One of the reasons ETC has been so successful at spreading disinformation is that there is no reputable group providing information that is comparably savvy in public relations and political dynamics.
ETC is easily and justifiably ridiculed, but they fill a vacuum. Of course, reputable organizations are at a disadvantage relative to organizations like ETC, because reputable organizations are tied to facts whereas ETC and sensationalistic authors are free to let their fantasies run wild. People who discuss their fantasies can always come up with more compelling stories than people who are tied to the facts (cf. alien abduction stories). Perhaps the folks at Oxford or perhaps at IASS can make it part of their mission to be a resource for the press and public for sound information on these issues and commit to making themselves as media-savvy and as politically-savvy as the folks at ETC. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, [email protected] On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All > > Shame that they do not feel the same way about exterminating fish stocks, > flaring off gas, throwing plastic bags into the sea and releasing excess > fertilizer into rivers. The only difference is the intention. Ignorance, > carelessness or a greed for profit makes lots of bad things OK. > > It is possible to imagine people taking legal action or starting wars for > NOT doing things that ought to have been done. > > Stephen > > > On 05/07/2013 11:31, Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> >> http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/**the-governonsense-of-climate-** >> engineering/<http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/the-governonsense-of-climate-engineering/> >> >> At the environmental policy forum “The International Governance of >> Climate Engineering”, held by The Institute for European Studies in >> Brussels on June 28, opinions differed on how European policymakers should >> react to the emerging field of climate engineering. Climate engineering >> refers to the deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter the >> effects of climate change (e.g. through blocking/reducing solar radiation >> in the upper atmosphere or enhancing the uptake of carbon dioxide through >> ocean ‘fertilization’).Ralph Bodle, Senior Fellow at the Ecologic Institute >> of Berlin first presented his report, which suggested that the Convention >> on Biological Diversity (CBD) might serve as a overarching but not >> supervisory central institution for all climate engineering matters. Jacob >> Werksman, the Principal Advisor of the European Commission’s DG Climate >> Action disagreed, stating that the CBD was dominated by NGOs and developing >> countries but not respected by countries that are not part of the CBD, such >> as the US. He suggested the UNFCCC because of a more global membership and >> it’s great ability to create new institutions. The argument against >> introducing this discussing in the UNFCCC is the risk of a moral hazard >> where there will always be some countries trying to use the opportunity of >> geo-engineering to do less mitigation. The same can be expected for the >> public opinion: why invest in climate mitigation of some technological fix >> saves us from all the effort?Jacob Werksman was keen to stress that for >> those reasons the EC did not have an explicit position on climate >> engineering. It did not want to undermine the already difficult >> negotiations in the UNFCCC and it did want to underline the multiple >> co-benefits of a climate mitigation policy – on work and health for >> example. But none of the speakers were talking about an international ban >> on climate engineering. While Jacob Werksman talked about a de facto ban >> with exceptions for research, Ralph Bodle said that deployment is an >> inevitable part of that research. Both stated that any exception to the >> rule of not doing climate engineering should be considered “with great >> care”.However, there was agreement in the room on the high political risk >> of any climate engineering experiment, especially if it has trans-boundary >> effects. When we asked if there was any research on conflicts or tensions >> related to climate engineering, Ralph Bodle said it was too early for that >> because there had been few geo-engineering experiments so far. When we >> remembered him of Iran’s unfounded claim that Europe had ‘manipulated >> clouds’ and thus created a drought in Iran he did remember the case and >> added examples from Israël, China and the Indian subcontinent – where >> tensions rose either because of an unfounded claim or a real experiment >> that did not even have a proven impact (China). Other conflicts can be >> found when more research is done starting from the map of 300 >> geoengineering experiments drafted by the ETC group.Another risk was >> explained: what if a state unilaterally decided to go for climate >> engineering? For example: a small island state desperate to survive. >> Sebastian Oberthür, the Academic Director of the Institute for European >> Studies that moderated the debate, said it only costs 18 million dollar to >> hire a plane from the US to start spraying sulfur in the air. The point he >> made is that anyone could start doing it and that an international legal >> framework is missing. Clive Hamilton, author of the book ‘Earthmasters’ >> doesn’t share that fear. “18 million $ might be enough to hire a plane, but >> you would need a fleet of them operating continuously to affect the Earth’s >> albedo. That would be more like billions of dollars” Clive also added that >> “no experiment in sulphate aerosol spraying can change the climate.”But >> even when it’s not cheap to start work on climate engineering, it’s easy to >> envisage political trouble way beyond the actual measurable effects of even >> a small experiment. Ralph Bodle expressed the general fear of his research >> team that in the case of experiments and an eventual weather problem or >> disaster in a neighboring country, it will not matter if one is linked to >> the other. The assumption of a link will be disastrous in itself. Example: >> just try to imagine that the Pakistan floods of 2010 that displaced >> millions came after a rain manipulation experiment in India. Note that the >> monsoon always comes over India first, before arriving in Pakistan. And >> that the two countries have nuclear bombs. At that point, we might discover >> that the governance of climate engineering is actually better described as >> governonsense.Despite such risks, one participant in the debate thought it >> was likely for a state such as the US to start climate engineering >> experiments. If at a certain point in time where politician recommit to >> their 2°C target and climate scientists say that in order to keep that 2°C >> promise you will have to look at climate engineering, then it will be hard >> to resist. According to Sebastian Oberthür, the Atlantic divide in thinking >> about climate engineering is there, with US scientists increasingly calling >> for a framework to do more research. Which guarantees a struggle by civil >> society for years to come >> >> -- >> 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 >> geoengineering+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<geoengineering%[email protected]> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.**com<[email protected]> >> . >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering> >> . >> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >> . >> >> >> > > -- > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University > of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland [email protected] +44 > (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > -- > 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 > geoengineering+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > To post to this group, send email to > geoengineering@googlegroups.**com<[email protected]> > . > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering> > . > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
