[clim] Erroneous and misleading ETC news release
Ken Caldeira
From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2010 22:30:14 GMT+02:00
To: Diana Bronson <di...@etcgroup.org>, Pat Mooney <e...@etcgroup.org>, Jim Thomas <j...@etcgroup.org>
Subject: Fwd: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
Dear ETC,Before you go issuing press releases it would be nice if you would do a little fact checking rather than spreading around false and misleading information.Kelly Wanser and Silver Lining have not received any funds from Bill Gates either directly or indirectly.David Keith and I allocated funds to Armand Neukermans to use laboratory experiments to establish whether it would be technically feasible to produce seawater sprays that would be fine enough to meet the requirements of the Latham cloud whitening proposal.There was no funding given to Silver Lining or any other team beyond a small group of close associates of Armand Neukermans working to produce fine seawater sprays in the laboratory. There was no funding given for the planning, preparation or execution of any field tests.David Keith and I decided to make this funding available it was our decision, not anybody else's.I have expressly said that private efforts to conduct field tests should await the development of appropriate governance structures. I am opposed to private entities conducting field tests without appropriate governance and would oppose funding such activites.Our reason for funding Armand Neukermans was that many people felt it was impossible to make the kind of sprays required by the Latham proposal. If it could be established that such sprays were infeasible, that would save many people from wasting time researching and discussing and arguing about an infeasible option. If such sprays are technically feasible, then the research emphasis should shift to using climate and other environmental models to establish the possible environmental consequences of such seawater sprays.In short, David Keith and I allocated funds to Armand Neukermans to test the feasibility of fine seawater sprays in the laboratory. That is the story.Best,Ken
______________Sent from a limited typing keyboardKen Caldeira---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jim thomas <j...@etcgroup.org>
Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Subject: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
To: Eli Kintisch <eli...@gmail.com>
------------ETC Group
News release
10 May 2010
As huge cloud-whitening experiment goes public, global coalition urges an immediate halt to geoengineering
First UN talks on issue in thirty years begin today
http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org
Amidst revelations in this weekend’s London Times newspaper[1] that a team of scientists and engineers funded by billionaire Bill Gates are planning to carry out a 10,000 square kilometer field trial of controversial “cloud-whitening” technology, over one hundred civil society groups are urging governments meeting on biological diversity in Nairobi to stop risky geoengineering experiments now. Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological schemes to intentionally alter the planet’s systems as a quick fix for climate change.
The San-Francisco based “Silver Lining Project” directed by entrepreneur Kelly Wanser has so far received $ 300,000 dollars from Bill Gates to develop technologies that will increase the whiteness of marine clouds. Theoretically, executed on a massive scale, whiter clouds could increase the earth’s albedo, reflecting more sunlight back to space and thereby reduce global warming (without changing the composition of greenhouse gases which cause warming). The Silver Lining Project has decided to press ahead with plans to alter cloud-cover over an undisclosed 10,000 square kilometre patch of ocean (as large as the BP oil slick was a few days ago). If not stopped, the Gates ‘cloud-bleaching’ experiment would be the largest known geoengineering field trial to date. Its effects could include changes in rainfall and other altered weather patterns. One site frequently spoken of by scientists engaged in this research is the Pacific coast of North and South America (specifically California, Ecuador, Peru and Chile).
Most worrisome, the Times revealed: “The British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.” Such rules could be set in motion this week as scientists and diplomats from 193 nations meet under the auspices of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s scientific body. The meeting in Nairobi of SBSTTA 14 (Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, running from May 10-21 2010) is the first time a UN Body has addressed geoengineering as a whole since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in Geneva in 1976 that banned environmental modification for “hostile uses”.[2].
A new global coalition will be urging governments in Nairobi to adopt a moratorium on all geoengineering experiments, just as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a moratorium on ocean fertilization in 2008. Over one hundred organizations and individuals, including leading names in the environmental and global justice movement have joined H.O.M.E. campaign: Hands off Mother Earth--Our Home is not a Laboratory (www.handsoffmotherearth.org).
