and there that she was the one who needed to get my binder. I got my host’s attention silently and pointed to my binder and to the doctor and my host nodded in consent.

Another woman emphatically declared that “I want people to know there are good people here in this company and with your leadership Hugh Grant we have been able to provide for our families. There are GOOD people here.” It was interesting that now the people getting up to speak at the microphone were almost all essentially speaking to me.

I got up again and replied. “No one is saying that there aren’t good people here. And there are people who love people who are sick in this room too. I bet if I asked you all to raise your hands if you know someone who has autism, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disease and cancer, every single person’s hand would go up. These are people you love.

“I am imploring Monsanto to go in a new direction. You have the resources. I am asking you, the shareholders, to challenge the Board to go in a new direction. Why not? We need waste management and for the oceans to be cleaned up. We need solar and wind power, areas that do not contaminate our children and pollute the planet.

“I ask you to try going organic and see for yourselves how you feel. Go all organic for three weeks at least, add raw organic sauerkraut every day to your diet to restore your gut bacteria. See how you feel … “

I turned to the front, “You too Mr, Grant, I invite you to try it. You know, all food used to be organic. We have faith in our farmers to farm as has been done for thousands of years to farm without toxic chemicals. Farmers are ingenious. We are asking you farmers to use your ingenuity. I want to thank everyone for your time and just ask you to please try it, go organic and see how you feel and take Monsanto in a new direction.”

I knew it was time for me to sit down. It was after 3:00 pm. I had stated my case. Although I could have talked for hours it was time. Hugh Grant thanks everyone very graciously as he should, for attending, especially emphatically thanking the people who got up to ask questions, all of us. He said we have had a very lively afternoon and that it was the first time ever that employees got up to speak.

We watched not one, but two commercials for Monsanto at the end. I shook my head with disgust when I saw the second commercial. They actually said “Food is Love” stealing the line from the Prop 37 ad which connected food to our families and nurturing them.

Children are still dying …

Before leaving the meeting room, my host asked me if I wanted to give the binder of studies to the pediatrician mom. I said yes. Before we got to her, a serious looking, heavy set woman with black hair stepped in between my host and the pediatrician, obviously trying to circumvent communication.

My host explained that we were giving her the studies and the woman in black hair pointed out that she probably would not be able to hold it, so my host should probably hang on to it. I sensed the woman with black hair intensely wanted me out of the room.

I stayed, looked the doctor in the eye and asked her to please study the report from Cordoba and birth defects. She said that she specialized in teratogenic effects and so this would be of great interest to her. The way she said it was like a display. It was acting.

My host steered me out of the room and on my way out several people caught my eye and smiled. I was acutely aware of being herded. I told my host I needed to use the restroom. In the restroom a woman immediately stopped me and said quietly, “Thank you for your courage. There are many, many, of us that are with you. Thank you so much for doing what you are doing.”

I couldn’t help it. I started crying from joy. The intensity of the day overflowed. It felt so good to hear someone say that, for her to look me in the eye and to know it makes a difference. I thank her repeatedly and hugged her and she left.

Before I left I requested the card of my host so I could follow up and she instructed a security guard in not so many words to keep an eye on me. I realized they didn’t want me running off into their offices and seeing evidence of God knows what.

I actually considered it for a moment when the security guard turned away, but decided not to get arrested today. I wanted to go tell the supporters what happened. I felt like I was going to burst. I asked my host before I left, would the shareholders be able to see these studies?

“I don’t know what will happen to these studies”, she answered honestly … neither did I. For all we know they are sitting on shelf gathering dust or in an incinerator. I worked for days assembling that binder, testimonials and images.

A mom supporter Nanette worked for a week gathering the studies, and the scientists have worked for life times on the work in the binder. Lives have been lost while those studies were being researched.

Children have died from cancer in Cordoba and here in the US. mother have lost babies. People exposing the truth have been beaten, threatened and they have lost their jobs. I have lost a life growing inside me and I have feared for the life of my eldest son from a nut allergy. I have faced my greatest loss and worst fear. Nothing will deter me.

