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]> 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 > > > -- 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.