“Our Home Planet Earth should not be treated as a laboratory for risky geoengineering experiments,” says Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group in Mexico from the Nairobi SBSTTA meeting. “Human-caused climate change already threatens our lands, seas, food supply and rights. We do not want to embark on another dangerous experiment with our planet. If they think that the people and governments of Ecuador, Peru or Chile – or anywhere else they might try -- will stand idly by as they mess with our oceans, clouds and weather, they are in for a surpise. Delegates here are shocked by these plans.”
“We knew Microsoft was developing cloud applications for computers but we didn’t expect this,” explained Jim Thomas of ETC Group, one of the founding organizations of the HOME campaign “Bill Gates and his cloud-wrenching cronies have no right to unilaterally change our seas and skies in this way. A global moratorium on geoengineering experiments just became a whole lot more urgent and the meeting in Nairobi is a fine place to ensure that it gets put into place rapidly.”
-30-
Additional background:
What: Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological proposals to fix climate change by deliberately altering the climate, weather, atmosphere and oceans. Examples of geoengineering schemes include dumping nutrients into the sea to grow algal blooms (called Ocean Fertilization), turning extensive monoculture plantations into charcoal to bury in the soil (called biochar) and deliberately polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphur or aluminium particles to reflect sunlight (called stratospheric aerosols) as well as cloud-whitening. All of these experiments have large potential impacts on environment, biodiversity and the livelihoods of people especially in the Global South. Geoengineering advocates argue that there is no time for a global political agreement to address the real causes of climate change, so brave new scientists and wealthy entrepreneurs should save the world for all of us instead, with their own technofixes.
There are now several geoengineering experiments getting underway without any global oversight framework in place and larger experiments are planned. Geoengineers, including those behind the Gates cloud-wrenching test have recently proposed “voluntary guidelines” rather than full independent multilateral oversight of the field. The proposal currently before SBSTTA 14 is for governments to look into the biodiversity implications of geoengineering (as well as to examine the ongoing work on ocean fertilization which began in 2008). Civil society groups are insisting experiments be stopped while governments examine the implications of such research.
Who: A new global campaign and coalition to stop Geoengineering experiments was launched last month at an international climate change meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia. This Hands Off Mother Earth (H.O.M.E.) Campaign is calling on governments through the UN to put a halt to unilateral open-air geoengineering experiments – arguing they are too risky and unjust. Supporters of the HOME campaign against geoengineering include high profile environmentalists such as Bill McKibben, David Suzuki, Vandana Shiva and Naomi Klein. Organizations supporting the HOME campaign include ETC Group, Friends of the Earth International, Third World Network, Indigenous Environmental Network, la Via Campenina, Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact, Biofuelwatch and many others.
Show of Hands: Additionally members of the public have been uploading their pictures with their hands held up with messages against geoengineering to a growing photo petition at http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org. A giant poster displaying the protest is on display at SBSTTA 14 in Nairobi and ETC Group has three people at the meeting, working with campaign partners to inform delegates of the protest and the reasons behind it.
For more information about Hands Off Mother Earth Campaign see
http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org
In Nairobi:
*Neth Dano, ne...@etcgroup.org cell & SMS + 63 917 532 9369
Nairobi cell: +254 712 605 622
Silvia Ribeiro, sil...@etcgroup.org cell & SMS +52 1 55 2653 3330
Nairobi cell: +254 712 601 660
*Molly Kane, mo...@etcgroup.org cell & SMS: + 1-613-797 6421
In Canada:
Diana Bronson - di...@etcgroup.org; cell: 514 629 9236
Jim Thomas - j...@etcgroup.org cell: 514 516 5759
Pat Mooney – e...@etcgroup.org cell: 613 240 0045
[1] See Ben Webster, Bill Gates Pays for artificial clouds to beat greenhouse gases, 8 May 2010, Times Online at http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece
[2] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Andrew Lockley
Alvia Gaskill
Alvia Gaskill
Andrew Lockley
The UK is a better place to bring libel actions
There a call for papers on geoengineering governance elsewhere on these lists so hopefully people can address your concerns formally
A
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention...
