Thank you for your comments, Dave. Your experience in policy work, the importance of NGOs to any effort to advance climate intervention (geoengineering) research and your open support make you a very valuable adviser.
It is easy to appreciate why significant progress on mitigation is an absolute priority for policymakers this year. Our support for that priority demonstrates an objective orientation toward the best sustainable outcome. It lays a foundation for constructive dialogue about the role of climate intervention as a non-competing risk reduction strategy, with much less controversy. This dialogue might best be conducted by engaging government and environmental leaders in a way that respects their positions, and addresses their constraints and concerns. An open letter advocating climate intervention, in the context of the huge task facing stakeholders in the MEF now (and without their support), is likely to miss the mark. And, its signers may appear more zealous, and less objective, than is actually the case. Our challenge is not so much that we lack a forum for raising awareness. Our greatest challenge is likely to be finding a message, and a course of action, that is effective in minimizing objections and advancing climate intervention research quickly. It would be unfortunate if, by charging ahead, we mismanage perceptions, alienate potential allies and produce controversy that impairs the ability of political and environmental leaders to support this work, even where they want to. One way to assure a powerfully constructive result might be to do the things that would be required to be able to send a letter - at such a time and containing such a message - that you, Dave, and other environmental leaders, have signed too. Kelly Wanser On Apr 3, 5:22 pm, "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> wrote: > While I agree there should be funding for a properly designed geoengineering > research program, for what it's worth I think that a public letter to the MEF > is the wrong approach. The MEF is a forum to seek some consensus on some > additional mitigation commitments in the context of the Copenhagen meeting in > December. A letter suggesting that geoengineering should be added to this > agenda will almost inevitably be characterized by some as "pay more attention > to geoengineering and less to mitigation." That is not the way to build > support for appropriate geoengineering research funding. > It is not necessary to try to push geoengineering onto the Copenhagen stage > to get it on policymakers' radar screens. In the US context, visits to key > people (you probably know who they are better than I) in NSF, NAS, OSTP, > NOAA, NASA, EPA would likely do more to stimulate some useful thinking and > discussion of what options could be proposed in the government. > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:45 PM > To: [email protected]; 'geoengineering' > Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