I had done my job of speaking up for the moms, who cannot be fired, and who will not stop, who will not give up, because the love for our children will never end.

Zen Honeycutt is founder of Moms Across America.

Author’s Note: The following account and conversations are conveyed to my best recollection without a recording or transcript. When either are made available any inaccuracies will be corrected in a timely manner.

This article was originally published on the Moms Across America blog. It will form part of from the book Unstoppable Love by Zen Honeycutt to be released in 2015.

Scientific studies can be found here.

Facebook: Moms Across America.

389775

Oxford Real Farming Conference: power, lies, and agrarian resistance Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The sad state of Britain’s dairying has the same root cause as the billion worldwide who are undernourished, the billion who are overweight and/or diabetic or in danger of heart disease, global warming, the mass extinction of our fellow creatures.

That is a global agriculture, and indeed a global economy, that is geared not to the wellbeing of humankind and of the planet but to short-term wealth, in the simplistic belief that money per se is good and can solve all our problems no matter how it is produced or what it is used for.

To put things right we have to think deeply – in fact re-think from first principles – and act radically.

The world’s global strategy of food and farming is founded on three great untruths – lies, in effect – which between them are threatening to kill us all, and in practice are well on the way to doing so.

‘We must produce more’

Lie no. 1 is that the world needs 50% more food by 2050, and will need 100% more by 2100. This provides the excuse for the agrochemical/ biotech companies to focus ever more energetically on productivity.

In truth, the world already produces twice as much food as the world needs and – since the world population should level out by 2100 if not before – produces 50% more than the world will ever need.

We should be focusing on food quality, social justice, sustainability, and environmental protection. But the pursuit of quality and justice would not be profitable to the corporates, so that is not the prime target if indeed it is seriously on the agenda at all.

‘We can only do it with agro-chemicals and GMOs’

Lie no. 2 is that to produce all this extra food (which in fact we don’t need) we need enormous inputs of agrochemistry, now abetted in particular by GMOs – which in large part are designed expressly to survive in a world drenched in agrochemistry.

Small, mixed, traditional farms are an anachronism which must be done away with ASAP – or so we are told. Opposition to the agrochemical approach springs from superstition and ignorance which must be corrected by public education.

In truth, today’s industrial agriculture – basically now a field exercise in industrial chemistry – produces only 30% of the world’s food, even though is hoovers up 80% of the subsidies and 90% of the research budget.

The small traditional farms that are so despised and routinely swept aside still produce 50% of the world’s food. The remaining 20% comes from fishing, hunting, and people’s back gardens.

Furthermore, much of today’s industrial farming is already hard up against biological possibility and – as shown by the plight of the world’s industrial livestock – is already, often, far beyond what is morally acceptable. To increase the industrial contribution by another 20% would be heroic.

Yet people who know Third World agriculture well tell us that with a little logistic help – better roads, better banking – traditional farmers could generally double or triple their output even with present-day practices.

But the people in power would rather increase the profitable 30% by another 20%, than see the 50% which they do not control increased two or three times; and governments like Britain’s, and compliant academe, go along with this.

On a significant point of detail – GMO technology, which is now seen as the world-saver, has been on the stocks for about 30 years and in that time has produced no new food crops of unequivocal value that could not have been produced in the same time at far less cost and in perfect safety by conventional means.

Yet the collateral damage from GMO technology has been enormous – it includes the irrecoverable loss of genetic diversity in the world’s great crops. But the downside is denied or air-brushed out, through propaganda and lobbying, at great expense, by those in power.

‘We would have a boring diet without meat’

Lie no. 3 is that if we farmed for quality and in ways that keep the biosphere in good heart, then the resulting diet would be too boring to be tolerated. In particular, we are given to understand, we would have little or no meat.