Ken Caldeira
______________
Ken,We based our news release on a story by Ben Webster, environment editor at the Times: (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece) and that was clearly referenced as the source in this news release. That news report asserted that 1) "Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr. Gates." 2) that the group intends to carry out a 10,000 square km test and that 3) British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.” In our news release we were very clear that these claims were made by The Times and not by ETC Group. The Times has its own internal fact checking procedures. Ben Webster says he stands by his story.Regarding Gates funding going to Silver Lining project. Firstly this was an assertion of the Times, which we repeated. We note however that until yesterday, Armand Neukermans was publicly listed as part of the Silver Lining project. Yesterday afternoon the website of the Silver Lining Project (http://www.silverliningproj.org) listed 14 collaborators in the project. After receiving your message I re-checked the website and the list of collaborators has now been conveniently excised and replaced by a list of universities. The old website is still visible in google's cache: (see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XpnV-uSqoJ4J:silverliningproj.org/collaborators.html+silver+lining+project+collaborators ) if the cache is no longer visible I have taken a screenshot of it - attached below.In Eli Kintisch's book it is separately reported that Neukermans had received money "to develop sprayers" from Gates and that "Kelly Wanser meanwhile started a nonprofit they dubbed the Silver Lining project to help co-ordinate the work... [which] included dozens of scientists volunteering their time, possible tests in a German Cloud chamber and a proposed small scale ocean experiment involving American and British Scientists" (Hack The Planet p186). The same book quotes you as expecting such trials to be publicly announced "in the next few years" (p. 217). Later Wanser told New Scientist that they had 35 scientists working on their project and that they were seeking funds for a 10,000 square kilometer trial involving 10 boats in the next 3-4 years. (Hacking the planet: who decides? New Scientist 29 March 2010 by Jim Giles, Asilomar, California).The argument that Neukermans is building sprays simply to understand whether such sprays are theoretically feasible and that such tests will only take place “in the lab” is not credible. It fails to acknowledge the links between lab testing of hardware and the open-air experiments that will follow. Indeed you yourself called this a slippery slope with reference to cloud whitening in Kintisch's 'Hack the Planet' (page 217: "Now we as scientists could say I was testing the sprayer just because I'm designing misters to do cooling for a ship or some other application there would be no question about it. But when its the first step towards a geoengineering thing, it introduces the notion of a slippery slope") . Furthermore, ETC Group has had correspondence with Stephen Salter, another collaborator who was listed on the Silver Lining Project's website until yesterday, about what experiments were planned and how they should be governed and he said: “As there has been no money to do even lab testing of a spray generator it seems premature to investigate legal problems especially as lawyers get paid so much more than engineers. As we are not introducing any new chemicals it is not clear that we need to get permission from anyone.”If Neukermans is successful in designing a working spray, isn't it the case that this piece of technology will be used in the proposed trial for the project in which he is/was publicly listed as a collaborator? Given this it is hard to understand how "Silver Lining have not received any funds from Bill Gates either directly or indirectly."Thanks for clarifying that these decisions about Bill Gates' funds for geoengineering are made by yourself and David Keith. And while you have clearly taken a position that there should not be outside testing of geoengineering before international rules are in place, that has not been the public position of David Keith. So if that is a contractual condition for any money that is disbursed from the Gates fund that you manage, it would be helpful to know.In any case, ETC Group's concern is less with who is funding the trial including the building of the hardware for the trial (we would be concerned whoever was funding it) but that the team are now reported to be willing to proceed to open air trials without global governance arrangements in place. Further we are dismayed by the Times’ claim (also carried earlier in New Scientist in March) that they will be carrying out such a large (10,000 square km) trial. We would be very happy for Silver Lining to contradict this report, let it be known that they will not carry out open air trials and that they will wait for global, multilateral governance to be established. I tried to reach Kelly Wanser at eCert regarding this but she hasn't returned my call.Obviously a key problem here is the lack of transparency - regarding the disbursement of the Gates funds as well as secrecy regarding the operation, aims and plans of The Silver Lining Project. It would be very helpful if you were willing to provide a public list of where all the monies you and David are responsible for have gone to and for what research and it would be extremely helpful if Kelly Wanser and her associates would make a statement about their plans for open-air field trials including size, location, timing and whether or not they will wait for global multilaterally agreed rules.bestJim
