Diana Bronson, from the ETC Group discusses why it’s essential to set up a body to assess the different technologies that could be incorporated under the Technology Mechanism. She explains why it needs to be thought through, touching on geo-engineering (and its support from the IPCC) as a critical example of something which could cause longer term damage.
Video & Audio
by Amy Staden November 5, 2010 from KQED At a recent meeting in Japan of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, diplomats tried to set some rules for future geoengineers. They issued what some are calling a moratorium on allgeoengineering activities until the science is clear and there are global regulations in place. If you want to see [...]
One of the hottest issues before the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan is a set of crucial decisions that could bring about a moratorium on proposed experiments in geoengineering, a set of high-risk climate technofixes. Releasing a critical report on the subject, the Silvia Robeira and Pat Mooney from ETC Group called for governments to support the moratorium. The group argues that geoengineering experiments, due to their unprecedented scale, are both beyond the parameters of real-world scientific testing and beyond the scope of current international law.
VANDANA SHIVA: there is a movement against geoengineering…Citizens telling irresponsible scientists… hands off mother earth
Silvia Ribeiro (ETC Group): While most climate scientist left the Copenhagen Summit feeling gloomy about the lack of action to halt climate change, a small group felt emboldened. They are the geo-engineers who are proposing large scale global projects to reduce solar radiation by spreading sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere, placing sunshades into space or by whitening the clouds. [read on...]