I think everyone knows what I am about to say, but some may not and I thought it would be worth repeating-- Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is equivalent to raising ocean pH. If you do one, you also get the other. (The converse is also true-- increasing atmospheric CO2 lowers ocean pH and vice-versa.) Ernie Rogers In a message dated 3/16/2010 9:00:24 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Dear all, i will read the FoE briefing with great interest. I would also like to raise your attention of a May 2009 publication written for and published by WWF. It also states that we have gone beyond standard mitigation measures and now need to go further and suck CO2 out of the air. This isn't a ref to CCS as I wrote some of their policy on CCS and it is dealt with separately. This was a very new and bold move for wwf. When I was at WWF I arranged for Prof J Shepherd to come and talk to the org and meet the head of cc. I also wrote the attached doc in 2008 which in an internal briefing doc which went to the head of WWF across the global network. You will see that a key persopn is involved in both of these papers, Stephan Singer. While he is very very over worked, he gets the urgency of climate change and is the best chance within WWF we have of some sensible discussion on geo-e. There is real knee jerk reaction based on ill informed gut reations amongst parts of NGOs, but others realise the situation we are in and get the need for research into additional tools to help avoid run away climate change. I have sent the WWF reference to David Santillo, it would be good for him/Greenpeace to receive the FoE one also. Shall I do this, or would someone else like to? Ref for the WWF report: *The New Climate Deal - A Pocket Guide* May 2009 “Even so, we will almost certainly require negative emissions after 2050 to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations down to acceptable levels. That is, we will need to suck CO2 out of the air – by planting forests or by other technological means.” *http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/climate_dea l/publications/?uNewsID=168985* Best wishes, Emily. On 14/03/2010 11:37, Andrew Lockley wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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 > <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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > <mailto: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. -- 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.