On May 10, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Dear ETC,Before you go issuing press releases it would be nice if you would do a little fact checking rather than spreading around false and misleading information.Kelly Wanser and Silver Lining have not received any funds from Bill Gates either directly or indirectly.David Keith and I allocated funds to Armand Neukermans to use laboratory experiments to establish whether it would be technically feasible to produce seawater sprays that would be fine enough to meet the requirements of the Latham cloud whitening proposal.There was no funding given to Silver Lining or any other team beyond a small group of close associates of Armand Neukermans working to produce fine seawater sprays in the laboratory. There was no funding given for the planning, preparation or execution of any field tests.David Keith and I decided to make this funding available it was our decision, not anybody else's.I have expressly said that private efforts to conduct field tests should await the development of appropriate governance structures. I am opposed to private entities conducting field tests without appropriate governance and would oppose funding such activites.Our reason for funding Armand Neukermans was that many people felt it was impossible to make the kind of sprays required by the Latham proposal. If it could be established that such sprays were infeasible, that would save many people from wasting time researching and discussing and arguing about an infeasible option. If such sprays are technically feasible, then the research emphasis should shift to using climate and other environmental models to establish the possible environmental consequences of such seawater sprays.In short, David Keith and I allocated funds to Armand Neukermans to test the feasibility of fine seawater sprays in the laboratory. That is the story.Best,Ken
______________Sent from a limited typing keyboardKen Caldeira
Begin forwarded message:
From: Eli Kintisch <eli...@gmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2010 19:24:31 GMT+02:00
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@stanford.edu>, David Battisti <batt...@washington.edu>, Kelly Wanser <kelly....@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
I'd like to talk to any one of you about this release (which I find highly misleading). Any time today? Thanks, Eli
Ken Caldeira
I am not going to waste my time to pointing out every falsehood and misleadling statement in your press release.
Let's start with an analogy:
'A' gives money to 'B' and says "do good things".
'B' gives money to 'C' and says "do X" (make a fine seawater mist in the lab)
'C' associates with a group G to do X, under the funding from B
'C' also associates with a group of people H who want to do Y and Z, under separate funding.
To what extent can it be said that A is supporting H to do Y and Z? This sort of thing may be fodder for conspiracy theorists, but is not the sort of thing sensible people think of as a causal chain.
David Keith and I ('B') allocated funds to Armand Neukermans ('C') before Silver Lining ('H') even existed, so there not even a logical possibility of supporting Silver Lining. We stressed with Armand that our relationship was with him and not any broader organization of which he might be a part.
I know only about our funding of Armand Neukermans and little to nothing about Silver Lining. (For example, I have never been to any meetings of Silver Lining.) However, Armand Neukermans assures me that statements (2) and (3) below do not represent his views and are not broadly held views.
Of course, if you have a big enough collection of people you can always find one person in that collection who believes anything.
So, in short, ETC is being extremely irresponsible in trying to tie Bill Gates with activities that he in all likelihood as never even heard about, and with which he has no financial relationship.
So let's look at your three claims:
1) "Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr. Gates."
2) that the group intends to carry out a 10,000 square km test and that
3) British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.”
So, thank you for having exhibited yourselves as reckless and unreliable, issuing press released based on error filled news report. To this extent, your press release has performed a valuable service.
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
Ken,Which of the following are falsehoods?1) Armand Neukemans is part of the Silver Lining Project and has received $300,000 in funds (via you and David Keith) from Bill Gates to develop hardware for Cloud Whitening.2) The Silver Lining project is planning to undertake a 10,000 sq km field trial in the 'next few years'/'next 3-4 years.
