Re: [geo] Re: Cochabamba Conference a turning point?

[John Nissen]

Hi Greg, I witnessed plenty of ranting against capitalists and multinationals at Cochabamba.  But the rant will be ignored by the international community.  What I want people to focus on is the demand for a 1 degree limit to global warming, which is extremely challenging, but might possibly be achieved given (1) a carbon tax at the point of fossil fuel extraction, used to put carbon back in the ground, (2) CDR paid for out of the carbon tax, (3) SRM to avoid tipping points in Amazon and Arctic.  If this is the only useful thing out of this conference, it could still make it a turning point.  As you say, people in climate change negotiations will ignore the ranting. The latest output from the conference, in the form of a submission, is here [1], where ranting is more measured. You can ignore the "structural roots of anthropogenic climate change", the "historic responsibility and climate debt", and concentrate on the decisions for action: "A - a shared vision for long-term cooperative action", where the 1 degree limit is proposed, see paragraph 2: 2.         Developed countries shall take the lead and strive towards returning greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to well below 300 ppm CO2eq with a view to returning concentrations to levels as close as possible to pre-industrial levels in the longer-term, and to limit the average global temperatures to a maximum level of 1º C with a view to returning temperatures to levels as close as possible to pre-industrial levels in the longer-term, with deep and adequate economy wide emissions reductions in the medium and long terms and taking effective measures to fulfill their commitments relating to the provision of substantial financial resources, capacity building  and to provide technology development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know how to developing country Parties. These enabling means are critical and an important measure to enhance the contribution and voluntary efforts of developing country Parties to the efforts of stabilizing of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Also paragraph 7 is in effect demanding a "plan B" to replace the failed "plan A" of Copenhagen. The only mention of geoengineering is under agriculture, way down in paragraph 77, suggesting that it needs to be "critically reviewed" for environmental impact, etc: 77.  It is essential that the policy framework for agriculture be appropriate for the purpose of addressing the climate crisis and to meet the interests of local communities and protect the environment. In this context we agree that there be a review of the global system of agricultural trade, the provisions of trade agreements and loan and aid conditionalities and the intellectual property regimes.  Agricultural technologies and related technologies shall also be subject to assessment for their environmental, social and developmental impacts.  Technologies that should be critically reviewed include industrial agriculture (with its dependence on agrochemicals, corporate-controlled seeds and intensive water use), genetic engineering, Terminator Technology, biofuels, nanotechnology, and geo-engineering. I commented on a previous output on the conference, but the link I sent to you is no longer valid, so my comment has been effectively deleted from the record, presumably by the site managers!  This was my comment, which still stands: From John Nissen I was present for much of the Working Group 09 "Shared Vision" meeting, which clearly supported President Morales's demand for a one degree Centigrade limit on global warming.  In order to keep the temperature below such a limit, it is necessary to reduce CO2 levels quickly - and it was proposed to have targets of 350 ppm by 2030, and 300 ppm by 2100 or sooner.  There was a majority agreement for these extremely challenging targets.  Unfortunately the reasoning for the speed of CO2 reduction has not been made clear in the "shared vision" paragraph of the "Peoples Agreement".  Only by reducing the CO2 level quickly can the one degree warming be achieved.  Since the excess anthropogenic CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to cause global warming for centuries, emissions reductions by themselves will not limit global warming to one degree.  It is necessary to take massive steps, not only to drastically reduce emissions, but also to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, by planting millions of trees and other measures.  At a subsequent conference event (self-organised event 127 "necessary steps to save the planet"), a carbon tax was proposed, such that for every carbon atom taken out of the ground in the form of fossil fuel, two atoms should be returned.  The polluter would be paying to put right past and present pollution.  This tax would be raised at the point of fossil fuel extraction, so that all fossil fuel use would be paying for the associated CO2 to be removed - and more.  It would be ramped up over 20 years, so that the world economy would become carbon neutral after 10 years and carbon negative subsequently. However, even if a reduction of CO2 levels were achieved as proposed above, there is still the danger of tipping points, particularly in the Amazon and the Arctic.  The international community must be more determined in its fight to save the Amazon rainforest.  And it must find a way to save the Arctic sea ice, to reduce the risks of catastrophe from (a) massive methane discharge from permafrost leading to global warming spiralling out of control, and (b) disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to up to 6 metres of sea level rise.  The sea ice cannot be saved by emissions reduction alone, because of the continued warming from existing CO2 in the atmosphere.  Apparently the only solution is to use "solar radiation management" techniques, e.g. with stratospheric aerosols, to reflect sunlight back into space in order to cool the Arctic (and/or cool the ocean surface currents entering the Arctic). These suggestions as "necessary steps to save the planet" were explained at event 127, and will be documented on the Cloudworld web site: www.cloudworld.co.uk within the next few days.  Contact details are on the web site. I have tried to add this comment to the submission [2], but I do not know whether you'll be able to see it there, let alone on [1].  I have no idea how their comment process actually works, if at all. Cheers, John [1] http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/submission-by-the-plurinational-state-of-bolivia/#more-1608 [2] http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/submission-by-the-plurinational-state-of-bolivia/#comment-846 --- xbenf...@aol.com wrote: All: This group, sponsored largely by tyrants, mistakes the mistreatment of early Americans by mercantilism for a capitalist system. Of course mercantilism evolved and capitalism grew after ~1650s, but they are distinctive systems. And socialism, whether Sovi8et or National Socialist, etc, has done much worse. I advise ignoring political rants like this. They fade quickly and are rightfully ignored. Gregory Benford -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.