I note the quite reasonable concern below that the Amazon may dry and burn in a warmer world. This is based on Vizy et al., I assume.
I am keen to know if anyone as modelled rainfall in an SRM world to see if the Amazon is critically dessicated under a mix of SRM and warming? We need to be sure that we get the right balance between cooling and drying. This may place limits on the SRM we could do, as it's unlikely to be viable to use SRM if it will cause Amazon collapse. A On 28 April 2010 00:12, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]<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.
