U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-29-2010, 02:09 AM
 
Location: Northern Wi
1,530 posts, read 1,473,928 times
Reputation: 422

Advertisements

For all the people who have stated they are just a conspiracy theory, the UN has called for them to STOP across the globe. I'm not a fan of the UN but if they can get them to STOP spraying us with chemicals, so be it.

News Release
29 October 2010
www.etcgroup.org

Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan
Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked


NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. “Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group.

The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the environment and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic impacts have been appropriately considered. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental regulatory measures.

The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.

“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney. “This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.”

Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat that deployment – or even field testing – of geoengineering technologies poses to the protection of biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and difficult late night sessions of a “friends of the chair” group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly delicate compromise.” All that remains to do now is gavel it through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).

“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2010, 05:18 AM
 
41,817 posts, read 48,338,112 times
Reputation: 17816
Quote:
“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”
So let me understand something here, this group is suggesting carbon capture and storage is something that shouldn't be done and controlled by the UN?

I'm not going to get into the global warming debate but let's assume that CO2 is causing the earths temperature to rise. The reasoning behind....,

Quote:
"Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies"
....is quite simply because if carbon capture can be successfully done the US could continue to use coal for the next 2 centuries if it wanted too. This obviously poses a problem for much of the world as the coal reserves within the US are by far the largest source of fossil fuel energy controlled by any nation. This comment isn't about doing what is right for the environment, it's about "spreading the wealth" by hampering cheap power production in the US using coal.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Northern Wi
1,530 posts, read 1,473,928 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
So let me understand something here, this group is suggesting carbon capture and storage is something that shouldn't be done and controlled by the UN?

I'm not going to get into the global warming debate but let's assume that CO2 is causing the earths temperature to rise. The reasoning behind....,

....is quite simply because if carbon capture can be successfully done the US could continue to use coal for the next 2 centuries if it wanted too. This obviously poses a problem for much of the world as the coal reserves within the US are by far the largest source of fossil fuel energy controlled by any nation. This comment isn't about doing what is right for the environment, it's about "spreading the wealth" by hampering cheap power production in the US using coal.

If I'm reading this right, carbon capture and storage technologies are not included. That some delegates wanted that included. Which I don't really know what kind of geoengineering that is. I will have to research that this weekend unless you have a link that describes that type of geoengineering this is.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 12:12 PM
 
16,546 posts, read 12,938,945 times
Reputation: 4236
Chemtrails? Are you serious? LOL
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Northern Wi
1,530 posts, read 1,473,928 times
Reputation: 422
The documentary "What in the World are they Spraying" is now on-line.

What in The World Are They Spraying on Vimeo
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Northern Wi
1,530 posts, read 1,473,928 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Chemtrails? Are you serious? LOL
You need to watch the documentary. Obviously you are not aware of your surroundings. That's why they have been getting away with it for years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:16 PM
 
952 posts, read 894,871 times
Reputation: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Chemtrails? Are you serious? LOL

many won't be so dismissive when they have testicles growing out of their forehead....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 02:10 PM
 
41,817 posts, read 48,338,112 times
Reputation: 17816
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpNort View Post
If I'm reading this right, carbon capture and storage technologies are not included. That some delegates wanted that included. Which I don't really know what kind of geoengineering that is. I will have to research that this weekend unless you have a link that describes that type of geoengineering this is.
The basic concept is to capture the CO2 before it enters the atmosphere, this would then be store underground such as in old abandoned mines. I guess it could be considered geoengineering to some extent but it's passive. You're preventing an unnatural event. You couldn't do this everywhere because the geology wouldn't permit it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 02:14 PM
 
20,185 posts, read 22,805,401 times
Reputation: 9272
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
So let me understand something here, this group is suggesting carbon capture and storage is something that shouldn't be done and controlled by the UN?

I'm not going to get into the global warming debate but let's assume that CO2 is causing the earths temperature to rise. The reasoning behind....,

....is quite simply because if carbon capture can be successfully done the US could continue to use coal for the next 2 centuries if it wanted too. This obviously poses a problem for much of the world as the coal reserves within the US are by far the largest source of fossil fuel energy controlled by any nation. This comment isn't about doing what is right for the environment, it's about "spreading the wealth" by hampering cheap power production in the US using coal.
You are too smart for your own good... the UN does not like you... they tried to make it complicated enough that the world wouldn't understand their real motivation... money...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Northern Wi
1,530 posts, read 1,473,928 times
Reputation: 422
I haven't seen any trails today but time will truely tell. I'm at work but will also watch the night skies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top