Dear all: I would gladly sign the letter. I agree with Tom Wigley that the word geoengineering should be included in the description of Part C. The letter must be crystal clear and unambiguous. As for the comment that this conference is the wrong place to use a letter, I don't agree. But I do agree that we should be talking to everyone we can. This week I attended the National Academy of Sciences meeting on America's Climate Choices. I was glad to see that geoengineering will be an important part of the Committee's deliberation. That part of the study will be headed by Ken Caldeira, the perfect person at the right spot at the right time. In the meeting the point was made and heard that the time frame for saving the Arctic is incompatible with mitigation and adaptation time constants. I am a little disappointed that adaptation is not included in Parts A, B, or C. That means that the letter is not really talking about the whole problem of managing climate change to promote human and environmental well-being (paraphrasing John Holdren). Remember that the recent Climate Change plans of both India and China emphasize combating poverty as the most important strategy for adapting to climate change. The richer you are the easier it will be to manage the impacts of climate change. Surely, we shouldn't leave adaptation out of our letter. Finally, I assume everyone saw the full page Cato Institute ad in the Washington Post and New York Times addressed to President Obama and charging that the President was ill informed about the science of climate change. It had about 120 signers. The best, Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 [email protected] 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 On Apr 3, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Eugene I. Gordon wrote: > > Ditto for me. -gene > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of dsw_s > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:22 PM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? > > > I'll sign letter as it stands. I'll almost certainly be willing to > sign any > revision that others here come to consensus on, too. I agree that > keeping > it short is probably a good idea. Using the word "geoengineering" > has pros > and cons. I slightly prefer the three-item version over Tom's two- > item > version. > > Dan Wylie-Sears > > On Apr 3, 6:03 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> First, don't confuse what Pachauri says/does with IPCC as an >> institution. >> These are not the same thing. With regard to Geoeng, I suspect >> Pachauri is even more conservative (negative? ignorant?) than IPCC. >> But IPCC cannot ignore the scientific issue or the literature on the > subject. >> >> Second, I think there should only be two items ... >> >> (A) Emissions reduction (Mitigation) >> (B) Carbon cycle and radiation management (Geoengineering) >> >> Unless we mention Geoeng specifically, many will not know what we >> mean. >> >> I would be happy to sign such a letter. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++++++=== >> >> >> >>> I suggest that we draft an Open Letter addressed to the Participants >>> of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, who will be at >>> the preparatory session at the US Department of State on April 27-28 >>> in Washington, D.C. >> >>> Taking into account Stephen's comments on the body language of Dr >>> Pachauri, it may be wise to make a very brief statement, such as the >>> following: >> >>> ===== OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON >>> ENERGY AND CLIMATE ========== >> >>> Participants, >> >>> We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people sharing a >>> strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that >>> the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems >>> confirmed by the name of the Forum. >> >>> Whilst we acknowledge that the politics of energy are vitally >>> important, we believe that a more comprehensive approach to global >>> warming is appropriate, which would include the following three >>> parts: >> >>> Part A: Emissions reduction >>> Part B: Carbon stock management >>> Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management >> >>> We are especially worried that there appears to be little or no >>> funding for research and testing regarding part C. >> >>> Signatories: >> >>> John Nissen, ... >>> Sam Carana >>> etc. >>> ========= END PROPOSED OPEN LETTER ===================== >> >>> I invite others to make changes, but suggest that leaving the Open >>> Letter short could make more members of this group willing to sign, >>> while we could always each elaborate in separate articles as to what >>> we each individually propose. Please all make comments and changes >>> as you see fit, but do add your name and just let's try and get more >>> names under the Open Letter this time! >> >>> Cheers! >>> Sam Carana >> >>> PS: I'll add details about the Forum below: >> >>> President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on >>> Energy and Climate >>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces- >>> ... >> >>> THE WHITE HOUSE >> >>> Office of the Press Secretary >>> _____________________________________________________________ >>> For Immediate Release March 28, >>> 2009 >> >>> President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on >>> Energy and Climate >> >>> The President is pleased to announce today the launch of the Major >>> Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. >> >>> The Major Economies Forum will facilitate a candid dialogue among >>> key developed and developing countries, help generate the political >>> leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN >>> climate change negotiations that will convene this December in >>> Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and >>> joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while >>> cutting greenhouse gas emissions. >> >>> President Obama has invited the leaders of 16 major economies and >>> the Secretary General of the United Nations to designate >>> representatives to participate in a preparatory session at the >>> Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, D.C. The >>> preparatory sessions will culminate in a Major Economies Forum >>> Leaders’ meeting, which Prime Minister Berlusconi has agreed to host >>> in La Maddalena, Italy, in July 2009. >> >>> The 17 major economies are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the >>> European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, >>> Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the >>> United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the >>> December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework >>> Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been >>> invited to participate in this dialogue. >> >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> John >> >>>> We could start summer spraying from land-based plant on the Faeroes >>>> or conventional ships two years after getting some money. However >>>> it would be essential to have proper climate modeling, such as that >>>> from Phil Rasch, before any spray is released. >> >>>> I was watching the body language of Dr Pachauri when you gave him >>>> the letter in Copenhagen and I believe that we should not be too >>>> hopeful of ant immediate help from IPCC. Their track record on >>>> Arctic ice is dismal and they will be on the defensive. I hope >>>> that I am wrong so please let me know if you have had, or if you >>>> get, any reply from him. >> >>>> Stephen >> >>>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and >>>> Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 >>>> 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile >>>> 07795 203 195 [email protected] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs >> >>>> John Nissen wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Sam, >> >>>>> Excellent posting. Two matters arising: >> >>>>> Firstly, on the matter of Stephen Salter's "cooling ships", we >>>>> could start with a sea-side installation on some suitable NE >>>>> Atlantic island, (e.g. >>>>> Faeroes?) to provide infrastructure - easy access for power, >>>>> people, maintenance, etc. We badly need funds to jump start this > technology. >>>>> Any >>>>> suggestions? >> >>>>> Secondly, thanks for the great idea of an open letter to the >>>>> forthcoming international climate forum. Can it be the same >>>>> letter as sent to Dr Pachauri? >> >> >>>> http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachaur >>>> ... >> >>>>> If possible I'd like to include an argument for the urgency for >>>>> Part C action in the Arctic, as has been suggested we might >>>>> discuss in this geoengineering forum over the next week. How >>>>> should we balance the risks of geoengineering against the risks of >>>>> not geoengineering, or delaying action? >>>>> What is the optimum ramp up speed for candidate techniques? >> >>>>> Also we should point out the rediculously low cost of Part C type >>>>> geoengineering, in relation to potential cost and life saving if >>>>> it manages to prevent Arctic tipping points tipping. >> >>>>> BTW, who should the open letter be addressed to, at the forum? >> >>>>> Here it gives the date as April 27-28: >> >>>> http://www.france24.com/en/20090328-obama-climate-change-denmark-un-s >>>> ... >> >>>>> AFP - President Barack Obama Saturday launched a Major Economies >>>>> Forum on Energy and Climate to give a boost to a historic >>>>> agreement on climate change facilitated by the UN. >> >>>>> Leaders from the 16 major economies are to participate in a >>>>> "preparatory session" on April 27-28 in Washington to "help >>>>> generate the political leadership" for successful climate change >>>>> negotiations December in Copenhagen, the White House said in a >>>>> statement. >> >>>>> The forum, the White House added, would encourage "a candid >>>>> dialogue" >>>>> between developing and industrialized countries and help "advance >>>>> the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that >>>>> increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas >>>>> emissions." >> >>>>> Denmark, which is hosting a UN meeting in December to create a new >>>>> agreement on global warming to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and the >>>>> United Nations were also invited. >> >>>>> The preparatory sessions would conclude with the Major Economies >>>>> Forum Leaders' summit, to be hosted in July by Italian Prime >>>>> Minister Silvio Berlusconi in La Maddalena, Italy. >> >>>>> The 17 major economies are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the >>>>> European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, >>>>> Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom and >>>>> the United States. >> >>>>> UN talks were to resume in Bonn on Sunday with some 190 countries >>>>> participating to reach a new pact for curbing greenhouse gases >>>>> beyond 2012, when Kyoto Protocol provisions expire. >> >>>>> The climate treaty was rejected by the US Congress in 1997 because >>>>> it did not impose commitments on developing countries. >> >>>>> Obama's announcement came ahead of a Group of 20 economic crisis >>>>> summit in London on April 2, for which he would embark on his >>>>> first major foreign trip as president, with other stops planned in >>>>> France and Germany for a NATO summit, the Czech Republic for an >>>>> EU/US summit and an onward trip to Turkey. >> >>>>> ---- >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>> John >> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Carana" >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> To: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:49 PM >>>>> Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? >> >>>>> Andrew, >> >>>>> Looking at global historic data of warming, one might at first >>>>> glance conclude that only a relatively small amount of global >>>>> warming did cause the arctic melting we're witnessing now. So, the >>>>> conclusion would then be that we similarly needed to reflect just >>>>> a small amount of sunshine back into space to have the reverse >>>>> effect. >> >>>>> However, what complicates things is that global warming is >>>>> amplified in specific areas, notably around the North Pole. East >>>>> Siberia was at times 7°C warmer than >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