3) "British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.”
If you know any of them to be false and have better information it would be helpful if you could share it.many thanksJim.
Alvia Gaskill
Tom Wigley
It is possible that ETC may still claim (as they have already done) that
they were just repeating what someone else said and that they had no a
priori reason to doubt this.
The real irresponsibility is the use of secondary sources without
checking their veracity. This is especially necessary in controversial
topic areas. A far more egregious case is the rubbish that Fred Pearce
published not so long ago in the Guardian related to the CRU email hacking.
I hope ETC can learn to be more careful and circumspect in the future.
Especially when other material seems to support their own views. If this
Times story had been contrary to their views, I strongly suspect that
they would have remained silent.
Ho hum
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
>
> 2) that the group intends to carry out a 10,000 square km test and that
>
> I have no direct knowledge of this but Armand Neukermans tells me this
> is not correct.
>
> 3) British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for
> international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.”
>
> FALSE: Armand Neukermans has assured me that he plans to follow good
> scientific practice and await an appropriate regulatory environment.
>
> So, thank you for having exhibited yourselves as reckless and
> unreliable, issuing press released based on error filled news report. To
> this extent, your press release has performed a valuable service.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
>>
>>> Ken,
>>>
>>> We based our news release on a story by Ben Webster, environment
>>> editor at the Times: (
>>> release. That news report asserted that 1) "Silver Lining, a
>>> research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000)
>>> from Mr. Gates." 2) that the group intends to carry out a
>>> 10,000 square km test and that 3) British and American
>>> scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules
>>> on technology that deliberately alters the climate.” In our news
>>> release we were very clear that these claims were made by The
>>> Times and not by ETC Group. The Times has its own internal fact
>>> checking procedures. Ben Webster says he stands by his story.
>>>
>>> Regarding Gates funding going to Silver Lining project. Firstly
>>> this was an assertion of the Times, which we repeated. We note
>>> however that until yesterday, Armand Neukermans was publicly
>>> listed as part of the Silver Lining project. Yesterday afternoon
>>> the website of the Silver Lining Project (
>>> message I re-checked the website and the list of collaborators
>>> has now been conveniently excised and replaced by a list of
>>> universities. The old website is still visible in google's
>>> cache: (see
>>>> <mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Eli Kintisch <
>>>>> <mailto:eli...@gmail.com>eli...@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:eli...@gmail.com>>
>>>>> *Date:* May 10, 2010 19:24:31 GMT+02:00
>>>>> *To:* Ken Caldeira <
>>>>> <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>kcal...@stanford.edu
>>>>> <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>>, David Battisti <
>>>>> <mailto:batt...@washington.edu>batt...@washington.edu
>>>>> <mailto:batt...@washington.edu>>, Kelly Wanser <
>>>>> <mailto:kelly....@gmail.com>kelly....@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:kelly....@gmail.com>>
>>>>> *Subject:* *Fwd: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and
>>>>> CBD talks*
>>>>> I'd like to talk to any one of you about this release (which I
>>>>> find highly misleading). Any time today? Thanks, Eli
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: *jim thomas* < <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>
>>>>> <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>j...@etcgroup.org
>>>>> <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
>>>>> To: Eli Kintisch < <mailto:eli...@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:eli...@gmail.com>eli...@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:eli...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> ETC Group
>>>>>
>>>>> News release
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 May 2010
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As huge cloud-whitening experiment goes public, global
>>>>> coalition urges an immediate halt to geoengineering
>>>>>
>>>>> First UN talks on issue in thirty years begin today
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org
>>>>> <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org>www.handsoffmotherearth.org
>>>>> <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org>).
