Dear all, I am no longer willing to sign this letter.
Tom. ++++++++++++++++++ > Hi Sam, > > Could you personally ensure that somebody is responsible for delivering > this > letter? I do not yet know whether Ken Caldeira or Tom Wigley would be > willing. (I am on holiday for the next few days, without internet > access.) > > Thanks, > > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:10 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? > > > > I'm happy with the final draft. > > I suggest that the Letter be addressed to Forum Participants, and > delivered delivered c/o the Department of State, Washington, D.C., > where the preparatory session will be held on April 27-28. Thus, it > would start as follows: > > OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON ENERGY AND > CLIMATE > > Forum Participants, > > [text] > > As to delivery, the postal address is: > Department of State, > 2201 C St NW, > Washington, DC 20520, > > However it would be nice if someone could deliver the Open Letter by > hand. Will anyone of us be in Washington soon? If there are concerns > about where to deliver the Open Letter, let's just make multiple > copies, and deliver them to all places as recommended by: > > Public Communication Division: > PA/PL, Rm. 2206 > U.S. Department of State > 2201 C Street NW > Washington, D.C. 20520 > 202-647-6575 > > If everyone is satisfied that the final draft sufficiently reflects > what we all can support, then I'll start posting copies to the various > groups, media, etc. I'll give it another day or so for anyone to come > up with last-minute changes. If there's anyone who wanted to be added > to the list, but was hesitant because of some wording, this would be > the time to respond. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> >> Your name should be added, and Stephen Salter's and Oliver Wingenter's I >> think. (see P.S.) >> And perhaps Colin Forrest, John Davis, Gregory Benford and Roger Angel >> would >> be willing to add their names (see P.P.S) - and Brian Launder (co-editor >> of >> that special issue on geoengineering of the RS Phil Trans), with Stephen >> Salter and John Latham for the cloud brightening (Part C). Is there >> anybody >> else from the geoengineering group, so we can finalise the list today? >> >> The majority seems to be in favour of a short letter. So be it. But I >> shall not be around for the next week - so I'd appreciate somebody >> drafted >> the final version, and I'm happy to have my name to it. After Tom >> Wigley's >> edit, it appears like this: >> >> ---- >> >> >> 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. >> >> We believe that the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the >> approach >> to the climate change problem should be as broadly based as possible. As >> such, this should 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 (in Part B and Part C). These should be urgently >> considered as part of a comprehensive approach to climate change. >> >> Signatories: >> >> John Nissen >> Peter Read >> >> Oliver Wingenter (OK?) >> >> Stephen Salter (OK?) >> >> John Latham (OK?) >> >> Andrew Lockley >> John Gorman >> Colin Forrest (OK?) >> >> John B Davis (OK?) >> >> Gregory Benford (OK?) >> >> Roger Angel (OK?) >> >> Bill Fulkerson >> Tom Wigley >> Dan Wylie-Sears >> Eugene I. Gordon >> Sam Carana >> >> Brian Launder (OK?) >> >> Ken Caldeira (OK? see below) >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> I'd be happy enough with that. >> >> Who can deliver to the Major Economies Forum? Ken, could you, as the >> principal ambassador for geoengineering? You would need to be a >> co-signatory. Is that OK? If not, who else? Tom, could you? >> >> I doubt now that we've time to get Andrew's and my points in, about the >> nature of denial that's going on - denial of how serious a mess we are >> in >> (see posting of an hour ago). Pity. It'll have to be for the next >> letter... >> >> And I'm not altogether sure about having a Part D, for reasons John >> Gorman >> has expressed, but I can live with it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> P.S. The last version of the Pachauri letter had the following names at >> the >> end: >> >> ---- >> >> >> John Nissen >> >> Email: [email protected] for correspondence >> >> >> >> Stephen Salter >> >> Professor of Engineering, University of Edinburgh >> >> >> >> Peter Read >> >> Hon. Research Fellow, Massey University Centre for Energy Research >> >> >> >> Oliver W. Wingenter, >> >> Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change >> >> New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology >> >> >> >> Andrew Lockley >> >> Former director of Friends of the Earth ENWI >> >> >> >> John Gorman >> >> Chartered Engineer MIMechE, MIET >> >> >> >> Sam Carana, contributor to feebate.net >> >> [email protected] >> >> ---- >> >> P.P.S. And the following were at end of my letter to PM Gordon Brown: >> >> ---- >> >> >> Colin Forrest. BSc, Hons >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> John B Davies >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> Eugene I. Gordon >> >> PhD, Physics, MIT >> >> Fellow IEEE >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> Gregory Benford >> >> Professor of Physics >> >> University of California, Irvine >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> Roger Angel >> >> Professor of Optical Sciences >> >> Fellow of the Royal Society >> >> Member of the National Academy of Science >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Peter Read" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]>; "Stephen Hugh Salter" <[email protected]>; >> "Ken >> Caldeira" <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Andrew Lockley" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? >>> Hi