Michael,
Your deconstruction of CBD Decision X/33 8(w) doesn’t make sense:
1. The decision is clearly aimed at deliberate geoengineering activities
designed to mitigate climate change *not* climate change caused by
emissions from activities such as power generation.
2. The phrase "in the absence of science based, global, transparent and
effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering" has to be
read as one and not piece by piece. It then makes entire sense. On the
marine side, this is what the Parties to the London Convention and London
Protocol are currently working towards.
3. Why is "in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14
of the Convention" contradictory to Article 15 of the Rio Declaration? The
"precautionary approach" and Article 15 are one and the same thing. Article
14 of the CBD simply requires environmental impact assessment of proposed
projects likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity
and the avoidance or minimization of such effects.
Chris.
On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:12:21 PM UTC+1, Michael Hayes wrote:
>
> Thanks Mick,
>
> Yes, the "Ban" thing is becoming something of an urban legend. Here is
> how I would deconstruct the key thinking: "*in the absence of science
> based (science would not be absent), global (global what? Political,
> science, media talking heads, The C**olbert Nation**?), transparent and
> effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering (We
> currently have 'reasonable knowability' of the combined human affect on our
> large climate systems and BD. The AGU just confirmed this view. Thus, we
> are currently, actively and knowingly geoengineering the planet. Once
> 'reasonable knowability' is established, the word 'intentional'
> becomes legally, morally and ethically moot...That truly is an
> "inconvenient truth"!), and in accordance with the precautionary approach
> and Article 14 of the Convention (This is contradictory to Article 15 of
> the Rio Declaration <http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html>), that
> no climate-related geo-engineering **activities
> 76<http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12299#cop-10-dec-33-fn76>
> that
> may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific
> basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of
> the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated
> social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale
> scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting
> in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are
> justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to
> a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;"
> Article
> 15 must take priority. Or, the mindless adherance to Article 14 becomes a
> suicide pact. No person, orginization or species should be subjected to
> such logic.*
> *
> *
> *Any thoughts?*
> *
> *
> *Michael*
>
> On Friday, August 9, 2013 8:31:44 AM UTC-7, Jim Lee wrote:
>>
>> Now on YouTube:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6YgF_Sams
>>
>> Enjoy =)
>> <3 u Clive
>>
>> Jim Lee
>> http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html
>>
>>
--
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.
