John, You say-- the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has to be reduced if the world is to have any chance of keeping below 2 degrees C warming. If you are referring to today's level of CO2 in the atmosphere, what paper(s) can you point to that support this conclusion?
As for the FOE comments about geoengineering, I think it is worth noting that FOE says it opposes only one form of geoengineering, SRM, and appears to be primarily concerned about one form of SRM, stratospheric particle injection. David Sent from my iPad On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:50 AM, "John Nissen" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, FoE says the WG2 report on climate impacts will be published on March 29th and the WG3 report on "pathways to avoid dangerous climate change" will be published on April 11th. To quote from the WG3 summary by FoE: "It is still possible to reduce global carbon pollution fast enough and deep enough to make 2 degrees of global warming unlikely and provide a small chance of avoiding 1.5 degrees of warming, but only by making far-reaching socio-economic changes." This is complete twaddle and wishful thinking by people whose solidarity is clearly with the "egalitarians" (see posting by Dan Kahan on polarities). It is twaddle because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has to be reduced if the world is to have any chance of keeping below 2 degrees C warming. There is no way that some vague collection of "socio-economic changes" can reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere as required. Only geoengineering can do this. It is also twaddle because the situation in the Arctic is completely ignored. Best scientific evidence points to a vicious cycle of warming and melting in the Arctic as albedo is lost. The only way to break this cycle, and halt the slippery slide into complete Arctic meltdown, is to cool the Arctic. The sooner that IPCC accepts geoengineering as a logical necessity for both CO2 removal and cooling the Arctic, the sooner that the twin dangers from excess CO2 and Arctic overheating will be accepted by politicians and society at large. The talk of geoengineering will make everyone aware that the situation we find ourselves in is already dangerous - really dangerous. The only sensible "pathways to avoid dangerous climate change" must involve geoengineering to remove CO2 and geoengineering to cool the Arctic. The pathway proposed by WG3 is suicidal lunacy. Cheers, John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Oscar Escobar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: IPCC AR5 WG2 report - advance briefing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment, Working Group 3 report Questions and answers in advance of publication http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/advance-briefing-ipcc-report-climate-mitigaton-45694.pdf (Excerpt) Reasons to be worried Although the WG3 report will show that the potential to cut carbon pollution sufficiently to make 2 degrees warming unlikely exists, it will also illustrate the very significant socio-economic changes that are needed to do so. Currently the political will to make these changes, for example reducing fossil fuel use or reducing inequalities between and within countries, is sorely lacking. Because of current and past failures to reduce carbon pollution it is not surprising that the IPCC has investigated geoengineering options. However, by doing so it potentially normalises these approaches alongside energy efficiency, renewables, etc. The risks of particularly solar radiation management are very high and this will need to be made clear. What are others likely to say? It is likely that climate deniers will identify the high costs of mitigation whilst ignoring the considerable benefits which outweigh the costs. It is also possible that right-wing think tanks and the media focus on the potential for geoengineering as a potentially low cost response to climate change, particularly regarding the extremely risky strategy of injection of aerosols into the stratosphere as a form of solar radiation management. Friends of the Earth is opposed to the deployment of solar radiation management. There is also the danger that some commentators also reject all negative emissions technologies in addition to rejecting solar radiation management. This is simplistic and could create opposition to development of necessary technologies to remove carbon pollution from the atmosphere (e.g. air capture of carbon utilising carbon capture and storage). -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