In truth, the kind of agriculture that can feed us well – the kind I am calling Enlightened Agriculture, based essentially on low-input (quasi-organic) mixed farming – would indeed produce plenty of plants, but it would also produce a fair amount of meat (most of the world’s farmland is grass, and there are plenty of leftovers!), and enormous variety.

“Plenty of plants, not much meat, and maximum variety” summarizes all the best nutritional theory of the past 40 years, and also encapsulates the basic structure of all the world’s great cuisines – China, India, Turkey, Lebanon, Provence, Italy – and even traditional Britain though we are more meat-oriented than many because since we have plenty of hills, grass, and rain.

All the great cuisines use meat sparingly – for flavour and texture, as garnish and in stocks, and eat it en masse only in feasts.

In other words, the kind of (enlightened) farming that could provide us all with good food without massive inputs of agrochemistry and GMOs would also provide us with the best possible nutrition and the best possible cuisine.

Present strategies are failing!

All might be forgiven, at least in large part, if present strategies were succeeding. But the failures are all too evident. Worldwide, a billion people out of seven billion are chronically undernourished while another billion are overnourished – the world population of diabetics alone is now more than twice the total population of Russia.

In Britain, over the past few years almost a million people (900,000-plus) resorted to food banks. One billion people worldwide now live in urban slums – about 30% of the total urban population, mostly because industrial farming that is run by foreign corporates with the blessing of governments like ours has displaced them from the land.

Unemployment caused by the industrialization of agriculture is a prime cause of the global poverty that western governments pretend to abhor. At the same time half of all other species (perhaps around four million types) are conservatively estimated to be in imminent danger of extinction.

Demonstrably, industrial farming is a prime cause of all these disaster – and since industrial farming is oil-based, it is a prime cause of global warming too.

Oil is running out but the shale reserves seem endless and by the time the world has run through them we will be lucky if anything at all survives the resulting climate change with all the floods, droughts, and uncertainties.

But why do the people who now dominate the world, including the governments that we elect and the academics who have such status, pursue strategies that are so obviously wrong-headed and so destructive?

Why, when the alternative – mixed, low-input farming with an appropriate distribution network – is already waiting in the wings and is so obviously superior, and indeed could deliver all we need?

The answers are many and complex and have deep historical and social origins but the coup de grace, the last straw that has tipped the world from incipient wrong-headedness into what in effect is suicidal mode, is the economic dogma of neoliberalism and all that goes with it – including a massive shift of power and wealth from the many to the few.

The neoliberal dogma

Neoliberalism became the dominant driver of the world’s affairs about 30 years ago, thanks to Thatcher and Reagan. The economy as a whole is geared entirely to the ultra-competitive global market, the raison d’etre of which is to maximize wealth.

The market is allegedly ‘free’, open even-handedly to all, but in practice, as was always inevitable, it is dominated by the biggest players.

The market has no in-built morality: that would encroach on its ‘freedom’, which is taken to be sacrosanct. The only value it recognizes is that of money. The players must compete to make as much of it as possible – more than anyone else, so as to attract further investment.

Those who take their eye off the ball and fail to compete with the rest go to the wall, because the market knows no compassion. Thus the neoliberal market is neo-Darwinian: ‘survival of the fittest’, meaning (in this context) devil takes the hindmost.

The drawbacks, theoretical and practical, are all too obvious. All human values have become secondary if they feature at all, while the biosphere, known peremptorily as ‘the environment’, is seen merely as a ‘resource’, or as real estate.

For, we have been told, money is the sine qua non and the cure for all our ills. Without great piles of it we can do no good, and with great piles of it we can always buy our way out of trouble by investing in smarter and bigger technology.

In practice, though, as is beyond dispute, in the 30 years of neoliberal dominance, the rich have grown richer beyond all dreams while the poor have grown poorer. All kinds of reasons have been sought but the prime cause is surely that morality and common sense have gone missing.

The world’s most influential governments, none more so than Britain’s, are obsessed with ‘economic growth’ and more ‘growth’, measured entirely in money. Month by month, year by year, GDP – the sum of the nation’s wealth – must be seen to increase.

