Several interesting points have been raised: 1. Ken describes several basic ETC positions. From what I can tell, there is one additional underlying premise: modern capitalism, built on science and technology, is responsible for the climate crisis, therefore, the modern rationalist worldview is incapable of providing a solution to climate change. The first part of this premise may or may not be correct, but the second part certainly does not follow, and the argument itself is divorced from our present reality of economic inertia, political impasse, and limited options. I invite anyone from the ETC Group to amend these characterizations.
2. I am willing to accept the list of signatory organizations at face value, although the extent to which they represent global civil society is questionable (from my neck of the woods, the Enviro Show? - http://envirosho.blogspot.com/). 3. Friends of the Earth is a credible group, but it seems to be fracturing on the question of geoengineering. FOE International and its US chapter signed this letter, but John cites a 2009 FOE Briefing Note expressing openness to geoengineering, and FOE (England, Wales & Northern Ireland) expressed similar openness in a report last year (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/ 2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf). Where exactly does FOE stand as an organization? 4. It appears that the Guardian has come out in opposition to geoengineering. Its June 15 article (flagged by Wil Burns and others) is clearly sympathetic to the HOME campaign, arguably mischaracterizes the IPCC abstracts as "leaks," and is now followed by a featured opinion piece from the ETC Group (noted by Stephen earlier). Getting them to reprint Ken's points may be a challenge. 5. Andrew's draft is well written and timely - please add my name - Joshua B. Horton, PhD. Josh On Jun 16, 7:18 am, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: > happy to add my name to your draft > > John Gorman M. A. (Cantab.) Chartered Engineer > > Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers > > Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> > To: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC > > Andrew > > I cannot improve your draft. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > Institute for Energy Systems > School of Engineering > Mayfield Road > University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > Tel +44 131 650 5704 > Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > On 16/06/2011 10:25, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement. > > > A > > > We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers > > and social& policy experts involved in the development of > > geoengineering and its governance. We write with frustration at the > > sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the > > press and IPCC. As a result, we would like to express the following > > views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally: > > > 1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions > > cuts, and never have done. > > 2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are > > necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate > > change. > > 3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed > > which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research > > necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in > > the future control of global warming. > > 4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering > > techniques > > 5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible > > geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them > > 6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions > > available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have > > thus far achieved little or nothing. As such, we believe that further > > research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived > > panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to > > offer. > > > Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue > > represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit. We > > argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion > > of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening > > up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups. > > > Yours sincerely > > > On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salter<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi All > > >> Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's > >> Guardian see > > >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-cli... > > >> Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points? > > >> Stephen > > >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > >> Institute for Energy Systems > >> School of Engineering > >> Mayfield Road > >> University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL > >> Scotland > >> Tel +44 131 650 5704 > >> Mobile 07795 203 195 > >>www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > >> On 16/06/2011 08:21, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > >> You'll have to question them directly > > >> I suggest that we circulate a response to each - likely the same as sent > >> to > >> the ipcc > > >> A > > >> On 16 Jun 2011 02:54,<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Interesting list of groups. I will bet $100 that if each group were to > >>> be > >>> contacted, that we would find they have no knowledge of this ETC effort. > >>> I > >>> just randomly picked one... "Institute for Social Ecology" and searched > >>> their website for "Geoengineering". This is what I > > >>> found....http://www.social-ecology.org/?s=geoengineering&submit.x=10&submit.y=9 > >>> No Result > > >>> So, I tried another...."Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. USA" > >>> and again searched their site for GE. Here is what I found > >>>http://www.social-ecology.org/?s=geoengineering&submit.x=10&submit.y=9 > >>> No > >>> Result > > >>> Being and hard headed SOUTHERN fellow, I tried one > >>> more....."International > >>> Presentation Association of the Sisters of the Presentation, USA" Here > >>> is > >>> the search resulthttp://www.presentationsisters.org/search-results.php > >>> AGAIN NO RESULT!!! > > >>> Ok, I am upping the bet to $1,000. Any takers? > > >>> On , "Rau, Greg"<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> From the letter: > >>>> "The likelihood that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting, > >>>> democratic and peaceful solution to the climate crisis is > >>>> non-existent." > >>>> [please fill us in on the safer, longer lasting, more democratic, and > >>>> peaceful solutions, and therefore why further evaluation of GE isn't > >>>> needed.] > > >>>> "Asking a group of geoengineering scientists if more research should be > >>>> done on the topic is like asking a group of hungry bears if they would > >>>> like honey. Their predictable answer should be viewed with skepticism. > >>>> At > >>>> the same time, independent organizations, which have devoted years of > >>>> critical research to geoengineering, are not allowed to participate, > >>>> even > >>>> as observers." > >>>> [ glad someone has been able to do years of critical research on GE. > >>>> Please transparently provide results, as well as evaluations of the > >>>> better, non-GE solutions] > > >>>> "...we urge the IPCC to ensure that a variety of civil society voices > >>>> is > >>>> heard, understood, and taken into account, particularly from the global > >>>> South. This will provide much-needed common sense and a global > >>>> perspective, as well as a counterpoint to the more prominent and > >>>> extreme > >>>> positions of some Northern scientists engaged in geoengineering > >>>> research." > >>>> [didn't realize that there is a north/south divide here. I thought > >>>> global > >>>> warming and ocean acidification were equal opportunity impactors. Any > >>>> Southerners on the GE list? care to weigh in?] > > >>>> Interesting signatories* of this letter, including the African > >>>> Biodiversity Network, Africa, international World Rainforest Movement, > >>>> Cook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook Islands, > >>>> Island Sustainability Alliance CIS Inc (ISACI) Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS, > >>>> Rainforest Rescue � Rettet den Regenwald, Germany, Sisters of Charity > >>>> of > >>>> Nazareth Congregational Leadership, United States. Certainly we are all > >>>> for biodiveristy, rainforests, Pacific islands, charity, etc. Why run > >>>> the > >>>> risk of losing them by not considering all of our options for > >>>> preserving > >>>> them? > > >>>> I've learned that effective political messaging requires 3 things: a > >>>> victim, a villain, and an opportunity. While HOME et al. certainly have > >>>> the first two covered, they offer no alternative opportunities for > >>>> saving > >>>> the world. That's truly dangerous. Let's keep all of our options open. > >>>> -Greg > >>>> * > >>>> African Biodiversity Network, Africa, international > > >>>> ATALC � Amigos de la Tierra America Latina y Caribe, Latin America, > >>>> international > > >>>> Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Ind�genas -CAOI, Andean, > >>>> international > > >>>> ETC group, international > > >>>> Friends of the Earth International > > >>>> Global Forest Coalition, International > > >>>> Global Justice Ecology Project, International > > >>>> GRAIN, International > > >>>> Land is Life, international network of indigenous communities and > >>>> organizations > > >>>> Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, International > > >>>> International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), US / > >>>> international > > >>>> OILWATCH Sudam�rica, international > > >>>> Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), Africa, International > > >>>> RALLT, Red por una Am�rica Latina libre de Transg�nicos, Latin > >>>> America, > >>>> international > > >>>> Red Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de �rboles (RECOMA), Latin > >>>> America, international > > >>>> Redmanglar Internacional, Guatemala, international > > >>>> Temple of Understanding US / international > > >>>> Third World Network, international > > >>>> Via Campesina, International Peasant Movement, international > > >>>> World Future Council Foundation, international > > >>>> World Rainforest Movement / Mov. Mundial de Bosques, international > > >>>> Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc, Australia > > >>>> Acci�n Ecol�gica, Ecuador > > >>>> Acci�n por la Biodiversidad, Argentina > > >>>> ADEID, Action pour un D�veloppement �quitable, Int�gr� et > >>>> Durable, > >>>> Cameroon > > >>>> African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa > > >>>> Alliance Sud, Switzerland > > >>>> Amigos da Terra, Brazil > > >>>> Amigu di Tera FoE Cura�ao, Brazil > > >>>> APUNA, Andhra Pradesh United Nations Association, India > > >>>> Asociaci�n ANDES, Cusco, Per� > > >>>> Bio WILD Foundation, Biodiversity and Wildlife Integration for > >>>> Livelihood > >>>> Development, INDIA > > >>>> Biofuelwatch, UK / US > > >>>> Casifop, M�xico > > >>>> Ceccam, M�xico > > >>>> Cenami, M�xico > > >>>> Censat Agua Viva, Colombia > > >>>> Center for Cultural Interchange and Greenheart, USA > > >>>> Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project, Durban, South > >>>> Africa > > >>>> Centro Ecol�gico IP�, Brazil > > >>>> Centro Ecologista Renacer, Argentina > > >>>> Centro Fray Juli�n Garc�s de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo > >>>> Comunitario, > >>>> M�xico > > >>>> CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra El Salvador > > >>>> COECOCEIBA-AT Costa Rica > > >>>> Colectivo COA, M�xico > > >>>> Colectivo Voces > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
