This briefing is absolutely brilliant -particularly the first page.The most realistic assesment lthat I have read in a long time. Please read it.
(A full briefing is at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf) Incidentally I have now found the final commitments (post copenhagen ) from most countries and they are exactly the same as those distributed to this group during Copenhagen so; I can confirm that we are on line for at least a 20% increase in emissions by 2020 on the official Copenhagen figures.ie we are nowhere near the 2degree target. I was very pleased to see the Greenpeace briefing warning that "It should also be stated that the 2 degree threshold identified by governments was a political judgement that has been interpreted as an acceptance, as least by rich countries, of temperature increases below this threshold." with warnings about the consequences at that level. Well done Andrew for your part in this. john gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:45 AM Subject: [geo] Friends of the Earth calls for geoengineering research & states that mitigation is not enough to stay safe Following my group's motion to conference last year, Friends of the Earth has now called for geoengineering research, and recognised that mitigation is not enough to stay within 'safe' thresholds. I am heartened by this, as this makes FoE the first (to my knowledge) mainstream environmental group to publicly call for research into geoeng. I hope that this will now further isolate the irrational and vociferous campaigning stance against geoeng which has been run by some NGOs. The tide has now turned, as the UKs most 'moderate' mainstream general environmental NGO has taken this new stance. Motion text below, as passed at conference. The board's response is below the motion text. A full briefing is at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf A ------------------------------- Motion 7– Geo-engineering (my bolding) This Conference calls upon the Board of Friends of the Earth Ltd. to consider: 1. Whether or not geo-engineering could be a necessary or desirable part of the solution to climate change 2. The merits and shortcomings of various notable geo-engineering techniques (e.g. bio-energy with carbon storage, stratospheric sulphur aerosols, carbon air capture, etc) 3. Establish a publicly-stated and scientifically robust position on both geo-engineering field experiments and on the full scale-implementation of geo-engineering [The National Academy of Sciences defined geo-engineering as "large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry."] Board response: Following the passing of this motion staff have prepared a detailed position statement on Geoengineering which can be obtained at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf Its conclusion is that: “Mitigation has to be the priority for action; action far in excess of currently being considered by politicians is needed. It is now clear that mitigation alone cannot keep global temperatures below a safer threshold of 1- 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. However many of the geo-engineering options suggested are totally unacceptable due to the adverse environmental or social impacts they bring or risk bringing.” The Royal Society report on the same subject in September 2009 is available at: http://royalsociety.org/geoengineeringclimate/ . The recommendations of this report are also relevant, as are its ‘headline messages’: “The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geo-engineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change. Geo-engineering methods could however potentially be useful in future to augment continuing efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions, and so should be subject to more detailed research and analysis. However, the technology to do so is barely formed, and there are major uncertainties regarding its effectiveness, costs, and environmental impacts.” -- 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.
