Jim-- Being obtuse isn't going to get you too far with this crowd. Clearly, everyone here is aware of the nature of ETC Group's previous and usually inflammatory statements.
Perhaps someone in your organization finally woke up to the fact that you've marginalized yourself in this debate, and that a more thoughtful approach was the more powerful strategy. I know, it's a stretch. But we can dream, right? Dan On Jun 23, 9:07 am, jim thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > > > > Has ETC adopted a new strategy, and decided to say things that sound more > > balanced? > > Hi Ken, > > I'm not sure what you mean - ETC simply reported on what the IPCC co-chairs > reported. Can you or another member of the scientific steering committee > (David? Jason?) also confirm that the IPCC is not going to overstep its > mandate by making any reccomendations in AR5 on governance of geoengineering, > research funding or on experimentation? > > Our news release is below for others to see. > > cheers > > Jim Thomas, > ETC Group > > ----- > > ETC Group > > News Release > > 22 June 2011 > > www.etcgroup.org > > IPCC treads carefully on geoengineering: > > UN panel says it will review science but take no stand on governance > > LIMA, Peru – As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wound up > its expert meeting on geoengineering in Lima, Peru, which included all three > IPCC Working Groups, it committed to remain “policy relevant but not policy > prescriptive.” Despite getting off on the wrong foot (no transparency), with > some of the wrong experts (scientists with financial interests), on some of > the wrong topics (governance), the IPCC has now confirmed that it will not > make recommendations to governments regarding research funding for the > controversial technologies, governance models or the legality of > experimentation. > > At a press briefing following the close of the expert meeting, the IPCC > stated that its focus will be “establishing the scientific foundations for an > assessment of geoengineering.” This assessment would include risks, costs, > benefits and social and economic impacts, intended and unintended > consequences as well as uncertainties and gaps in knowledge and will be based > solely on peer-reviewed literature. “Of course, a real assessment of > geoengineering will need to be much broader than a scientific peer-review > process,” said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group from Lima, though outside the > meeting. “Civil society organizations have been clear that we do not want > these dangerous technologies developed; they are a new threat from the very > same countries that are responsible for the climate crisis in the first > place!” > > Dr. Chris Field, Co-chair of Working Group II (vulnerability, adaptation, > impacts), said that while the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) would > consider peer-reviewed literature on the question of governance, that debate > would take place “at higher levels” – presumably referring to > intergovernmental negotiations ongoing at the Convention on Biological > Diversity (CBD), which adopted a moratorium on geoengineering activities in > October 2010. Dr. Ramon Pichs-Madruga, Co-chair of Working Group III > (mitigation), stated that all stakeholders would have a chance to comment on > the IPCC’s treatment of geoengineering in the regular schedule of IPCC > meetings over the next two years, and that civil society input was welcome, > particularly given geoengineering’s controversial nature. > > The CBD is in the midst of holding a series of consultations that have been > open to organizations of varying viewpoints. This is in marked contrast to > the series of Chatham House chats on geoengingineering governance that have > taken place over the past year. Overwhelmingly, those have been > invitation-only and dominated by geoengineering advocates (e.g., Asilomar > conference on climate intervention, the Royal Society’s Solar Radiation > Management Governance Initiative, the International Risk Governance Council). > > Last week, 160 organizations from around the world sent an open letter to > IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri expressing concerns about the IPCC expert > meeting. “The IPCC has assured us it will go forward carefully in this work, > and will not overstep its mandate by making governance recommendations. We > will be closely following the process,” said Ribeiro. “Geoengineering is too > dangerous to too many people and to the planet to be left in the hands of > small group of so-called experts. Geoengineering should be an issue at the > Rio+20 conference in June 2012.” > > For more information: > > Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, [email protected]; +52 55 5563 2664 > > cell phone: +52 1 55 2653 3330 > > Pat Mooney, ETC Group, [email protected]; +1 613 241 2267 > > cell phone: +1 613 240 0045 > > Diana Bronson, ETC group, [email protected]; > > cell phone: +1 514 629 9236 > > On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has ETC adopted a new strategy, and decided to say things that sound more > > balanced? > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > RT @geoengpolicy For a few tweets on the #IPCC meeting on #geoengineering, > > see @ClarisseLKS & statement from @HandsOffMotherEhttp://t.co/gUv3UxI > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > Jim Thomas > ETC Group (Montreal) > [email protected] > +1 514 2739994 -- 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.
