Please see my Google Earth 3D map featuring the entire ETC Group 
geoengineering map: http://climateviewer.com/earth/
I converted their 
Excel<http://climateviewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/World-of-Geoengineering-ETC-Group.xls>
 file (provided by ETC at my request, thanks guys!) to Google Fusion table 
here:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/data?docid=1NecyRN7xjFg6TA1YnRjPrEiYtoUKV2sWJ259GjY#rows:id=1
 

After exporting their data to KML, I separated it into categories like SRM, 
Biochar. 
Click the triangles to expand, click the box to toggle display:

<https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-dgCfcyK6Knc/UPIIMpXE0XI/AAAAAAAAAMI/196LaLZQz5k/s1600/ETC+Group+Geoengineering+map+on+ClimateViewer+3D.jpg>
The Google Fusion Table export grouped projects by continent.  I will 
correct their locations in the near future .  

I am adding all of the NOAA reported weather modification activities to the 
map:

   - 2012 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 12WXMOD5 
partial<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2012-noaa-weather-modification-programs-12wxmod5-partial/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/us_navy/17WN_1_2012_NOAA_Summary_of_Weather_Modification_Activities_Reported_in_2012_Partial_Listing_12WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2011 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 11WXMOD5 
partial<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2011-noaa-weather-modification-programs-11wxmod5-partial/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450WV_2011_NOAA_Interim_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_11WXMOD5_as_of_July_7_2011.pdf>
   - 2010 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
10WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2010-noaa-weather-modification-programs-10wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450WV_2010_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_10WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2009 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
09WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2009-noaa-weather-modification-programs-09wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450WV_2009_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_09WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2008 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
08WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2008-noaa-weather-modification-programs-08wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450WV_2008_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_08WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2007 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
07WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2007-noaa-weather-modification-programs-07wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/texas_449/450VW_2007_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_07WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2006 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
06WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2006-noaa-weather-modification-programs-06wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450VW_2006_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_06WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2005 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
05WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2005-noaa-weather-modification-programs-05wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450VW_2005_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_05WXMOD5.pdf>
   - 2004 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 
04WXMOD5<http://climateviewer.com/weather-modification-projects-experiments/2004-noaa-weather-modification-programs-04wxmod5/>
    | 
Link<http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/weather/450VW_2004_NOAA_Final_Listing_of_Weather_Modification_Programs_Spreadsheet_04WXMOD5.pdf>

Currently, only part of the 2012 programs are on the map, and none of the 
2004-2011 programs have been added yet. 
Please forward any climate engineering projects or programs my way, I'll 
add them!

