The IPCC meeting as I understand it, is simply to consider the efficacy of some of the proposed technological alternatives to emissions reductions, i.e., geoengineering. It is not to adopt or endorse action plans based on them. The IPCC has held workshops and published reports on the subject of climate change for nearly 20 years and I don't think it has been their policy or should it be to have every meeting vetted or overseen by people from outside the discipline being considered.

Would you like for example, to have someone from the philosophy department at your local university "sit in" on every discussion you have on development of a research tool? Oh, this could have far reaching implications. Better get the ethics people to sign off on this first. EPA doesn't do this. I am getting ready to review SBIRs again and I don't think that it's necessary to have anyone from ETC or the Guardian drop by to make sure I don't ignore the intergenerational implications of the X technology. That's for later.

There have been more than ample opportunities for the non science contributors to make their case against geoengineering and they have already received a disproportionate share of the attention as well as funding. The recent meeting in the UK, the Asilomar conference and most recently, Ken's wrongheaded hand wringing conclusion that the IPCC meeting needs greater transparency just makes the problem worse. There's an old saying that you shouldn't feed stray animals because it will just encourage them to come back for more and bring some friends. Feeding ETC a steady diet of outrage is just what they want.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:25
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC


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-climate-consideration

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 result http://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 Indígenas -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 Sudamérica, international



Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), Africa, International



RALLT, Red por una América Latina libre de Transgénicos, Latin America,
international



Red Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de Árboles (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



Acción Ecológica, Ecuador



Acción por la Biodiversidad, Argentina



ADEID, Action pour un Développement Équitable, Intégré et Durable,
Cameroon



African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa



Alliance Sud, Switzerland



Amigos da Terra, Brazil



Amigu di Tera FoE Curaçao, Brazil



APUNA, Andhra Pradesh United Nations Association, India



Asociación ANDES, Cusco, Perú



Bio WILD Foundation, Biodiversity and Wildlife Integration for Livelihood
Development, INDIA



Biofuelwatch, UK / US



Casifop, México



Ceccam, México



Cenami, México



Censat Agua Viva, Colombia



Center for Cultural Interchange and Greenheart, USA



Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project, Durban, South
Africa



Centro Ecológico IPÉ, Brazil



Centro Ecologista Renacer, Argentina



Centro Fray Julián Garcés de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Comunitario,
México



CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra El Salvador



COECOCEIBA-AT Costa Rica



Colectivo COA, México



Colectivo Voces Ecológicas COVEC, Panamá



Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP),
México



Cook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook Islands



Cooperativa por un Ambiente Biodiverso y Sustentable, CAMBIOS, SC de
RL,México



Corner House, UK



Cuarto Menguante Aliento por la conservación AC, México



Dewan Adat Papua, New Guinea



Dogwood Alliance – Asheville, NC, USA



Ecological Society of the Philippines



Ecologistas en Acción, Spain



Ecomunidades, red ecologista autónoma de la cuenca de México



Educación AT Argentina



CEIBA AT, Guatemala



Ethiopian Society or Consumer Protection, Ethiopia



Fair Coop (Fair Trade), Italy



Family Farm Defenders, Madison, Wi, USA



FASE, Brazil



Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, France



Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua, Región Malinche,
México



Friends of the Earth US



Food First, US



Fundación Heifer-Ecuador



Fundación por el Futuro, Madrid, España



Fundación Promotora de Cooperativas – FUNPROCOOP, El Salvador



Gaia Foundation, UK



GMWatch, UK



Greenovation Center, China



Grupo SEMILLAS,Colombia



Grupo Thunhupha, Bolivia



IBON International, Philippines



Indian biodiversity forum, India



Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA



Institute of Science in Society, Mae-Wan Ho, UK



Instituto de Estudios Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo, Ecuador.



International Presentation Association of the Sisters of the
Presentation, USA



Institute for Social Ecology, USA



ITC, Comité Intertribal, Brazil



Island Sustainability Alliance CIS Inc (ISACI) Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS



Movimiento Madre Tierra, Honduras



Ka Lahui Hawai'i



Kiee Lu'u SSS México



L'Union Paysanne, Canada



La Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativa y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA),
México



Mangrove Action Project, USA



Movimiento de la Juventud Kuna, Panamá



Movimiento por la Vida y la Equidad Campesina, El Salvador



Na Koa Ikaika KaLahui Hawaii



National Indigenous Peoples of Solomons Islands (NIPS), Solomon Islands



National Toxics Network Inc. Coordinator, Australia



New World Society For Friendship Cooperation And Peace, India



Ngati Hine tribe of the Bay Of Islands, New Zealand



NusaAlifuru of Maluku (Pacific, considered Indonesian)



Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales -OLCA, Chile



OFRANEH, Organizacion Fraternal Negra Hondureña, Honduras



Ole Siosiomaga Society Incorporated (OLSSI), SAMOA



Organización de Agricultores Biológicos AC, México



Philippinenbuero eV im Asienhaus; Germany



Proceso de Comunidades Negras de Colombia



Rainforest Rescue – Rettet den Regenwald, Germany



RAPA NUI PARLIAMENT (Polinesia)



Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad, Costa Rica



Rede Brazileira de Pesquisas em Nanotecnologia – RENANOSOMA, Brazil



REDES AT, Uruguay



SAFEAGE, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa



Salva la Selva, Spain



Savia, Escuela de Pensamiento Ecologista, Guatemala



SEARICE, Philippines



Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership, United States



Sunray Harvesters, India



SWISSAID, Switzerland



Seeds Action Network, Germany



Terra de Direitos, Human Rights Organization- Brazil



Terra-1530, Moldova



Texas Drought Project, USA



The Development Fund, Norway



The Enviro Show, Western Massachusetts/USA



The Koani Foundation, Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii



The Noordhoek Environmental Action Group, Noordhoek, Cape Town, South
Africa



Un Salto de Vida, AC, El Salto, Jalisco, México



US Federation for Middle East Peace (USFMEP), USA

________________________________________

From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Josh Horton [[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:08 AM

To: geoengineering

Subject: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC



Here is the latest salvo from the HOME campaign, this time targeting

the IPCC expert group on geoengineering meeting in Peru:



http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2011/06/lettertoipcc/



Josh Horton

[email protected]

http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/



--

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.



--

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.




--
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.

--
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.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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.




--
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.

--
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.

Reply via email to