Hi Emily, Could you give some more details and/or post this in a separate thread, this seems like a big deal! I mentioned your comment to some folks involved in governance here at the geoengineering group at the IASS and they were very interested / worried!
cheers, Pete On Saturday, 6 April 2013 21:46:33 UTC+2, Emily L-B wrote: > > Hi all, > > One thing that perturbed me last year was the etc work at the un fao csm > conf on food security where they are highly respected in the civil society > movement. A move in civil society to oppose Genetic engineering was mutated > to a call for a ban on Geo engineering. > If this move had been successful, and put to the unfao on behalf of the > large and wide group of civil society organisations, it could have > precipitated another un body opposing geo engineering, which I don't think > had been the intention of most of the organisations being represented. > I was glad this move was retracted when I challenged it, but I suppose it > will be tried again. > It is a shame to me that this kind of tricky tactic is being used. > > Civil society will need to be vigilant that they do not end up calling for > a ban on the wrong thing! > > In terms of the paper cited below, an EIA of geo-eng would compare the > risk of potential impacts from any geo-eng project in the future against > the expected status in the future, not the current status. Ie if the Sahel > is due to dry with climate change and is also due to dry with a proposed > SRM project, this would mean the drying needs to mitigated (ameliorated) > whether the SRM takes place or not. > > In good faith, > Emily. > > > Sent from my BlackBerry > ------------------------------ > *From: * RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *Sender: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Date: *Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT) > *To: *<[email protected] <javascript:>>; > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Cc: *<[email protected] <javascript:>> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Re: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols > impacts Sahelian rainfall : Nature Climate Change > > Thanks Oliver. > Just to clarify from the link, ETC's stated Plan A is: > > "....pull out and dust off the many practical proposals that have been > around for decades that would plant trees, push back the Sahara, and > support sustainable agricultural strategies in the region. And, if that’s > not enough in a dire emergency, then make sure there is sufficient food > aid." > > I'd also suggest throwing in some significant family planning aid. > Apparently "sufficient food aid" will be required because the planted > trees will be occupying otherwise arable land(?) > > In any case sounds like some serious social, bio, and geo engineering to > me, which I'm all for carefully considering. But how is this immune from > the same criticism as GE with regard to effectiveness and unintended > consequences, and especially what is the likelihood of achieving Plan A > goals given African social and political instability, not to mention lack > of global will? This is why it's dangerous at this stage to dismiss any > Plan B option until it is proven that it is not needed, and why ETC's > vehement opposition to such seems so irrational. This is making a big > assumption that their true agenda is to maintain earth habitability. > -Greg > * > * > * > * > * > * > *From:* O Morton <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Sent:* Sat, April 6, 2013 2:27:49 AM > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols > impacts Sahelian rainfall : Nature Climate Change > > Opps: forgot teh URL of Jim's post > http://www.etcgroup.org/content/normalizing-geoengineering-foreign-aid > > On Monday, 1 April 2013 11:17:28 UTC+1, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> Posters note: a discussion of the policy implications of this paper can >> be found at http://m.guardian.co.uk/ environment/2013/mar/31/earth- >> cooling-schemes-global-signoff<http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/31/earth-cooling-schemes-global-signoff>, >> pasted below. >> >> http://www.nature.com/ nclimate/journal/vaop/ ncurrent/full/nclimate1857. >> html<http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html> >> >> Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall >> >> Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Nicolas Bellouin & David Stephenson >> Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/ nclimate1857 >> Received 23 October 2012 >> Accepted 22 February 2013 >> Published online 31 March 2013 >> >> The Sahelian drought of the 1970s–1990s was one of the largest >> humanitarian disasters of the past 50 years, causing up to 250,000 deaths >> and creating 10 million refugees. It has been attributed to natural >> variability, over-grazing and the impact of industrial emissions of sulphur >> dioxide. Each mechanism can influence the Atlantic sea surface temperature >> gradient, which is strongly coupled to Sahelian precipitation. We suggest >> that sporadic volcanic eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere also strongly >> influence this gradient and cause Sahelian drought. Using de-trended >> observations from 1900 to 2010, we show that three of the four driest >> Sahelian summers were preceded by substantial Northern Hemisphere volcanic >> eruptions. We use a state-of-the-art