Hi all, I still prefer an Open Letter that is as short as possible. We can always refer to other documents (either jointly or individually) to further elaborate on specific aspects, but I believe that keeping things short is the best way to ensure that we get the main message across and get as many signatories to support this. I suggest that we give the Open Letter one more round of discussion before releasing it. We can always add further names later, even after its release.
Cheers! Sam Carana ================= begin draft ============================= OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON ENERGY AND CLIMATE Forum 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 climate change is appropriate, which would include the following four parts: Part A: Emissions reduction Part B: Carbon stock management Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management Part D: Adaptation We note that there is little or no funding for research and testing of geoengineering methods that we believe should be urgently considered as part of a comprehensive approach to climate change. Signatories: John Nissen Andrew Lockley John Gorman Bill Fulkerson Tom Wigley Dan Wylie-Sears Eugene I. Gordon Sam Carana ======================== end draft ===================== --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