Less and less does it matter how the wealth is produced, or who gets it, or what it is used for. Wealth per se is the sole desideratum.

The NFU – a fraud perpetuated by the agro-barons

Agriculture is a prime victim of neoliberalism – and alas in Britain in particular has been the all too willing victim. The anomalously titled National Farmers Union in reality is a club of agribusiness people and has rushed to embrace its ideals.

All agricultural produce is seen as a commodity, grown at the lowest possible cost not primarily for food but to sell on the global market for the highest possible price. Wheat has long been a global commodity – and soya, rape, and palm oil.

Milk is rapidly joining the commodity ranks. It can be produced anywhere that the climate is equable and labour is not too dear (though labour is cut to the bone anyway), then dried and powdered and stored more or less indefinitely and sold when the price is right.

Britain’s dairy farmers are now being squeezed out of existence – but they should have seen this coming. The NFU certainly should. Many people did.

The more that Britain’s farmers industrialize the more they get sucked in to the grand global money-fest, and the more they find themselves up against mega-corporates with farms and plantations in the Ukraine or Indonesia or Brazil or where you will that can wipe them off the map.

Of course the whole exercise is oil-based so the price of food will depend more and more on the whims of the oil market – but hey! In the short term quite a lot of people are doing well and they keep all kinds of people in work – chauffeurs, cleaners – according to the principle of ‘trickle down’. So don’t knock it.

This is the mentality that dominates the world’s agriculture and determines humanity’s food supply.

The power of money

An economy geared to the maximization of short-term wealth sets up a positive feedback look. Those who play the neoliberal game most single-mindedly are most likely to succeed in it, and so become richer.

They then use their wealth to reinforce their position: employing people – experts and intellectuals – who will help them both to increase their wealth still further and also to justify their position: arguing indeed in a pastiche of Adam Smith’s ideas from the 18th century that by seeking to maximize their own wealth, by whatever means, for entirely selfish reasons, those who grow rich from the market somehow benefit the rest of us.

The absurd notion of ‘trickle down’ is a part of such thinking. When they are really rich, the richest people can in effect buy the services of government who in turn, perhaps knowing no better, further promote their interests.

Finally, compliant government uses its power to devise a system of education that teaches the virtues of the market economy and those who dominate it. ‘Vocational’ training these days does not imply a calling for medicine or teaching or the church as it did when I was at school. It means to acquire the specific skills and doctrines necessary to get a job with Monsanto or Goldman Sachs.

Britain has seized the neoliberal nettle more eagerly than anyone – all governments since Thatcher have been Thatcherite, even or perhaps especially those that called themselves ‘New Labour’.

Britain, now, is ruled not by its democratically elected government but by a tetrarchy of corporates, banks, government, and their chosen expert and scientific advisers. Some of those chosen advisers are directly employed by the corporates which at least is commendably transparent. Many others claim ‘independence’ and yet rely on the corporates for funding.

Thus an increasing slice of academe is now corporate driven, its efforts geared not to the disinterested pursuit of wisdom or the wellbeing of humankind or the biosphere but to the further enrichment of those who are already rich.

A nexus of corruption has seized our body politic

The trend is all too clear in Britain’s and the world’s agriculture. In Britain, as reflected in the name of the BBSRC, it is seen as a scion of the biotech industry, a jewel in the corporate crown. The international agencies and governments like Britain’s take their lead from those corporates and see it as their role to support them.

The two together – corporates and governments – form a coalition, far more significant than any coalition of political parties. Governments like Britain’s are, in effect, an extension of the corporate boardroom.

The experts and intellectuals – mainly scientists and economists – who support and are supported by the coalition intellectuals now dominate academe, including the universities. Intellectuals and experts who question present strategies are routinely ignored, sidelined, and starved of funds – the official pretence being that they have lost their way in life, or simply don’t exist.

The resulting oligarchy, the corporate-government coalition plus the heights of academe, may seem superficially benign but is as controlling in its way as any dictatorship and far more robust, precisely because it has discovered the secret of self-reinforcement.

