Hi dboots; Have you added your name to the petition at - http://electromagnetichealth.org Patty
On Apr 27, 9:52 pm, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > There are 3 reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. 1st, in the > future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country > unilaterally to affect the climate. > 2nd, some albeit very small scale geoengineering testing is already > underway. > 3rd, we may need geoengineering as a Plan B if, in the event of the > failure of Plan A > > When it comes to influencing a public's perception on issues, TPTB > are very astute at the way they go about it Most of us are more than > well aware they are well on their way to well past small scale being > underway of geoengineering testing (instead it is a large scale > program way beyond any testing stanges) as they try to pretend as one > of their 2nd reasons > Many of us are well aware they are into a global operation being > underway and it has been for almost 20 years and their is nothing > small scale about it nor it is only in just a testing phase > > Also take note it is a collaborative effort with the US House of > Representatives Science and Technology Committee And within the body > of this pdf they also reference geoengineering is not the same as > weather seeding I haven't read all of it yet > > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/2... > > The Regulation of Geoengineering > > Summary > Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately > designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of > minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate > change. > Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into > two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the > atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in > geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. > > Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols > into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large > volcanic eruptions. > > The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory > framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those > techniques, particularly carbon removal, that are closely related to > familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing > the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass > geoengineering. > For other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory > arrangements will have to be developed. > > There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, > in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single > country unilaterally to affect the climate. > Second, some albeit very small scale geoengineering testing is already > underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a Plan B if, in the > event of the failure of Plan A the reduction of greenhouse gaseswe are > faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we > start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the > technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues. > > We are not calling for an international treaty but for the groundwork > for regulatory arrangements to begin. Geoengineering techniques should > be graded with consideration to factors such as trans-boundary effect, > the dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment > and the direct effect on ecosystems. The regulatory regimes for > geoengineering should then be tailored accordingly. The controls > should be based on a set of principles that command widespread > agreement, for example, the disclosure of > geoengineering research and open publication of results and the > development of governance arrangements before the deployment of > geoengineering techniques. > > The UN is the route by which, eventually, we envisage the regulatory > framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to > push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes > moving. > > This inquiry was innovative in that we worked collaboratively with the > US House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee, the > first international joint working of this kind for a House of Commons > select committee. We found the experience constructive and rewarding > and, we hope, successful. We are enthusiastic supporters of > collaborative working between national legislatures on topics such as > geoengineering with international reach. Our Report covering the > regulation of geoengineering will now dovetail into a wider inquiry > that the House of Representatives Committee is carrying out > on geoengineering. Science, technology and engineering are key to > solving global challenges and we commend to our successor committee > international collaboration as an innovative way to meet these > challenges > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hum Sufferers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en.
