I checked with Russell Long one of the execs at FOE. He confirmed that this is an action out of the UK group only. Hopefully they will weigh in with their international colleagues.
D On Sep 17, 8:41 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
