And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather
hypocritically, citing funding reasons when that had nothing to do with it.
So they had an opportunity to participate in the largest gathering devoted
to governance and callously passed it up. I would also note that none of
the
Alan and list.
1. Thanks for sending the brochure on IPCC-5. I see several places that
Geoengineering could appear in each of the four reports, but the words
Geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) don't stand out anywhere -
much less Biochar or even REDD. Which sections will the Lima
Dear Ron,
I'll know more about WG II and III after the meeting, but for WG I,
Chapter 6 (Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles) will deal with CDR.
For this and the other working groups, you can obtain a list of the
authors from the IPCC website, https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/AR5.html
Dear Alvia--Legally, IPCC is organized by the UN, but it really answers to
all of us, at least it needs to if it is to be effective.
Mike
On 6/17/11 10:42 AM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote:
And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather
hypocritically, citing funding
Hi Folks,
Andrew, I think your proposed letter to the IPCC countering the ETC et.alia
Open Letter should be the main focus. However, I will start compiling a
contact info list of the signers if a direct response letter is to be
prepared. The points which Ken offers are a great rallying flag
Hi
Just watched it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25
You can view it through a UK proxy if you're overseas.
I thought it was rubbish. The presenters had been very poorly briefed
and failed to explain the technologies at all. The options were
presented as
1) space mirrors,
2) urea
Ken
Just watched this on BBC iPlayer. It was about 6 minutes and you came
across well. Multiple mentions that geoengineering isn't an
alternative to abatement. Clear that it is a response to lack of
political progress on abatement; not all options are feasible and
further research is needed.
