Oliver etal
1. No need to comment much on your responses to parts a and b. Thanks
for the added information. However, I was saddened to hear that
"Most carbon trading is a scam, and a very big one.."
You follow that with a little positive note, bu I hope you or someone
can tell more exactly how that can be fixed - for the climate protection
reasons we agree on. Does this indictment include carbon trading for all
possible forms of Geoengineering?
2. Much the same request on part c - how to make some one of the REDD schemes more palatable to those who will be most impacted. If designed only by the indigenous peoples themselves, how different would it be? Is there any hope for getting their concurrence on the need for sustainable management with carbon sequestration foremost(presumably through Biochar)?
3. At
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/04/23/indigenous-peoples-meeting-in-cochabamba-condemn-predatory-redd-forest-programs/#more-4546
I read this:
/ "The working group on forests held one of the more hotly contested
negotiations of the summit, but with the leadership of Indigenous
Peoples, a consensus was reached to reject REDD and call for wide-scale
grassroots reforestation programs. "/
*[RWL: I wonder if any of those who were in Cochabamba attended
this particular group #14-Forest debate and can explain the phrase "one
of the more hotly contested"? Did a radically different result almost
appear? Does the word "grassroots" imply anything about international
funding?
4. I have now read the group #14 pre-conference material at:
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/working-group-14-forest/#more-1232
and am mostly discouraged, with the exception of this second proposed
action:
* /"Generate agroforestry systems as a way of accumulation of
sustainable and alternative carbon."
/*
**As a Biochar proponent, c**oupling the words "agroforestry"and
"carbon" is exactly what I am hoping for. Should REDD ++ advocates be
claiming victory instead of defeat? Can I interpret this short sentence
to include Biochar? Are/were the authors of this sentence aware of the
Biochar concept (coupled energy, climate and soil benefits)?
The latest dates on all the material at this site is 16 April;
pre-Conference. How do we learn what changed during the conference for
Group #14?
*
5. Again to Oliver, John, Julie etc - thanks for attending.
Ron
Oliver Tickell wrote:
Hi Ron, re your questions to me:
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?
There is a lot of truth in the 4 tenets I put down, but not absolute
truth. Soviet Russia was a huge GHG emitter - so it's not just capitalism.
But capitalism is certaily a powerful engine and needs a big rethink at the
very least as we hit various kinds of resource limits. Most carbon trading
is a scam, and a very big one, but there are some good schemes too
especially in the voluntary sector which is far better than the compliance
sector for the Kyoto Protocol. Geoengineering is in many ways unpalatable,
but may become necessary, and for me climate is what matters most, not
abstract intellectual constructs. Rich countries should of course take a
lead but poor countries also have to play a positive role, with rich country
support, where they can, in areas like black carbon abatement, carbon
enrichment of soils and forest conservation.
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?
I have failed to update the site in months - life has been too busy, but
I do hope to get round to it soon, including discussion of the topics
arising at Cochabamba. Thanks for your kind words!
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)?
The model of REDD proposed by the Princes Rainforest Project
(http://www.rainforestsos.org/) is in fact identical to that set out in the
K2 proposals, namely, that forested countries should be paid to keep their
forests based on the following three items:
- the 'opportunity cost' of not developing them to plantations, ranches,
mines etc;
- actual costs incurred in improved monitoring, regulation etc;
- an element of 'rent' for securing the carbon they embody.
This would not impose on anyone's rights, rather, countries would sign up to
a forest management plan voluntarily, and be paid for adhering to the
agreement. A key aspect would be respect for the rights of indigenous and
other forest dwellers.
BTW I am on neither the geo-eng nor biochar lists - but if anyone want to
post this to those lists, fine by me.
Cheers, Oliver.
--
www.kyoto2.org.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Larson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28 April 2010 00:13
To: Oliver Tickell
Cc: 'Joshua Horton'; 'John Nissen'; 'Geoengineering';
[email protected]; 'Julie Major'; 'John Gorman'; 'Julius Just'; 'Kevin
Layton'
Subject: Re: Cochabamba Conference a turning point?
John, :Oliver, Joshua, geoengineering list, etal
<snipped - as the above captures the pertinent parts of the dialog>
--
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.
