The inherent assumption here is that we do what is best for the planet and its people; except that there is no universal view of what is best.
I strongly disagree. There are important agendas that are not carefully hidden and what is best for the planet is nowhere near the top except that it is the stated rationale. Geoengineering is now what is best but the opposition to it gives away the true motives of the global warming niks. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:28 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Andrew Lockley; [email protected]; Geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Friends of the Earth Motion Dear Mike: Exactly! On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Holding off on SRM until Greenland is rapidly losing mass, methane is pouring from the thawing permafrost, and Arctic sea ice is only present in the depths of winter (so much biodiversity is extinct or virtually so) is likely too late to reverse these effects--so what is the point. No question we must mitigate all that we can, but holding off on geoengineering until all is nearly lost is like waiting to help those facing severe climate impacts until they are malnourished and near death--the intervention must be much greater and costly (i.e., many of the most vulnerable will already have died) and may well not even save those who remain (and certainly not their culture and heritage). The situation is already so serious in some locations that it seems to me those concerned about the Earth and its people should be advocating, in addition to very strong mitigation, aggressive research and even a low-level start to geoengineering in order to stave off getting to the emergency situation (and, of course, we may only know a situation is an emergency one well after that point is reached, or at least committed to once ocean inertia allows the climate to catch up). Indeed, it seems to me that arguing one waits is saying that the way to get the world to act strongly enough on mitigation is to give them a taste of the very worst that can happen and then trying to pull back--so keep working to lift the foot off the accelerator as the climate is accelerating toward the likely, but unknown, end of the road, and plan on hitting your brakes so hard that you will stop even after your front end is over the edge of the precipice (sorry to mix metaphors). Tom Wigley's approach was to use geoengineering as a way to minimize overall costs of mitigation, so slowing mitigation a bit and making it up with geoengineering. It seems to me that we need to be doing all we practically can on mitigation (and I know "practically" is the qualifier--I'd say up to a few % of GDP) and use geoengineering in conjunction with adaptation to alleviate the large impacts that have started to show or likely lie just ahead. So, don't make geoengineering subject to what is done on mitigation (or let mitigation rely on geoengineering), but consider geoengineering a complement to adaptation, holding off on it until other adaptive efforts are overwhelmed (as is emerging now as the situation in the Arctic, etc.). Best, Mike MacCracken On 9/17/09 11:41 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 Œgeoengineering¹, 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 Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