John >>> I seem to be left off Tom Wigley's circulated list, i.e >>> John Nissen >>> Andrew Lockley >>> John Gorman >>> Bill Fulkerson >>> Tom Wigley >>> Dan Wylie-Sears >>> Eugene I. Gordon >>> Sam Carana >>> I would like to be a signatory to any of the drafts recently >>> circulated, >>> as >>> I imagine would Stephen and Ken >>> I think it should be short and avoid the comforting "global warming" >>> language in favour of "climate change" (or preferably "climatic change" >>> since sea level is not normally regarded as "climate") >>> >>> I suggest John (Nissen) circulate a final version very soon with >>> *all the names that have expressed willingness to sign >>> *and a request to any of them not wanting to sign the final version to >>> tell John within 48 hours >>> *and inviting anyone extra who does want to sign it, to tell John by >>> the >>> same deadline. >>> Cheers >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" >>> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >>> Cc: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:21 AM >>> Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> To remind people of what this proposed letter is about: >>> >>>> > 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. >>> >>> I would strongly urge that we keep the letter as sent to Dr Pachauri, >>> but >>> preferably with more signatories. This open letter had the basic >>> arguments >>> for the two different kinds of geoengineering action that are needed >>> (on >>> different timescales), and points out that emissions reduction by >>> itself >>> will not and cannot work. On this latter point, scientists are still >>> misleading the policy makers such as Lord Stern: >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/30/climate-change-nicholas-stern-interview >>> >>> If anything the letter should be strengthened, rather than weakened. >>> For >>> example, with a great chunk of Antarctic ice about to break off, one >>> should >>> consider "Part C" actions in the Antarctic as well as the Arctic. >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/ice-shelf-wilkins-antarctic >>> >>> Also, there is "news" that Arctic sea ice volume may have reached >>> record >>> low >>> last year: >>> >>> http://article.wn.com/view/2009/04/06/Thinning_Arctic_sea_ice_alarms_experts/ >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "John Gorman" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 6:09 PM >>> Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? >>> >>> >>> >>> I will be happy to sign in this form. >>> just noting that timescale is the critical difference between A,B and C >>> A will take a century to get to zero emissions >>> B will take half a century to get back to 280 >>> C could control temperature wihin a couple of years -probably >>> D is very difficult to plan if we dont know how much A,B and C we are >>> prepared to do-worldwide. I know that my county of Hampshire UK, which >>> includes Southampton docks, made planning policy decisions on the basis >>> of >>> the IPCC 2007 figure of 40 cms sea level rise by 2100. This was more or >>> less >>> raised to 1metre 20 in Copenhagen. noone can plan for such a moving >>> target. >>> I personally believe that we should do enough C to achieve almost zero >>> sea >>> level rise,which of course means saving the Arctic-now. >>> >>> John Gorman >>> Chartered Engineer. >>> Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.UK >>> Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology UK >>> (just in case you want to include qualifications!!) >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> >>> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:42 AM >>> Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? >>> >>> >>> >>> Good points, Bill, adaptation should be part of the comprehensive >>> approach we need to deal with global warming. For starters, there >>> needs to be more funding of R&D into agriculture, town planning, >>> vegetation, saving of species that are at risk of extinction, forest >>> management, etc, etc. The Open Letter shouldn't go too much into >>> detail about all that, as said, everyone can add individual articles >>> and notes to describe what they propose to see happen. >>> >>> I suggest the following revised draft: >>> >>> ===== 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 four parts: >>> >>> Part A: Emissions reduction >>> Part B: Carbon stock management >>> Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management >>> Part D: Adaptation >>> >>> We are especially worried that there appears to be little or no >>> funding for research and testing of geoengineering to reflect more >>> sunlight back into space (part C.). >>> >>> Signatories: >>> >>> John Nissen, ... >>> Sam Carana >>> Tom Wigley >>> Bill Fulkerson >>> Dan Wylie-Sears >>> Eugene I. Gordon >>> etc. >>> >>> ========= END PROPOSED OPEN LETTER ===================== >>> >>> >>> Please say if you want your name added, and if so also add details >>> behind your name as you see fit. >>> Feel encouraged to suggest changes to the text, if that's what it >>> takes to get your name added. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Sam Carana >>> >>> >>> PS: Yes, I did see the Cato ad, it's at: >>> http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html >>> If anyone needed to see reasons why our Open Letter is needed, see my >>> article called Global Warming - Red Alert! at: >>> http://is.gd/qE1Y >>> >>> -------------------- earlier messages below ------------------------- >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, William Fulkerson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> 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. >> [snip] > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