~ Jim "ClimateViewer guy" Lee


On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:49:55 PM UTC-5, Ron wrote:
>
> Andrew and List  (adding Prof Martinez-Alier as cc)
>
>    Thanks for this new information below.. I have reviewed the EVOLT site 
> and am a bit confused.  I can't find the word "biochar" even once.  I don't 
> want any researcher looking at the EVOLT site to think biochar is being 
> discussed by EVOLT,  if it is not.
>
>    Below, Professor Martinez-Alier, says about ETC (my main interest in 
> this response).:
>
>      "*One should start with ETC’s impressive inventory and map of 300 
> Climate Engineering projects and experiments, correcting mistakes or 
> omissions in agreement with ETC itself. The ETC group has been at the 
> vanguard of civil society engagement with geoengineering. Then, a smaller 
> but in-depth inventory of conflictive cases, is urgently needed.*"
>
>     Thankfully, obviously, we would be making a big mistake in thinking 
> that EJOLT is in complete agreement with ETC.   I note that one can't find 
> the term CDR anywhere on the ETC site.  There are 7 references to biochar 
> but not one is to a peer-reviewed anti-biochar document.  This is OK since 
> ETC does not claim to be the premier anti-biochar iste;  ETC is accepting 
> the "analytical" work of others.   But ETC certainly should not be thought 
> of any sort of expert group on geoengineering - or any of its subparts, 
> regardless of producing a map..
>
>     Re the actual ETC data and map, i note that almost all for biochar are 
> directly quoted from the IBI website - and so I urge Prof Martinez-Alier to 
> do the same.  Biochar is about 30% (79) of the total number of ETC map 
> entries. - I judge to be larger than any other geoengineering category 
> (which, strangely, includes lots of algae and weather modification), but 
> some entries mention more than one company, project,  or product.   There 
> may more university degree programs for biochar at the IBI site than ETC 
> has given overall.  In other words, what looks like a large set of 
> geoengineering entries by ETC is both over and undercounting at the same 
> time.  (I assume ETC doesn't want to make biochar, algae, etc. look too 
> popular - especially in academic circles
>
>    This is to hope Professor Martinez-Alier can give us a little more 
> background on how the ETC data and map will be pared back (corrected?) for 
> the new EVOLT geoengineering study.   Under some circumstances, a number of 
> us on this list are probably ready to help - for instance on "fracking" 
> where I applaud the EVOLT emphasis.
>
> Ron
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Andrew Lockley" <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> *To: *"geoengineering" <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:23:24 PM
> *Subject: *[geo] Geoengineering conflicts: the ETC map
>
> Posters note : lots of links, pls read online if poss
>
> http://www.ejolt.org/2013/01/geoengineering-conflicts-the-etc-map/
>
> Joan Martinez-Alier.
>
> When we wrote the EJOLT project three years ago, we selected a wide range 
> of environmental justice conflicts: from extraction to waste and from 
> nuclear to biomass. But we left aside some relatively new and upcoming 
> types of environmental conflicts. There is the recent boom in shale gas 
> fracking. And serious questions arise on geoengineering experiments. Last 
> autumn, the world’s largest geoengineering experiment caused a much needed 
> public debate. The incident revealed the urgent need for ecological 
> economists, political ecologists and activists to dig deeper in this 
> issue.Geoengineering is the intentional, large-scale technological 
> manipulation of the Earth’s systems, often discussed as a techno-fix for 
> combating climate change. But scientists and engineers do not operate in a 
> vacuum. Once they produced a technology, entrepreneurs and governments will 
> decide where and when to use it. But what if these technologies have 
> uncertain far reaching and long lasting impacts on a vast number of people, 
> if not the whole world population? That is their aim, by altering the 
> climate. But then how can other stakeholders than scientists, entrepreneurs 
> and governments be brought into such a crucial dialogue? Can they bring 
> the incommensurability of values or the unequal distribution of costs and 
> benefits to the table? Can they influence decisions that affect them on 
> such a vast and deep scale?It has been rightly written by the Earth 
> Institute at Columbia University that “Governance is perhaps the thorniest 
> aspect of geoengineering. Because geoengineering is a relatively cheap way 
> to address climate change, it is unilateral—rich countries and billionaires 
> could finance it on their own – yet the consequences would be global. Who 
> then should get to control geoengineering, and under what governance? Some 
> strategies would benefit certain countries and harm others, so who would 
> have the right to decide whether, when and how to use it? Geoengineering 
> would likely create winners and losers – should losers be compensated?”.How 
> uncertain risks, costs and benefits of environmental actions or inactions 
> are distributed among contemporary human groups, and with future 
> generations and other species, is the stuff of Political Ecology. There are 
> already some advances in the field of Political Ecology on Climate 
> Engineering. But an inventory of such studies should be carried out, within 
> EJOLT or in new research.One should start with ETC’s impressive inventory 
> and map of 300 Climate Engineering projects and experiments, correcting 
> mistakes or omissions in agreement with ETC itself. The ETC group has been 
> at the vanguard of civil society engagement with geoengineering. Then, a 
> smaller but in-depth inventory of conflictive cases, is urgently needed. We 
> need to look at the social actors involved, the valuation languagesdeployed 
> and we need to ask if the principle “losers should be compensated” should 
> be prioritized above the principle of “the incommensurability of 
> values”.The ETC map is both an outcome of and a subject for new research. 
> It claims plausibly to be a “world map of geoengineering – the large-scale 
> manipulation of earth or climate systems”. While there is no complete 
> record of the scores of weather and climate control projects in dozens of 
> countries, this map is the first attempt to document the expanding scope of 
> research and experimentation. The geoengineering experiments on the map 
> belong to 10 different types of climate-altering technologies. The science 
> around geoengineering is proceeding much faster than the critical 
> reflections by scientists or the watchdog operations by activists.If there 
> is one thing that the map already teaches us, it’s the urgent need for a 
> public debate infused with knowledge from different scientific disciplines 
> and a range of activists and concerned citizens.
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [email protected] <javascript:>.
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/430aiaufqRMJ.
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