John Don't think it changes your analysis, but the copenhagen accord figures are different from the figures going into teh meeting in some respects: see http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15539489 and refs therein.
On Mar 14, 7:16 am, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > athttp://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 > 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]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://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.
