http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110618/wl_afp/unclimatewarmingtechnologyengineeringipcc_20110618101020
Note especially the use of the term "quick fix" as if any of the technologies could be used quickly and of the term "solutions," as if these would solve the underlying problem. I also recall that part of the Republican budget deal for 2011 was to eliminate funding for attending these meetings as well as the emissions cuts ones. Guess that one didn't make it.
UN meets to mull climate change quick-fix options by Marlowe Hood Marlowe Hood Sat Jun 18, 6:10 am ETBONN (AFP) – On the heels of another halting round of talks on climate change, UN scientists this week will review quick-fix options for beating back the threat of global warming that rely on technology rather than political wrangling.
Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meeting for three days from Monday in the Peruvian capital Lima, will ponder "geo-engineering" solutions designed to cool the planet, or at least brake the startling rise in Earth's temperature.
Seeding the ocean with iron, scattering heat-reflecting particles in the stratosphere, building towers to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere, and erecting a giant sunshade in space are all on the examining table.
Critics say such schemes -- some of which have been tested experimentally -- are a roll of the dice with Earth's climate system and its complex web of biodiversity.
[Which schemes have been tested experimentally? The few OIF field experiments? Hardly definitive.]
And even if one problem is solved, they argue, it may be impossible to anticipate knock-on effects and unintended consequences.
There is a political danger as well, climate policy experts caution: the prospect of a quick fix to global warming could weaken an already fragile global consensus on the need to reduce greenhouse gases or subvert complicated methods for measuring emissions cuts.
[1. How would geoengineering "subvert complicated methods for measuring emissions cuts?"
2. The prospect of a "quick fix to global warming" would be welcomed by everyone except people making a living studying global warming.
3. The "fragile global consensus on the need to reduce greenhouse gases" does not exist, unless you actually believe what countries have been saying for the last 20 years. If you do, then I have some choice land in the Maldives I would like to sell you.]
"It's a convenient way for Northern governments to dodge their commitments to emissions reduction," said Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group, a technology watchdog group.
[ETC does not speak for all "climate policy experts," although AFP apparently thinks they do. Most likely, it is because they are the only ones complaining about this meeting and the media always tries to give the objectors equal status to the majority, whether that is justified or not.]
Last week, more than 100 organisations, including ETC and Friends of the Earth, sent an open letter to the IPCC "demanding a clear statement of its commitment to precaution and to the existing international moratorium on geo-engineering."
[Failing to note or even ask who these 100 "organizations" are and how many people they actually represent. Looks like FOE gets tagged as the legitimate and recognizable name in the bunch. But as I mentioned before, WWF, Greeniepeace, Sierra, EDF and NRDC are sitting this one out.]
Only four years ago, in its landmark Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC dismissed geo-engineering in a brief aside as charged with potential risk and unquantified cost.
But now the Nobel-winning panel is taking a closer look, a telling sign, for some, that the effort to tackle global warming through politics is taking too long and bearing too little fruit.
Delegates ended another 12-day talkfest in Bonn on Friday under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), still deeply riven over who should cut their emissions, by how much and when.
Current pledges fall far short of holding temperature rise in check below 2.0 degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with pre-industrial levels, a widely accepted threshold for safety.
IPCC officials defend the new review on several grounds.To begin with, it is what members of the 194-nation intergovernmental body asked for, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a leading Belgian scientist and vice chair of the IPCC.
[If the helpless and victimized "South" were truly opposed to such discussions, where is the official statement from their governments? Indonesia, the 4th most populous nation on Earth? Brazil? South Africa? India? China? Pakistan? Bangladesh? So it's not a North vs. South issue at all. And don't tell me the government of Brazil doesn't speak for its people. The previous president left office with a more than 70% approval rating.]
"My concern is to fulfill an IPCC mandate to provide the best information available to take informed decisions to protect the climate and the environment," he said by telephone.
"We will look at the advantages and possibilities, but we will also look at the potentially negative aspects."
The experts meeting Monday, he added, review the state of scientific knowledge but do not make policy recommendations.
[Exactly how this has been described previously.]"In the absence of an objective IPCC assessment, the only information available to policy makers would be from quite a diverse range of sources, some of which might have an interest at stake," he said.
[Correct, but I would caution that among the people participating are some who have both financial and political interests as well, so that must also be considered in the final evaluation. In general, though, even with these individuals involvement, most scientists are opposed to geoengineering, so anything coming out of Lima resembling "we need further research" would be considered an endorsement at this point.]
Geo-engineering schemes can be as simple as planting trees to absorb CO2 or painting flat roofs white to reflect sunlight back into space, a technique already in use in many sun-baked urban settings.
