Several interesting points have been raised:
1. Ken describes several basic ETC positions. From what I can tell,
there is one additional underlying premise: modern capitalism, built
on science and technology, is responsible for the climate crisis,
therefore, the modern rationalist worldview is incapable of providing
a solution to climate change. The first part of this premise may or
may not be correct, but the second part certainly does not follow, and
the argument itself is divorced from our present reality of economic
inertia, political impasse, and limited options. I invite anyone from
the ETC Group to amend these characterizations.
2. I am willing to accept the list of signatory organizations at face
value, although the extent to which they represent global civil
society is questionable (from my neck of the woods, the Enviro Show? -
http://envirosho.blogspot.com/).
3. Friends of the Earth is a credible group, but it seems to be
fracturing on the question of geoengineering. FOE International and
its US chapter signed this letter, but John cites a 2009 FOE Briefing
Note expressing openness to geoengineering, and FOE (England, Wales
Northern Ireland) expressed similar openness in a report last year
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/
2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf). Where exactly does FOE
stand as an organization?
4. It appears that the Guardian has come out in opposition to
geoengineering. Its June 15 article (flagged by Wil Burns and others)
is clearly sympathetic to the HOME campaign, arguably mischaracterizes
the IPCC abstracts as leaks, and is now followed by a featured
opinion piece from the ETC Group (noted by Stephen earlier). Getting
them to reprint Ken's points may be a challenge.
5. Andrew's draft is well written and timely - please add my name -
Joshua B. Horton, PhD.
Josh
On Jun 16, 7:18 am, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote:
happy to add my name to your draft
John Gorman M. A. (Cantab.) Chartered Engineer
Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
To: Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Andrew
I cannot improve your draft.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 16/06/2011 10:25, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement.
A
We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers
and social policy experts involved in the development of
geoengineering and its governance. We write with frustration at the
sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the
press and IPCC. As a result, we would like to express the following
views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally:
1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions
cuts, and never have done.
2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are
necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate
change.
3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed
which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research
necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in
the future control of global warming.
4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering
techniques
5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible
geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them
6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions
available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have
thus far achieved little or nothing. As such, we believe that further
research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived
panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to
offer.
Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue
represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit. We
argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion
of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening
up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups.
Yours sincerely
On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salters.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:
Hi All
Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's
Guardian see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-cli...
Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of
