Again Diana, your missive skirts the truth without actually engaging with it.
Geoengineers are not 'emboldened' by the failure to mitigate - we're in despair at the lack of coordinated action on mitigation. I don't know of one single geoengineering advocate within the scientific community who uses geoeng to justfity continuing emissions. Your assertion that geoeng can't be tested without altering the climate is wilfully short of the truth. There are many tests we can do on delivery technology, aerosol residence time, etc., which will have no detectable climatic effect. You have already received details of the Russian experiment on aerosol distribution, for example. Only a very small number of geoengineering advocates call for any kind of short-term deployment, even at sub-scale level, for SSA SRM technology. You are well aware of this from reading this list, and yet you continue to send out materials which knowingly paint an entirely different picture of the views and intentions of members of this community. Further, there is no general move to avoid regulation. In fact, the majority of correspondence from the community (of which I have been made aware) calls for an effective framework of regulation for early-stage tests, either under existing supervision or through specialist structures. This may indeed be a 'code of practice', but for small-scale experiments with no climate impact that is all that is required. Again I find that materials from ETC muddy debate and misrepresent the stance of those in the geoengineering community. The geoengineering community needs well-informed external critique, and sadly ETC fails utterly to provide that, instead choosing alarmist and frequently misleading self-promotion. A On 11 February 2010 20:43, Diana Bronson <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073 > > ETC Group > > News Release > > February 11, 2010 > > www.etcgroup.org > > Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance > Geoengineers Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must be Opposed > > While most scientists left the Copenhagen Climate Summit feeling gloomy > about their influence, a small group of geoengineering advocates came away > emboldened by the summit’s weak outcome and uncertain road ahead. This group > of scientists aims to get on with research and experimentation in > controversial geoengineering technologies. Their real excitement is over > “solar radiation management” (SRM). This is a way of “cooling down the > planet’s thermostat” by reflecting a portion of the sun’s rays back to outer > space, through a variety of techniques ranging from sunshades in space, to > aerosol sulphates in the stratosphere, to whitening clouds. These high-risk, > planet-altering schemes affect global warming without changing its cause > which is excessive greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. > > The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: > prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of > peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of > panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement > as scientists testify about the “need to research Plan B.”[i] “This lobbying > offensive has been underway for more than a year now but it has moved into a > critical new phase. The world needs to pay attention,” said Diana Bronson of > ETC Group, a technology watchdog headquartered in Canada. “Geoengineers are > now advocating real-world experiments with some of the most high-risk > climate changing technologies and many of them have no intention of waiting > for an international regulatory agreement. Governments need to tell them > they have no right to geoengineer the planet. Industrialized countries, > which caused the problem of global warming in the first place, cannot be > trusted to unilaterally attempt a techno-fix that will be even remotely > equitable in its impact.” > > David Keith, a Canadian physicist who advises Bill Gates on his > geoengineering grants, has shown the most bravado for experimenting with > “fast, cheap and imperfect” technologies as “a hedge.” In the science > journal Nature[ii] for example, he and his co-authors call for an > international programme of SRM research to grow one-hundred-fold (from $10 > million to $1 billion over ten years). This would include experiments at a > scale that is large enough for the climate to notice but small enough to > “limit risks.” The article, which attracted extensive popular media > attention, also addresses the thorny governance question, framing it as an > issue of “establishing legitimate collective control” over reckless > unilateral action. Yet Keith and his co-authors argue against the > negotiation of an international treaty – or any kind of international > regulation – which could prove “burdensome” on research or even result in a > testing ban. Rather they call for a “bottom-up approach,” where stakeholders > could be “loosely” engaged and where an “iterative” relation could be > established between the scientists and a select group of former politicians > and NGO leaders who would study governance options, while testing actually > gets underway. Keith’s message to politicians is simple: keep the scientists > in control of the discussion while inviting others to join; ensure it > remains supportive of an ambitious research and testing agenda; and do NOT > get the United Nations involved.[iii] > > Another article published in the last fortnight in Science[iv] tackles the > “Politics of Geoengineering.” The authors, Blackstock and Long, also argue > in favour of more SRM research and “subscale” experimentation, but caution > against actual “climatic impacts research” (i.e. deployment) until an > international framework is in place that can “facilitate this process.” > Rather, they politely ask scientists to “forswear climatic impacts testing > and carefully restrict subscale field-testing until approved by a broad, > legitimate international process.” They endorse a voluntary process whereby > scientists establish their own norms, as they plan to do at a meeting in > Asilomar, California in late March as a “first step.”[v] The notion of a > “voluntary code” to govern geoengineering research and testing has been > promoted by private ocean fertilization firms as well as by the UK Royal > Society.[vi] Civil society groups are concerned that this discussion is > pre-empting a more fundamental international debate about whether or not > geoengineering should be pursued at all. > > In the same issue of Science, Alan Robock et al.