[In spite of efforts to market it as such, the roof whitening really isn't on a large enough scale to have any significant impact on global climate change or even on urban climate. A recent paper published this weekend found that afforestation in the temperate regions is a waste of time. The increased albedo offsets any gain in CO2 capture and the amount of land required impinges on food production. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110619/sc_afp/climatewarmingforestsscience_20110619171818 ]
They also include scattering sea salt aerosols in low marine clouds to render them more mirror-like, sowing the stratosphere with reflective sulphate particles, or "fertilising" the ocean surface with iron to spur the growth of micro-organisms that gobble up CO2.
At the sci-fi end of the scale is a proposal -- which exists, for now, only on paper -- for a sunshade positioned at a key point between Earth and the Sun that would deflect one or two percent of solar radiation, turning the planet's thermostat down a notch.
In an analysis published in September 2009, the Royal Society, Britain's academy of sciences, judged that planting forests and building towers to capture CO2 could make a useful contribution -- once they are demonstrated to be "safe, effective, sustainable and affordable."
It also noted that blunting the impact of solar radiation would still not lower atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which is also driving ocean acidification.
[Finally, regarding who should participate in these meetings, I had a discussion this weekend regarding the Science Advisory Board of the USEPA, a sort of permanent IPCC and analogous to the Air Resources Board in California. The SAB does provide policy recommendations and its meetings are open to the public and the media. But meetings that are tasked with reviewing the efficacy of scientific information are not open (e.g. grant proposal rerviews), any more than the meetings that the various bodies held internally to prepare their reports on geoengineering or me discussing journal article reviews with the team working on the comments. So Ken and Mike's wishy washy recommendations that observers be present are simply wrong. BTW, would you like to have the AFP reporter in the meeting room? How about reporters "sitting in" with president Obama as he approves the killing of bin Laden? Of course, there are some areas where full disclosure is desirable and even mandated. The News and Observer, the paper that covers Raleigh, NC and surrounding areas (actual the entire state) recently published a link to a state database where one can see the salaries of all professors at the state universities. Duke is private, so it isn't included. Would like to see a similar database for all states, especially in these budget challenged times. Have fun.]
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/24/1011452/university-employee-salaries.html?appSession=974222361451730----- Original Message ----- From: "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:42 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather hypocritically, citing funding reasons when that had nothing to do with it. So they had an opportunity to participate in the largest gathering devoted to governance and callously passed it up. I would also note that none of the mainstream environmental groups are making the absurd demands of ETC regarding the Peru meeting. Where is Greenpeace? EDF? NRDC? Sierra Club? World Wildlife Fund? By their silence, they endorse letting the scientists do their job without the circus atmosphere that ETC, the Westboro Baptist Church of modern technology is sure to bring. And BTW, Mike, the IPCC is not a city council. It answers to the UN, not whoever shows up with an axe to grind.----- Original Message ----- From: "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:19 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC 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 directlyI suggest that we circulate a response to each - likely the same as sent tothe 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 becontacted, that we would find they have no knowledge of this ETC effort. Ijust 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 ResultBeing and hard headed SOUTHERN fellow, I tried one more....."InternationalPresentation 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 wouldlike honey. Their predictable answer should be viewed with skepticism. Atthe same time, independent organizations, which have devoted years ofcritical research to geoengineering, are not allowed to participate, evenas 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 globalwarming 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 allfor biodiveristy, rainforests, Pacific islands, charity, etc. Why run therisk 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 havethe first two covered, they offer no alternative opportunities for savingthe world. That's truly dangerous. Let's keep all of our options open.