Let me get this right. You are offended that I said your press release seemed balanced, and you defend yourself by saying, and I paraphrase, "don't blame us for being balanced, we were just reporting what the IPCC said."
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 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 @HandsOffMotherE > http://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 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. > > 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.