[vii], provide evidence of > how dangerous actual testing of stratospheric aerosols would be, showing > that solar radiation management “cannot be tested without full-scale > implementation” and that this “could disrupt food production on a large > scale.” A large continuous dose of aerosols would be required to be able to > distinguish actual climate impacts from regular weather “noise.” Such > deployment – the equivalent of one 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption every 4 > years—could indeed lower global average surface air temperature. But it > would also affect the water and food supplies of more than 2 billion people! > > Anyone who thinks these ideas are still marginal should tune into the joint > hearings on geoengineering by the Committees on Science and Technology of > the US House of Representatives and the UK House of Commons. Over the past > three months, a parade of advocates has been drowning out more cautionary > voices. In addition: > > · Bill Gates has poured millions of dollars into > geoengineering-related research since 2007[viii] and Microsoft’s former > chief technical officer Nathan Myhrvold has become a champion of SRM. > Myhrvold’s firm Intellectual Ventures already has several patents pending on > geoengineering technologies.[ix] > > · Billionaire Richard Branson has created a “Climate War Room”[x] to > work with “the right stakeholders” to “create a strategic roadmap for > governance and regulation” in the geoengineering “battle area.” > > · Several new research funding programmes and think tanks are being > set up, mainly in the USA and UK. > > · Vladmir Putin’s key science advisor, Yuri Izrael directed a > small-scale sulphate aerosol experiment in Russia last year that did not > even hit the public radar until it was picked up on a popular blog.[xi] > > “It is one thing to examine geoengineering through computer modeling and > laboratory testing. It is quite another for the richest men and the richest > countries in the world to begin actual experiments that tinker with the > planet’s complex climate system that we do not fully understand. Suggesting > a ‘bottom-up,’ governance process for such top-down planet-altering > technologies is absurd. If they want a real ‘bottom-up’ process, they need > to start with the people at the bottom who have already been affected by > industry-induced climate change. Gates, Branson and the elite geoengineers > are a long-way from the bottom. I’m sure they will keep their bottoms dry – > and make money at the same time – no matter what happens to the planet. The > geoengineering lobby has no mandate and no right to ‘manage solar radiation’ > on behalf of anyone,” says Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group’s Mexico office. > > > -30- > > > Information: > > Diana Bronson (Montreal, Canada) [email protected]; Phone: +1 514 273 > 6661 Cell: +1 514 629 9236 > > Pat Mooney (Ottawa, Canada) [email protected]; Phone: +1 613 241 2267 Cell: > +1 613 240 0045 > > Silvia Ribeiro (Mexico City) [email protected]; Phone: + 52 5555 6326 64 > > Neth Dano (Davao, Philippines) [email protected]; Phone: +63 917 532 9369 > > > ENDNOTES > > > [i] See for example the series of panels on geoengineering organized by the > Royal Society and its partners at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, archived > athttp:// > www.cigionline.org/articles/2009/12/cop-15-side-event-international-governance-geoengineering-research; > Fareed Zakaria’s long interview with Nathan Myhrvold on CNN, the day after > Copenhagen failed at > http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn?iref=allsearch; > David Keith’s article in Nature, “Research on Global Sunblock Needed now” > (see below) registers 112 news hits in a Google news search; Joint hearings > on geoengineering governance are underway in the USA and the UK and most of > the people invited to testify so far are actively involved in research and > development of the field. See Press release, “Sub-Committee Examines > Geoengineering Strategies and Hazards” athttp:// > science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2741 and Press release, “New > Enquiry: The Regulation of Geoengineering” athttp:// > www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn10_091105.cfm > . > > [ii] David Keith, Ed Parsons and Granger Morgan, “Research on Global Sun > Block Needed Now,” Nature, Vol. 463, 28 Jan 2010 available (to subscribers) > athttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/463426a.html > > [iii] See also David Keith’s testimony before the UK Parliamentary > Committee on Science and Technology athttp:// > www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc221-i/uc22102.htm > . > > [iv] Jason J. Blackstock and Jane C. S. Long, “The Politics of > Geoengineering,” Science, 29 January 2010, Vol. 327. no. 5965, p.527. > > [v] See the conference announcement on the Geoengineering Google Group: > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/a573142a46029eb8/56b306ddbd7c3498?lnk=gst&q=Asilomar#56b306ddbd7c3498 > . > > [vi] See UK Royal Society, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance > and Uncertainty, 2009, Recommendation 7, page 61. The California start-up > Climos also promotes a voluntary code for ocean fertilization at > http://www.climos.com/standards/codeofconduct.pdf. > > [vii] Alan Robock, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, “A > Test for Geoengineering?” Science, 29 January 2010, Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. > 530-31. > > [viii] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science > Insider, 26 January 2010 available athttp:// > blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html > > [ix] See ETC Group, Retooling the Planet? Climate Chaos in a Geoengineering > Age, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, 2009, p. 30. > > [x] See www.carbonwarroom.com . > > [xi] See Chris Mooney, “Copenhagen: Geoengineering’s Big Break?” > http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/copenhagen-geoengineerings-big-break. > See also Yu A. Izrael et al., “Field Experiment on Studying Solar Radiation > Passing Through Aerosol Layers”, Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 2009, > vol 34, no. 5, pp. 265-273. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Climate Intervention" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?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.
