UBFCCC SBSTA not really the place for such a report. What's wrong with the
AR5 process?
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comwrote:
At the same time, raising the profile of geoengineering on the
international agenda would probably result in increased funding
David and list:
I have read the short description of the Peru meeting at
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/index.html#6
and the proposal at
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/files/doc05-p32-proposal-EM-on-geoengineering.pdf
I mostly can endorse the need for
Yes, I agree. I think it makes little sense to combine an SRM meeting with a
CDR meeting and have made this point of view known to the IPCC Technical
Support Units.
It is too late to change this. I am now arguing that, at a minimum, there be
at least two separate streams that run in parallel
Ken and all
I like the idea of three concurrent meetings, as you suggest below. Also, I
hope there can
be some recognition of the way REDD+ will/can fit into the CDR portfolio. - as
it seems to be well on its way as the main already-recognized CDR. approach,
albeit short term.
Ron
-
Why have any odd ducks? How about
1. SRM
2. CDR - distributed
3. CDR - centralized
-or-
1. SRM
2. CDR - biological
3. CDR – chemical
But then we are ignoring physical such as changing downwelling/thermohaline
circulation(?) Not that this is necessarily a contender, but the point is why
be
While evaluating the status of the technical issues is likely best tackled
separately, it seems to me there are a number of policy and governance
issues that are common‹most important perhaps the public perception that
ties all such ideas together. The Asilomar Conference
presentations/discussion
Ken's taxonomy or something similar seems like a good way to organize
the meeting. Science/technical issues are the obvious and appropriate
focus, but it is encouraging to see the agenda expanded to include
policy and governance: suitability of existing governance mechanisms
for managing
