Hi Folks, If the need for a formalized and science backed GE advocacy is left un-answered much longer, it may simply take GE off the table completely. ETC pulls in over $1M of donations per year on this one issue and its staff of journalist are well aware of the value in selling hype to those they solicit money from. And, *money does buy legitimacy*, is there any surprise here? Going up against such a group as ETC will be like nailing Jello to the wall (messy, not pretty and endlessly repetitive) and no academic institution will want to waddle into that feted mud pit. I recommend that a non-profit group be formed for proper GE advocacy as soon as possible. I believe this was proposed in this forum over 2 years ago. The upcoming changes to the London Protocol will be an important test for the future of GE as a field of study. A de facto control over the future of this issue is being erected and it is not based upon science. It is based upon yellow journalism and the fear that sells such garbage. It takes 4 people to form a 501 (c)(3) and around $3K. The organization could be in place and operational well before the LP is changed. With 501 (c)(3) standing, those that are concerned about catastrophic climate change can have their voices heard with equal authority as those that support ETC. We have to face the fact that an "idea" can not compete with a well funded group<http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/report/ETC01%2020120831%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20ML%20electronic.pdf>who has no true obligation to the truth or the future of our planet. Their only verifiable obligation is to paying the bills needed to stay in business!! The "idea" needs its own well funded support group or it will be ether defeated, severly minimized or simply used as a money press for those like ETC. Best, Michael
On Friday, July 5, 2013 3:31:38 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/the-governonsense-of-climate-engineering/ > > At the environmental policy forum “The International Governance of Climate > Engineering”, held by The Institute for European Studies in Brussels on > June 28, opinions differed on how European policymakers should react to the > emerging field of climate engineering. Climate engineering refers to the > deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter the effects of > climate change (e.g. through blocking/reducing solar radiation in the upper > atmosphere or enhancing the uptake of carbon dioxide through ocean > ‘fertilization’).Ralph Bodle, Senior Fellow at the Ecologic Institute of > Berlin first presented his report, which suggested that the Convention on > Biological Diversity (CBD) might serve as a overarching but not supervisory > central institution for all climate engineering matters. Jacob Werksman, > the Principal Advisor of the European Commission’s DG Climate Action > disagreed, stating that the CBD was dominated by NGOs and developing > countries but not respected by countries that are not part of the CBD, such > as the US. He suggested the UNFCCC because of a more global membership and > it’s great ability to create new institutions. The argument against > introducing this discussing in the UNFCCC is the risk of a moral hazard > where there will always be some countries trying to use the opportunity of > geo-engineering to do less mitigation. The same can be expected for the > public opinion: why invest in climate mitigation of some technological fix > saves us from all the effort?Jacob Werksman was keen to stress that for > those reasons the EC did not have an explicit position on climate > engineering. It did not want to undermine the already difficult > negotiations in the UNFCCC and it did want to underline the multiple > co-benefits of a climate mitigation policy – on work and health for > example. But none of the speakers were talking about an international ban > on climate engineering. While Jacob Werksman talked about a de facto ban > with exceptions for research, Ralph Bodle said that deployment is an > inevitable part of that research. Both stated that any exception to the > rule of not doing climate engineering should be considered “with great > care”.However, there was agreement in the room on the high political risk > of any climate engineering experiment, especially if it has trans-boundary > effects. When we asked if there was any research on conflicts or tensions > related to climate engineering, Ralph Bodle said it was too early for that > because there had been few geo-engineering experiments so far. When we > remembered him of Iran’s unfounded claim that Europe had ‘manipulated > clouds’ and thus created a drought in Iran he did remember the case and > added examples from Israël, China and the Indian subcontinent – where > tensions rose either because of an unfounded claim or a real experiment > that did not even have a proven impact (China). Other conflicts can be > found when more research is done starting from the map of 300 > geoengineering experiments drafted by the ETC group.Another risk was > explained: what if a state unilaterally decided to go for climate > engineering? For example: a small island state desperate to survive. > Sebastian Oberthür, the Academic Director of the Institute for European > Studies that moderated the debate, said it only costs 18 million dollar to > hire a plane from the US to start spraying sulfur in the air. The point he > made is that anyone could start doing it and that an international legal > framework is missing. Clive Hamilton, author of the book ‘Earthmasters’ > doesn’t share that fear. “18 million $ might be enough to hire a plane, but > you would need a fleet of them operating continuously to affect the Earth’s > albedo. That would be more like billions of dollars” Clive also added that > “no experiment in sulphate aerosol spraying can change the climate.”But > even when it’s not cheap to start work on climate engineering, it’s easy to > envisage political trouble way beyond the actual measurable effects of even > a small experiment. Ralph Bodle expressed the general fear of his research > team that in the case of experiments and an eventual weather problem or > disaster in a neighboring country, it will not matter if one is linked to > the other. The assumption of a link will be disastrous in itself. Example: > just try to imagine that the Pakistan floods of 2010 that displaced > millions came after a rain manipulation experiment in India. Note that the > monsoon always comes over India first, before arriving in Pakistan. And > that the two countries have nuclear bombs. At that point, we might discover > that the governance of climate engineering is actually better described as > governonsense.Despite such risks, one participant in the debate thought it > was likely for a state such as the US to start climate engineering > experiments. If at a certain point in time where politician recommit to > their 2°C target and climate scientists say that in order to keep that 2°C > promise you will have to look at climate engineering, then it will be hard > to resist. According to Sebastian Oberthür, the Atlantic divide in thinking > about climate engineering is there, with US scientists increasingly calling > for a framework to do more research. Which guarantees a struggle by civil > society for years to come > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
