This belongs on Clim, not geo. David Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship
On Dec 30, 2009, at 10:13 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 pr > inciple’ 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 als > o magic-away the entire carbon output since the industrial revolutio > n, 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 immedia > te, and the Etc Group’s ideological opposition to geoengineering wil > l 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 attem > pts to prohibit patenting of Geoeng schemes will serve only to delay > development of technologies that may prove crucial in the longer te > rm. > 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 > . -- 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.