-Greg*African Biodiversity Network, Africa, internationalATALC – Amigos de la Tierra America Latina y Caribe, Latin America, internationalCoordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas -CAOI, Andean, internationalETC group, internationalFriends of the Earth InternationalGlobal Forest Coalition, InternationalGlobal Justice Ecology Project, InternationalGRAIN, InternationalLand is Life, international network of indigenous communities and organizationsMissionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, InternationalInternational Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), US / internationalOILWATCH Sudamérica, internationalPan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), Africa, InternationalRALLT, Red por una América Latina libre de Transgénicos, Latin America, internationalRed Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de Árboles (RECOMA), Latin America, internationalRedmanglar Internacional, Guatemala, internationalTemple of Understanding US / internationalThird World Network, internationalVia Campesina, International Peasant Movement, internationalWorld Future Council Foundation, internationalWorld Rainforest Movement / Mov. Mundial de Bosques, internationalAboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc, AustraliaAcción Ecológica, EcuadorAcción por la Biodiversidad, ArgentinaADEID, Action pour un Développement Équitable, Intégré et Durable, CameroonAfrican Centre for Biosafety, South AfricaAlliance Sud, SwitzerlandAmigos da Terra, BrazilAmigu di Tera FoE Curaçao, BrazilAPUNA, Andhra Pradesh United Nations Association, IndiaAsociación ANDES, Cusco, PerúBio WILD Foundation, Biodiversity and Wildlife Integration for LivelihoodDevelopment, INDIABiofuelwatch, UK / USCasifop, MéxicoCeccam, MéxicoCenami, MéxicoCensat Agua Viva, ColombiaCenter for Cultural Interchange and Greenheart, USACentre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project, Durban, South AfricaCentro Ecológico IPÉ, BrazilCentro Ecologista Renacer, ArgentinaCentro Fray Julián Garcés de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Comunitario, MéxicoCESTA, Amigos de la Tierra El SalvadorCOECOCEIBA-AT Costa RicaColectivo COA, MéxicoColectivo Voces Ecológicas COVEC, PanamáConsejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP), MéxicoCook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook IslandsCooperativa por un Ambiente Biodiverso y Sustentable, CAMBIOS, SC de RL,MéxicoCorner House, UKCuarto Menguante Aliento por la conservación AC, MéxicoDewan Adat Papua, New GuineaDogwood Alliance – Asheville, NC, USAEcological Society of the PhilippinesEcologistas en Acción, SpainEcomunidades, red ecologista autónoma de la cuenca de MéxicoEducación AT ArgentinaCEIBA AT, GuatemalaEthiopian Society or Consumer Protection, EthiopiaFair Coop (Fair Trade), ItalyFamily Farm Defenders, Madison, Wi, USAFASE, BrazilFondation Sciences Citoyennes, FranceFrente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua, Región Malinche, MéxicoFriends of the Earth USFood First, USFundación Heifer-EcuadorFundación por el Futuro, Madrid, EspañaFundación Promotora de Cooperativas – FUNPROCOOP, El SalvadorGaia Foundation, UKGMWatch, UKGreenovation Center, ChinaGrupo SEMILLAS,ColombiaGrupo Thunhupha, BoliviaIBON International, PhilippinesIndian biodiversity forum, IndiaInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USAInstitute of Science in Society, Mae-Wan Ho, UKInstituto de Estudios Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo, Ecuador.International Presentation Association of the Sisters of the Presentation, USAInstitute for Social Ecology, USAITC, Comité Intertribal, BrazilIsland Sustainability Alliance CIS Inc (ISACI) Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDSMovimiento Madre Tierra, HondurasKa Lahui Hawai'iKiee Lu'u SSS MéxicoL'Union Paysanne, CanadaLa Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativa y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA), MéxicoMangrove Action Project, USAMovimiento de la Juventud Kuna, PanamáMovimiento por la Vida y la Equidad Campesina, El SalvadorNa Koa Ikaika KaLahui HawaiiNational Indigenous Peoples of Solomons Islands (NIPS), Solomon IslandsNational Toxics Network Inc. Coordinator, AustraliaNew World Society For Friendship Cooperation And Peace, IndiaNgati Hine tribe of the Bay Of Islands, New ZealandNusaAlifuru of Maluku (Pacific, considered Indonesian)Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales -OLCA, ChileOFRANEH, Organizacion Fraternal Negra Hondureña, HondurasOle Siosiomaga Society Incorporated (OLSSI), SAMOAOrganización de Agricultores Biológicos AC, MéxicoPhilippinenbuero eV im Asienhaus; GermanyProceso de Comunidades Negras de ColombiaRainforest Rescue – Rettet den Regenwald, GermanyRAPA NUI PARLIAMENT (Polinesia)Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad, Costa RicaRede Brazileira de Pesquisas em Nanotecnologia – RENANOSOMA, BrazilREDES AT, UruguaySAFEAGE, Observatory, Cape Town, South AfricaSalva la Selva, SpainSavia, Escuela de Pensamiento Ecologista, GuatemalaSEARICE, PhilippinesSisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership, United StatesSunray Harvesters, IndiaSWISSAID, SwitzerlandSeeds Action Network, GermanyTerra de Direitos, Human Rights Organization- BrazilTerra-1530, MoldovaTexas Drought Project, USAThe Development Fund, NorwayThe Enviro Show, Western Massachusetts/USAThe Koani Foundation, Lihue, Kauai, HawaiiThe Noordhoek Environmental Action Group, Noordhoek, Cape Town, South AfricaUn Salto de Vida, AC, El Salto, Jalisco, MéxicoUS 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 AMTo: geoengineeringSubject: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCCHere is the latest salvo from the HOME campaign, this time targetingthe 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. --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.