coupled global atmosphere–ocean model >> to simulate both episodic volcanic eruptions and geoengineering by >> continuous deliberate injection into the stratosphere. In either case, >> large asymmetric stratospheric aerosol loadings concentrated in the >> Northern Hemisphere are a harbinger of Sahelian drought whereas those >> concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere induce a greening of the Sahel. >> Further studies of the detailed regional impacts on the Sahel and other >> vulnerable areas are required to inform policymakers in developing careful >> consensual global governance before any practical solar radiation >> management geoengineering scheme is implemented. >> >> Comment piece below, http://m.guardian.co.uk/ >> environment/2013/mar/31/earth- >> cooling-schemes-global-signoff<http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/31/earth-cooling-schemes-global-signoff> >> >> Guardian, Sunday 31 March 2013 17.59 BST >> AIan Sample, science correspondent >> >> Earth-cooling schemes need global sign-off, researchers say >> >> World's most vulnerable people need protection from huge and unintended >> impacts of radical geoengineering projects. >> >> Controversial geoengineering projects that may be used to cool the planet >> must be approved by world governments to reduce the danger of catastrophic >> accidents, British scientists said.Met Office researchers have called for >> global oversight of the radical schemes after studies showed they could >> have huge and unintended impacts on some of the world's most vulnerable >> people.The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In >> some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they >> increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched."The >> massive complexities associated with geoengineering, and the potential for >> winners and losers, means that some form of global governance is >> essential," said Jim Haywood at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in >> Exeter.The warning builds on work by scientists and engineers to agree a >> regulatory framework that would ban full-scale geoengineering projects, at >> least temporarily, but allow smaller research projects to go >> ahead.Geoengineering comes in many flavours, but among the more plausible >> are "solar radiation management" (SRM) schemes that would spray huge >> amounts of sun-reflecting particles high into the atmosphere to simulate >> the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions.Volcanoes can blast millions of >> tonnes of sulphate particles into the stratosphere, where they stay aloft >> for years and cool the planet by reflecting some of the sun's energy back >> out to space.In 2009, a Royal Society report warned that geoengineering was >> not an alternative to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but conceded the >> technology might be needed in the event of a climate emergency.Writing in >> the journal Nature Climate Change, Haywood and others show that moves to >> cool the climate by spraying sulphate particles into the atmosphere could >> go spectacularly wrong. They began by looking at the unexpected impacts of >> volcanic eruptions.In 1912 and 1982, eruptions first at Katmai in Alaska >> and then at El Chichón in Mexico blasted millions of tonnes of sulphate >> into northern skies. These eruptions preceded major droughts in the Sahel >> region of Africa. When the scientists recreated the eruptions in climate >> models, rainfall across the Sahel all but stopped as moisture-carrying air >> currents were pushed south.Having established a link between volcanic >> eruptions in the northern hemisphere and droughts in Africa, the scientists >> returned to their climate models to simulate SRM projects.The scientists >> took a typical project that would inject 5m tonnes of sulphate into the >> stratosphere every year from 2020 to 2070. That amount of sulphate injected >> into the northern hemisphere caused severe droughts in Niger, Mali, Burkina >> Faso, Senegal, Chad and Sudan, and an almost total loss of vegetation.The >> same project had radically different consequences if run from the southern >> hemisphere. Rather than drying the Sahel, cooling the southern hemisphere >> brought rains to the Sahel and re-greened the region. But Africa's benefit >> came at the cost of slashing rainfall in north-eastern Brazil.The >> unintended consequences of SRM projects would probably be felt much farther >> afield. "We have only scratched the surface in looking at the Sahel. If >> hurricane frequencies changed, that could have an impact on the US," said >> Haywood.Matthew Watson, who leads the Spice project at Bristol University, >> said the study revealed the "dramatic consequences" of uninformed >> geoengineering."This paper tells us there are consequences for our actions >> whatever we do. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card," he told the >> Guardian."Whatever we do is a compromise, and that compromise means there >> will be winners and losers. That opens massive ethical questions: who gets >> to decide how we even determine what is a good outcome for different >> people?"How do you get a consensus with seven billion-plus stakeholders? If >> there was a decision to do geoengineering tomorrow, it would be done by >> white western men, and that isn't good," Watson said. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
