Hi Josh, I absolutely agree. Climate engineering must be introduced as part of a strategy to save the planet from becoming unhabitable, or "unlivable" as Bush's top science adviser famously put it [1].
The first people to suffer on our present downward path include the small island states, supported by Bolivia. Here is the latest on this [2]: [begin quote] Statement by Bolivia during the Security Council Debate: The impact of climate change July 20, 2011 in News <http://en.wordpress.com/tag/news/>, UN climate change negotiations <http://en.wordpress.com/tag/un-climate-change-negotiations/> *Statement by Ambassador Rafael Archondo, Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, in the Debate of the Security Council on Maintenance of international peace and security: The impact of climate change * *New York, July 20, 2011*** Thank you Mr. President. Bolivia joins the statements made by the Group 77 and China, represented by Argentina and the Non-Aligned Movement, whose voice has been expressed by Egypt. Mr. President: Climate change is a real threat to the existence of mankind, other living creatures and Mother Earth, and given its systemic nature, can be analyzed from multiple dimensions such as social, economic, cultural or environmental. We also know that climate change has a security dimension, because temperature change can cause states to disappear and will cause new conflicts to arise. It is a global threat for which few are responsible yet millions are affected by. Among those affected are small island states with which we would like to extend our solidarity to, especially to President of Nauru, who was with us today. However, although we recognize the security dimensions of climate change, we disagree with the notion of having this issue be addressed by the Security Council because its permanent members that hold the right to veto are also precisely the states that are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Under this circumstance, is it conceivable that the Security Council would effectively adopt resolutions that sanction or mandate reparations from their own countries for the damage they are causing? Mr. President: The security dimension of climate change must be treated in an organ where the guilty do not have the right to veto or permanent membership. This issue should be discussed in setting where the victims-at-risk are adequately represented; the threat of disappearing island states, countries that have glaciers, Africa and all developing countries that have to pay the cost of damage that they have not caused. Today, the only instance in which there is this degree of participation is within General Assembly and thus all dimensions of climate change must be addressed comprehensively in its midst. Mr. President: Furthermore, we note that the fundamental concern in the process of climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC, is the guarantee of a real and effective reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases through the adoption of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Only then can we bridge the gap that currently exists, and the stabilization of the temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius. Developed countries must increase their current reduction commitments as we are pushing for a temperature increase of up to 5 degrees Celsius, before a disastrous scenario breaks out. This morning this Mr. Akim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director has warned of such a catastrophe. [3] According to the Global Humanitarian Forum (chaired by former Secretary General Kofi Annan) 350,000 people die each year due to natural disasters caused by climate change. It is a figure that is rising and exceeds the number of deaths of many armed conflicts and wars that occur in the world. Therefore, it is necessary that we create a protocol to judge and punish those who violate their commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, because what they are doing is causing genocide and ecocide against Mother Earth. For this reason, the State of Bolivia promotes the creation of an International Court of Climate and Environmental Justice to implement effective measures to guarantee human rights, the rights of nature, and every living thing affected by the irresponsibility of those dedicated only to their interests of profit and promote the survival of mankind and Mother Earth. Mr. President: Globally each year, more than 1500 billion dollars is allocated to military spending. The vast majority of these costs are concentrated in developed countries and particularly the countries holding the 5 permanent seats of the Security Council. In contrast, to address the issue of climate change issues developed countries have only offered $30 billion in 3 years; 10 billion per year, which to less than 1% of what they spend on defense and security. A positive initiative would significantly reduce military spending and allocate monies to a fund that addresses the impacts of climate change in developing countries particularly island states, Africa, the mountain ranges and all regions of the world in which poor are being affected. Mr. President: Please allow me to finish these remarks with a question: is it possible for the Security Council to adopt a resolution establishing a reduction, let’s say, start with 10 or 20% in defense spending and security, to be allocated to address the impacts of climate change? Thank you very much. [end quote] It all seems quite reasonable. But, but... 1. There is no sense of the immediacy and enormity of the crisis - Bolivia seems blissfully unaware of the speed of change in the Arctic, and repercussions on global warming and sea level rise if the sea ice disappears. I would say that abrupt climate change is just as much a security threat as sea level rise. 2. For my way of thinking, it is a great pity that Bolivia introduces the concept of "Mother Earth" in a way that actually is used by organisations such as "Hands Off Mother Earth" (HOME) as a justification for a moratorium on geoengineering. Thus they give a valid requirement - survival of mankind - but are putting up a barrier to one essential component of any strategy to meet that requirement - namely geoengineering. 3. And they ask for money, not towards that implementing a survival strategy, but "to address the impacts of climate change", which sounds to me like adaptation. So, as we metaphorically are driving over the cliff edge, Bolivia asks for money towards surviving the unsurvivable. John [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6994760.stm [2] http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/statement-by-bolivia-during-the-security-council-debate-the-impact-of-climate-change/#more-2652 --- On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Josh Horton <[email protected]>wrote: > On July 20, the UN Security Council held an open debate on the subject > of climate change and risks to international security. The topic was > introduced by Germany, which currently holds the rotating presidency > of the Security Council. Following on from earlier efforts to raise > the issue of climate security within the Council, Germany sought to > begin an ongoing dialogue on the security risks posed by climate > change, in particular the threat of sea-level rise and dangers to food > supplies. Discussion also focused on the possible future need for UN > "green helmets" for deployment to violent conflicts around the world > caused or exacerbated ("threat-multiplied") by climate change. > > Germany was strongly supported by the Pacific Small Island Developing > States grouping. The chairman of this organization, President Marcus > Stephen of Nauru, urged in a July 18 op-ed in the New York Times that > "the Security Council should join the General Assembly in recognizing > climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is > a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism." Yet > he went on to write that "Negotiations to reduce emissions should > remain the primary forum for reaching an international agreement." > Climate engineering was not mentioned as a potential strategy. > > The existential threat faced by small island states as a result of > global warming and rising seas is more than sufficient reason to > explore geoengineering as an additional climate policy option. > Emissions mitigation, even if deep cuts were somehow achieved over the > next decades, will not be enough to prevent the demise of low-lying > island states such as Nauru, the Marshall Islands, and the Maldives. > In the absence of climate intervention, such countries will cease to > exist in any meaningful sense. When rising sea levels are treated as a > matter of war and peace before the UN Security Council, national > leaders compare their climate predicaments to nuclear proliferation > and terrorism, and the future existence of entire nation-states is in > doubt, surely it is appropriate to consider all possible solutions. > Small island developing states, and representative organizations such > as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), ought to be at the > forefront of diplomatic efforts to jump-start research into > geoengineering. > > 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.
