http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/05/07/opposition-to-geoengineering-theres-no-place-like-h-o-m-e-opinion-article/
Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E. In April 2010, the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, brought together more than 25,000 campesinos, teachers, students, engineers, activists, diplomats, elders and ordinary folk to discuss how best to minimize the impacts of global warming and to respond to the failure of negotiations at the UN Framework Climate on Climate Change to bring about reductions in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Seventeen working groups contributed to a Peoples Agreement, which explicitly rejected geoengineering as a “false solution” to climate change.[1] From Cochabamba, the “Hands Off Mother Earth” (HOME) campaign to oppose geoengineering experiments was launched.[2] Since Cochabamba, a small but influential group of researchers has increased calls for governments to support geoengineering experiments as part of developing a “Plan B” or “insurance policy” in the event of a “climate emergency”[3] – despite the adoption of a decision to restrict geoengineering activities by the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2010. The CBD is an international legal instrument whose aim is the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. 193 countries are Parties to the Convention (only the Holy See, Andorra, South Sudan and the United States are not). At its Conference of the Parties held in Nagoya, Japan in 2010, the CBD extended a decision that restricts one specific geoengineering technique agreed upon in 2008 (on ocean fertilization) to apply to all geoengineering activities, while allowing small-scale scientific research studies that meet certain criteria.[4]For many states, the CBD meeting provided the first opportunity to discuss the kinds of geoengineering technologies under development and to consider their risks. The push for Decision X/33 at the CBD, which we, and others, consider a de facto moratorium on geoengineering, came largely from governments of the global South – including the African Group and ALBA countries as well as coastal countries such as Philippines and Tuvalu, the majority of whose peoples rely on oceans for their livelihoods.[5] Sunlight-reflecting stratospheric sulfate injections are expected to alter precipitation patterns, particularly in the tropics, and ocean fertilization techniques deliberately alter ocean chemistry in an attempt to increase absorption of carbon dioxide. Some hailed the CBD’s decision as a prudent and necessary measure until international regulations can be developed and impacts can be properly assessed, while others questioned the decision’s relevancy or enforceability.[6] The Economist saw the UN’s attention to geoengineering as the first chapter in its “coming of age” story.[7] HOME campaigners interpreted it as a stop-gap until a global ban on any unilateral attempt to engineer the climate can be negotiated. In any case, the CBD decision signaled the first baby steps toward inter-governmental regulations – something that has been opposed by advocates of geoengineering research such as those attending the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention, who expressed their preference for a voluntary system of self-governance.[8] From some perspectives, geoengineering as “Plan B” or “insurance policy” in the event of a “climate emergency” may seem prudent, practical and even precautionary. But geoengineering’s prudence will not be universally obvious. If you are the G-8 member that launched the Industrial Revolution causing climate change and your GHG emissions keep going up instead of down – it may be easier to appreciate the attraction of a “techno fix”. As it is likely that only the world’s richest countries will be able to develop the hardware and software necessary to reset the global thermostat, it will be the governments that are responsible for almost all historic GHG emissions and have either denied or ignored climate change for decades, which will also have de facto control over the deployment of geoengineering experiments. Those same governments have failed to provide even minimal funds for climate change mitigation or adaptation. It defies reason to suggest, as some have, that geoengineering will not divert funding and intellectual resources from mitigation and adaptation; it already has – the UK’s Royal Society, the American Academies, the IPCC, to name a few, have all spent money and time bringing experts together to consider geoengineering’s prospects. Further, to have an impact on the earth’s climate, geoengineering projects will have to be on a massive scale. Projects that alter the stratosphere or the oceans will not only have unknown implications but also unequal impacts across the globe.[9] As much as the unintentional “geoengineering” of the Industrial Revolution disproportionately harms tropical and subtropical parts of the planet, intentional geoengineering experiments could well do the same. Put bluntly, many South governments lack a blind faith in technology to solve the problem of climate change, and, in our view, a lack of trust in the governments, industries or scientists of the North to protect all the world’s people is justified. In the absence of demonstrable goodwill and humility from the governments likely to conduct geoengineering, it would only be sensible for the peoples and governments of the global South to be suspicious. A rejection of geoengineering is not a denial that science has an important role to play in dealing with climate change. It is urgent and important that the scientific community work with national and even local governments to monitor and address the climate threats ahead. This collaborative effort will require a lot of money and focused energy. The practical responses to climate change must change with the latitudes, altitudes and ecosystems. “Hands Off Mother Earth” campaigners assert that not enough is known about the Earth’s systems to risk geoengineering experiments in the real world. No one knows if these experiments are going to be inexpensive, as is often assumed – especially if they don’t work, forestall more constructive alternatives or cause adverse effects. We don’t know how to recall a technology once it has been released. Beyond those uncertainties and inadequacies, we must acknowledge the geopolitical realities of climate change. Without that acknowledgement, geoengineering can only be geopiracy[10] and it is a threat to the entire natural world, including each one of us calling Earth HOME -- 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.
