For the avoidance of doubt, a motion passed at conference is NOT a policy statement. However, it is a very good indicator that FoE will shortly be bringing forward a strong policy.
My money is on it saying: 1) Geoengineering is not an excuse not to mitigate 2) We should engage in atmospheric carbon reduction in the medium term 3) We should research SRM geoengineering as a possible last resort 4) We should control and regulate field trials A 2009/9/17 jim woolridge <[email protected]>: > > Andrew: this is something of a great leap forward--Friends of the > Earth UK (as it then was) was very fast out of the traps re Climate > Change in the late '80s and has played a major role in bringing the > issue to public attention in the UK; it's good to see them move on > from the sterility of the emissions reduction alone policy. That's a > problem of being an early adopter--it is easy to get stuck in place > with your once-new breakthrough turned old and stale. > > I seem to remember you mentioning some months ago that such a motion > would be put to the FoE conference so kudos to all those who helped to > bring this about; it provides a welcome, & necessary, counterbalance > to Lomborg et al! > > On Sep 15, 5:21 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: >> The following motion was passed at Friends of the Earth (England, >> Wales and Northern Ireland) conference: >> >> A >> PS There may have been some minor amendments to the wording - I >> apologise if it's not the latest version. >> >> Conference notes >> 1) The failure to control emissions of greenhouse gases to date >> 2) The rising global temperature >> 3) The ever worsening risk of breaching the 2C limit >> 4) The commencement of feedback effects such as Arctic shrinkage >> and Arctic methane release >> 5) The emerging discipline of ‘geoengineering’, which seeks to >> directly reduce global warming >> 6) The belief held by some scientists that climate change cannot >> be safely controlled without geoengineering >> 7) That geoengineering consists of two distinct disciplines: >> carbon sequestration (e.g. biochar burial) and solar radiation >> management (e.g. stratospheric aerosol injection) >> 8) The controversy surrounding some geoengineering techniques >> >> MOTION >> Conference calls on the board to: >> >> 1) Consider whether or not geoengineering is necessary or >> desirable as a part of the solution to climate change – either now or >> in future >> 2) Establish a stated and scientifically robust policy on geoengineering >> 3) Consider the merits and shortcomings of various geoengineering >> techniques. >> 4) Clearly establish a position on geoengineerinng field tests > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
