Diane,


I note Etc group report on geoengineering.
http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/Retooling%20the%20Planet.final_.pdf



This represents an impressive collation of information on the subject
(especially on schemes, advocates and patents).  However, the analysis of
the politics is deeply unbalanced, and the advocated policy response is
ill-considered and dangerous.



Fundamentally, the report fails to properly consider that the world is
currently carrying out inadvertent geoengineering on a massive scale, by the
addition of vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.  To consider
geoengineering without reference to this fact renders your critique
inappropriate.  Geoeng advocates are not proposing these schemes to give us
sunny bank holidays or more clement winters, they are doing so because the
world is careering towards a climate apocalypse and the politicians are
doing virtually nothing to stop it.  The ‘strict application of the
precautionary principle’ which you call for is breathtakingly inappropriate,
when it is so clearly incautious to be allowing continuing carbon emissions.
Were we able to not only stop such emissions immediately, but also
magic-away the entire carbon output since the industrial revolution, I would
find no hesitation in joining your call for precautionary-principle
restrictions on geoengineering.  Sadly, that scenario is simply a fairytale
- and to base your organisations’ politics on it is frankly ludicrous.  Climate
change is real, dangerous and immediate, and the Etc Group’s ideological
opposition to geoengineering will not change that one jot.



In the light of the above, I note particularly the following, obvious
problems with your organisation’s report.




   - 1)      It fails to properly consider the clear and obvious differences
   between SRM and sequestration.  Whilst SRM can only ever be a
   sticking-plaster, sequestration is a natural process that can be enhanced or
   emulated to reverse the damage that has already been done.  To oppose
   sequestration is to argue for the continuation of the floods, droughts and
   famines which already affect millions around the world.  If your policy
   is that we should deliberately keep our altered climate, with its
   accompanying death and disease, please state this clearly and
honestly.  Such
   a position would find the Etc. Group few friends if it were baldly stated.
   - 2)      Your opposition to real-world experiments fails to take account
   of the fact that many such experiments can be carried out on a very small
   scale, with no appreciable climate or environmental impact.  Many such
   small-scale Geoeng experiments would be a direct recreation of natural
   processes, which renders the risk of significant, unforeseen harm to be
   vanishingly small.
   - 3)      Your argument that claimed urgency is inherently a reason to
   prevent the granting of patents is wholly unjustifiable – inventors do not
   claim the context of use, only the purpose.  Thus, your attempts to
   prohibit patenting of Geoeng schemes will serve only to delay development of
   technologies that may prove crucial in the longer term.
   - 4)      Your calls for the prevention of private-sector involvement in
   experimentation are indefensible.  Should a university be prevented from
   chartering a research plane from a private company?  Should they be
   refused the right to buy equipment, or to seek partners, from the private
   sector?



As a long-standing member of the environmental movement, I am deeply
saddened by the extremist stance Etc Group is taking on this crucial issue.
Instead of providing a crucial civil-society overwatch, your organisation
has descended into ideology and polemic.



The world needs intelligent critique on geoengineering, particularly where
this acts to fetter the desire of business-as-usual advocates to use such
technology as an excuse not to mitigate emissions.  It is time for the Etc
group to drop its simplistic dogma and move to a more credible position.  The
vast majority of serious geoengineers do not wish the technology to be
misused, and we need civil society groups to support the proper use of our
work.



A

--

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.


Reply via email to