It seems bound to grow ever richer because that it controls the heights of the economy and wealth is its principal if not its sole ambition, and the richer it becomes the more it can dig itself in.

The solution: the Agrarian Renaissance

My own mission in life (it’s grown on me these past 40 years, despite my best efforts now and again to break away) is to reverse this nonsense: to spread the idea of Enlightened Agriculture.

That is, the kind of farming that really could feed us all well without wrecking everything else; to help to make it the norm; and to help to create the kind of economy, political structure, and general worldview that will enable Enlightened Agriculture to flourish.

As things stand, any suggestion that farming or anything else might be practiced in ways that are not maximally profitable (at least for a few, in the short term) is wiped off the agenda; and the intelligentsia, to their shame, go along with this, wittingly or unwittingly.

The ambition, to establish Enlightened Agriculture as the norm, is grandiose. But plenty of people worldwide are thinking along the same lines and by teaming up with more and more of them, we’re making progress.

The Campaign for Real Farming exists to promote Enlightened Agriculture and all that goes with it. So does the Oxford Real Farming Conference. So does our new outfit, FEA (Funding Enlightened Agriculture). I am also hoping to found a College for Enlightened Agriculture (and have taken some preliminary steps. Momentum is needed right now). These will form a part of that vast global movement.

Overall, the world needs a Renaissance – to build a different and better world in situ. Agrarian Renaissance is key because agriculture sits right at the heart of all human affairs and if we get it right, then everything else becomes possible (and if we get it wrong then everything else is compromised).

The oligarchs are not going to create the Agrarian Renaissance: they have invested too heavily, in fact they have invested their entire careers, in the status quo. So the necessary Renaissance must be people led.

But this it good news, for it means that everyone can join in, the more the merrier. In broad terms and even in some detail the way ahead is obvious: the kinds of farms we need already exist; so do the kinds of market we need.

So, if we dig them out, do many of the necessary political and legal weapons and – crucially – the financial mechanisms. The financial mechanisms are not revolutionary in nature – we merely have to invoke the acceptable face of capitalism.

This is what the Oxford Real Farming Conference is for: to discuss what really needs to be done and why and – more importantly – to introduce practicing farmers who are already showing what can be done even as things are.

We cannot afford to compromise at this stage of the world’s history – radical must been radical – but there are plenty of serendipities along the way. We have the tools to make the Renaissance happen, in short – and, worldwide, there is no shortage of good will. So let’s bring it into being.

Find out more about the Oxford Real Farming Conference, which takes place on Tuesday 6th and Wednesday 7th January 2015.

Colin Tudge is author of Good Food for Everyone Forever and Why Genes Are Not Selfish and People Are Nice and co-founder of the Campaign for Real Farming and the Oxford Real Farming Conference.

Report: Agriculture at a Crossroads, Report by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Co-chaired by Professor Hans Herren of the Millennium Institute, Washington, and Judi Wakhungu of the African Centre for Technology Studies. 2009.

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged conference, farming, food, oxford, power, real, which, world on 04/01/2015 by angelo@percorso.net.

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO₂ from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged cause, climate, conference, declaration, from, geoengineering, never, real on 29/08/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO₂ from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged cause, climate, conference, declaration, from, geoengineering, never, real on 29/08/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO₂ from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged cause, climate, conference, declaration, from, geoengineering, never, real on 29/08/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO₂ from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged cause, climate, conference, declaration, from, geoengineering, never, real on 28/08/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO₂ from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged cause, climate, conference, declaration, from, geoengineering, never, real on 28/08/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Eco Bio III Millennio

„“

Tag Archives: conference

Wildlife conference: Tribes demand: ‘recognize our right to hunt!’ Updated for 2026

In the lion’s den: my victory against Monsanto Updated for 2026

Oxford Real Farming Conference: power, lies, and agrarian resistance Updated for 2026

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026