Dear Diana I wrote to you and the rest of the ETC group on 5 February 2009 asking for your help in identifying environmental problems with the idea of increasing the reflectivity of marine stratocumulus clouds by spraying sub-micron drops of sea water into the marine boundary layer. Several climate models show that the idea could offset the thermal effects of a doubling of CO2 with less of the side effects that would result in not doing anything at all. I was rather hurt that none of you have replied.
The problem is that even if the world stopped all CO2 emissions today (fat chance) the effects of what we have already done will continue to increase temperatures because of the phase lags of at least two integrators in the loop. Even worse is that we may be close to several positive feedback effects such as the loss of the Arctic ice and the release of methane from permafrost which could easily take over from CO2 as the main driver of global warming an accelerate it. The geological record shows that this has happened before with dreadful results to many species. I put it to you that you are enjoying the protest so much that you are not even trying to understand even the most basic things of what you are protesting about. Just imagine that it is something that you wrote to a politician or to the Royal Society that tipped the balance and delayed funding for a research project that could have stopped a repeat of the Permian extinction. Please help us to identify every possible negative effect of what we are trying to do and understand that you do not have a monopoly on caring about the environment. We may even find that we are on the same side. Stephen Salter 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 Diana Bronson wrote: > ETC Group > News Release > 8 April 2009 > http://www.etcgroup.org > > Obama and Geo-engineering? > Yes, you can – but don't! > Reported musing by Obama Advisor is dangerous > > OTTAWA, April 8, 2009 – Today's reports[1] from an Associated Press > interview with U.S. Chief Science Advisor John Holdren claiming that > the White House could now be taking a serious look at geo-engineering > – including the radical proposal to shoot nanoparticles of sulphate > into the earth’s atmosphere – are causing alarm around the world. “If > this is somebody's trial balloon to test Obama's acceptance of geo- > engineering, the White House should shoot it down immediately,” says > Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an Ottawa-based civil > society organization that has been monitoring geo-engineering > technologies since 2006. Geo-engineering refers to large-scale, > intentional manipulations of the planet's climate and other systems. > > Holdren is quoted as saying that an experimental measure such as > shooting sulphate into the atmosphere has “got to be looked at,” > adding, “we don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the > table.” As reported, these comments seem to signal a change from > earlier writings in which Holdren warned of “serious side effects” of > geo-engineering.[2] > > “The most disturbing aspect of geo-engineering is that unlike the > Kyoto Protocol, which requires a broad consensus to reduce greenhouse > gas emissions, geoengineering is a luxury afforded only to > superpowers, who can unilaterally decide to adjust the earth's climate > to their liking. That John Holdren is reported as countenancing > shooting sulphate nanoparticles into the atmosphere is especially > alarming.” > > “The potential side effects of polluting the upper atmosphere with > sulphates could be devastating – ranging from ozone depletion and > increased drought to threats to health,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC > Group. “Worst of all, once governments start shooting up these > particles into the atmosphere, we may find ourselves addicted. > Stopping would prompt a massive and sudden jump in temperature. Of all > the wacky geo-engineering schemes out there, this one is probably the > most dangerous and the most unjust. It would be irresponsible to > contemplate real-world testing of this technology.” > > Holdren’s statement is being received with glee by geo-engineers who > have been campaigning for more research dollars and a higher public > profile. This week a group of geo-engineers are reportedly sending a > letter to the Obama administration asking that geo-engineering be > placed on the agenda for the preparatory meeting of the Major > Economies Forum on Energy and Climate being convened April 27-28th in > Washington D.C.[3] The looming failure of the Kyoto Protocol and > uncertain outcome of the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December > have politicians stargazing, hoping to find anything that could appear > to be a winning strategy in the fight against climate change. > > “The White House must confirm that Barack Obama's meeting with > representatives of the sixteen largest economies to discuss climate > change later this month is not an attempt to convene some new > 'coalition of the willing' to reengineer the planet,” asserts Diana > Bronson of ETC Group. “If the United States does indeed head down the > geo-engineering path they could find themselves in breach of > international law under the UN's ENMOD Convention [Convention on the > Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental > Modification Techniques]. If the White House wants to be constructive, > it should work with the United Nations to ensure that appropriate > oversight structures are in place to prevent unilateral deployment of > geo-engineering. Meanwhile, geo-engineering schemes, including real > world field trials, should be vigourously opposed.” > > The AP's interview with John Holdren comes on the heels of reports > from the UK suggesting that both the government and the Royal Society > are giving geoengineering a sympathetic hearing. Earlier this week, > ETC Group sent a submission to the Royal Society on the question of > governance and geo-engineering. ETC Group's submission is available > here:http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=736 > > ETC Group is also sponsoring a “Pie-in-the-Sky” contest to highlight > the absurdity of geo-engineering schemes. Entries have been received > from 13 countries and the winner will be announced on Earth Day (April > 22). > > For more information: > > Jim Thomas (Montreal, Canada) [email protected] > Phone: +1 514 273 9994 Cell: +1 514 516 5759 > > Diana Bronson (Montreal, Canada) [email protected] > Phone: +1 514 273 6661 Cell: +1 514 629 9236 > > Pat Mooney (Ottawa, Canada) [email protected] > Phone: +1 613 241 2267 Cell: +1 613 240 0045 > > Notes: > [1] Seth Borenstein, “Obama looks at climate engineering,” Associated > Press, 8th April 2009, on the Internet > athttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hm1kMpA2nQALOfQL8Y8PxxTHNVtgD97EG5200 > [2] John Holdren, “The Energy Innovation Imperative: Addressing Oil > Dependence, Climate Change, and Other 21st Century Energy Challenges,” > Innovations, vol.1, no. 2, pp. 3-23, Spring 2006. > [3] A draft of the open letter from Geo-Engineers to the Major > Economies Forum on Energy And Climate is online > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/c5bf988ac2fb27b1/15123d8b6e0dd0b5 > > > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
