Oliver, I wouldn't get too tied up on the details of what they support or oppose. The critical facts are that they accept the fundamental case for geoengineering and call for research. That is, to my knowledge, a world first for a major, mainstream, green NGO.
The tide, as I said, has turned. A On 14 March 2010 04:59, Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am not sure if they are friend or FOE but they oppose several types > of GE. From FOE's press release, > > "Friends of the Earth opposes injection of aerosols. We also currently > oppose the large-scale use of > afforestation, biomass with carbon capture and bio-char until land use > competition issues with food > production and biodiversity are solved. And we oppose the GM > modification of plants to enhance the > albedo affect due to the unknown risks associated with GM > technologies." > > http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf > > Sincerely, > > Oliver Wingenter > > On Mar 13, 6:04 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I asked Russell Long (on the FOE US Board of Directors) about this > > when it came out last year... he confirmed that (unfortunately) it > > does not reflect the US organizations point of view. > > > > D > > > > On Mar 13, 4:45 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 athttp:// > 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]<geoengineering%[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.
