Albert is seeing ex-president Clinton next week. This is an unusual opportunity to a get a message across to somebody with real influence. Is there a single message that could catalyse action?
Seeing the bad news in the Guardian [1], about which Stephen sighed, one should not be "rocking the boat", yet I feel that the people advising Obama must warn him that emissions reductions, however severe, are no guarantee of safety. Any level of emissions reductions which appear politically acceptable, like 80% reduction by 2050, has little chance of preventing tipping points like Arctic sea ice summer disappearance. Perhaps Clinton should be told that we actually face a climate emergency, but IPCC have dug themselves collectively into a hole over emissions reductions. Scientific advisers (like John Holdren) should be asked a straight question: would emissions reductions by themselves guarantee to prevent the kind of climate catastrophe that could follow from loss of Arctic sea ice (methane discharge, sea level rise) - and if not, is there any alternative to geoengineering for significantly reducing the risk? The answer does not have to be made public, but that is another issue. Cheers, John [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
