John, :Oliver, Joshua, geoengineering list, etal
For all who were present:
a. Thanks very much for going. Any comments on whether it was
worth your (probably) considerable effort?
b. In addition to the one added panel John (?) organized, were
there any others that you attended that had a geoengineering flavor?
b. Can you provide more on the "color" of this conference.
Overall, a likely positive move forward to see more global attention on
climate issues? Apt to change anything in Mexico this fall? Was there
constructive two-way geoengineering dialog at your (or any) event? Any
minds changed? Any favorite news report on your specific event or
overall? (I can't find much by googling).
John: I tried unsuccessfully to find the added comment you mention
below. Can you check that it is there and give more detailed
instructions on finding it (and/or give it to this list)
Josh: The clause you quote below seems to have an important modifier
at the end: ".....that only exacerbate the current crisis." Might we
assume that geoengineering activities that alleviate rather than
exacerbate will be welcome?
Oliver: a.. Could you expand on your phrase below: "...that it is
hard to challenge head on." ? My reaction to much I have read is that
I am in agreement with them and maybe you. A few conclusions I don't
like but I can understand this sort of conference having and wanting to
set down their very negative views on capitalism, its emphasis on
growth, and past maltreatment of indigenous peoples. Any part of the
many conference reports (i have only skimmed two) that you "violently"
disagree with?
b. I am embarassed to say that today was the first time I have been
at your excellent Kyoto2 website. Still a lot left to read there.
Anything to change on your site because of the conference?
c. I was especially bothered/surprised by this conference's
rejection of REDD + +, which reads:
/ "We condemn market mechanisms such as REDD (Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and its versions +
and + +, which are violating the sovereignty of peoples and their right
to prior free and informed consent as well as the sovereignty of
national States, the customs of Peoples, and the Rights of Nature."/
Do you feel this rejection was appropriate? Would your
proposed REDD modifications on your Kyoto2 site fix the attendees'
concern? Do you consider REDD ++ in the category of geoengineering?
Any best places to understand how to have the basics of REDD ++ be
accepted by the attendees at their next conference (presumably two years
hence)?
Again thanks to all who went.
Ron
ps - last night I attended a Denver book-signing by Bill McKibben.
He reported entirely positively about the conference (which he only
attended by video link). His main emphasis in his talk was on the need
to organize. We have let down in organizing since the first (1970)
Earth Day.
Oliver Tickell wrote:
I think we face the problem that there is a 'politically correct'
climate agenda that it is hard to challenge head on. Basic tenents
include:
1. Climate change is all the fault of rich nations, and the capitalist
system.
2. Rich nations should make all the cuts and compensate poor
countries, whose right it is to increase their emissions
3. Carbon trading / offsets are evil, actually worse than climate
change itself, and represent a rich country conspiracy to colonialise
poor countries via carbon.
4. Geoengineering and other technological solutions are also worse
than climate change, and represent the efforts of rich countries to
carry on polluting while dominating the world by controlling its
climate etc for their benefit.
In the face of all this, the message that geoengineering may become an
urgent necessity is doomed. Even the black carbon message is 'kicking
against the pricks' - specially because it squarely puts much of the
blame for glacial melt etc on poor countries - but is perhaps more
likely to make headway.
In hope that the truth will out, Oliver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Joshua Horton [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 27 April 2010 18:01
*To:* John Nissen
*Cc:* Geoengineering; [email protected]; Ron Larson; Julie
Major; Oliver Tickell; John Gorman; Julius Just; Kevin Layton
*Subject:* Re: Cochabamba Conference a turning point?
I've just now had a chance to read the "People's Agreement," and draw
your attention to the fact that the document completely rejects
geoengineering: "we reject Free Trade Agreements and Association
Agreements and all forms of the application of Intellectual Property
Rights to life, current technological packages (agrochemicals, genetic
modification) and those that offer false solutions (biofuels,
*geo-engineering*, nanotechnology, etc.) that only exacerbate the
current crisis."
The thrust of the Agreement seems to be a call to completely
restructure the entire world economic and political order (quickly?).
That's fine, but has virtually nothing to do with addressing climate
change in an urgent and realistic manner.
Josh
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:26 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all,
Last week's conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia, could mark a
turning point in the determination of the world to tackle climate
change.
President Evo Morales has demanded a 1 degree limit to global
warming. The argument is simple and reasonable: there is a great
danger in allowing a higher limit, and people are suffering
already, with at least 1.02 billion suffering from hunger today.
This argument is clearly stated in the "Peoples Agreement", from
the conference in Cochabamba, last week. However the means to
achieve such a limit is not clear. So I have added a comment to
the agreement which you will find here:
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/peoples-agreement/#comments
It is becoming obvious that geoengineering is urgently needed,
both of the SRM (solar radiation management) kind to avoid tipping
points and the CDR (carbon dioxide removal) kind to quickly bring
down the level of CO2, and reduce its global warming and ocean
acidification effects.
At Cochabamba, myself and colleagues, including Julie Major from
the International Biochar Initiative, presented the case for a
"Plan B" to replace the "Plan A" as promoted by the signatories to
the Copenhagen Accord, which Bolivia and some other countries have
rejected. At our event, on 22nd April (suitably designated Mother
Earth Day), we made the case for a carbon tax in which fossil fuel
taken out of the ground pays for double the carbon equivalent to
be put back in the ground. This event was very well received, and
Julie Major made an excellent case for the biochar process, both
as soil improver and as a remover of CO2 from the atmosphere.
We also made strong arguments as regards the urgency of the
situation, for saving the Amazon rainforest and for saving the
Arctic sea ice. We were expecting the "Peoples Agreement" to come
out with a strong statement of urgency. Only two or three of
drought in the Amazon basin, and much of the rainforest could dry
out and then burn - which would be an absolute catastrophe, not
only because of CO2 and black carbon injected into the atmosphere,
but because the Amazon is a major controlling factor in world
weather systems. Similarly, only two or three unusually warm
summers in the Arctic, as we had in 2007, could lead to sudden
near-total disappearance of sea ice, with the attendant danger of
catastrophes from methane release and Greenland ice sheet
disintegration.
I therefore seek your support for the President's initiative in
setting challenging targets, for which all nations will have to
work together, if we are to save the planet for all humanity to enjoy.
Best wishes,
John
[1] Self-organised event 127 "Some necessary steps to save the
planet... geoengineering"
The brochure for our event, in English and Spanish, has been
posted on the Cloudworld web site: www.cloudworld.co.uk
<http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2838 - Release Date: 04/27/10 00:27:00
--
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.