>>>>> and ETC Group has three people at the meeting, working with
>>>>> campaign partners to inform delegates of the protest and the
>>>>> reasons behind it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For more information about Hands Off Mother Earth Campaign see
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In Nairobi:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Neth Dano, ne...@etcgroup.org <mailto:ne...@etcgroup.org> cell &
>>>>>
>>>>> Nairobi cell: +254 712 605 622
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Silvia Ribeiro, sil...@etcgroup.org
>>>>> <mailto:mo...@etcgroup.org> cell & SMS: + 1-613-797 6421
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In Canada:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diana Bronson - di...@etcgroup.org <mailto:di...@etcgroup.org>;
>>>>> cell: 514 629 9236
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Thomas - j...@etcgroup.org <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org> cell:
>>>>> 514 516 5759
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat Mooney – e...@etcgroup.org <mailto:e...@etcgroup.org> cell:
>>>>> 613 240 0045
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> [1] See Ben Webster, Bill Gates Pays for artificial clouds to
>>>>> <http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece>
>>>>> <http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece>http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece_
>>>>> [2] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other
>>>>> Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. See
>>>>> <http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm>
>>>>> Jim Thomas
>>>>> ETC Group (Montreal)
>>>>> <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>j...@etcgroup.org <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> climatein...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:climateinterven...@googlegroups.com>.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
>
> Jim Thomas
> ETC Group (Montreal)
Mike MacCracken
When I was in Hawai’i on vacation in March, looking at the waves crashing against the coast creating a lot of drops (no where near as small as the ones to be created), the morning sunlight was coming in over my shoulder and it basically created a rainbow from the surface up to the base of a low marine stratus deck (that I do not think was drizzling), suggesting, it seemed to me, that the surface mist was mixing up to the marine stratus and the evenness of the refracted light suggesting that this layer was pretty well mixed. Just an impression, but interesting.
Mike MacCracken
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jim thomas < <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org> j...@etcgroup.org <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org> >
Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Subject: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
To: Eli Kintisch < <mailto:eli...@gmail.com> eli...@gmail.com <mailto:eli...@gmail.com> >
------------
ETC Group
News release
10 May 2010
As huge cloud-whitening experiment goes public, global coalition urges an immediate halt to geoengineering
First UN talks on issue in thirty years begin today
Amidst revelations in this weekend’s London Times newspaper[1] that a team of scientists and engineers funded by billionaire Bill Gates are planning to carry out a 10,000 square kilometer field trial of controversial “cloud-whitening” technology, over one hundred civil society groups are urging governments meeting on biological diversity in Nairobi to stop risky geoengineering experiments now. Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological schemes to intentionally alter the planet’s systems as a quick fix for climate change.
The San-Francisco based “Silver Lining Project” directed by entrepreneur Kelly Wanser has so far received $ 300,000 dollars from Bill Gates to develop technologies that will increase the whiteness of marine clouds. Theoretically, executed on a massive scale, whiter clouds could increase the earth’s albedo, reflecting more sunlight back to space and thereby reduce global warming (without changing the composition of greenhouse gases which cause warming). The Silver Lining Project has decided to press ahead with plans to alter cloud-cover over an undisclosed 10,000 square kilometre patch of ocean (as large as the BP oil slick was a few days ago). If not stopped, the Gates ‘cloud-bleaching’ experiment would be the largest known geoengineering field trial to date. Its effects could include changes in rainfall and other altered weather patterns. One site frequently spoken of by scientists engaged in this research is the Pacific coast of North and South America (specifically California, Ecuador, Peru and Chile).
Most worrisome, the Times revealed: “The British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.” Such rules could be set in motion this week as scientists and diplomats from 193 nations meet under the auspices of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s scientific body. The meeting in Nairobi of SBSTTA 14 (Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, running from May 10-21 2010) is the first time a UN Body has addressed geoengineering as a whole since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in Geneva in 1976 that banned environmental modification for “hostile uses”.[2].
A new global coalition will be urging governments in Nairobi to adopt a moratorium on all geoengineering experiments, just as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a moratorium on ocean fertilization in 2008. Over one hundred organizations and individuals, including leading names in the environmental and global justice movement have joined H.O.M.E. campaign: Hands off Mother Earth--Our Home is not a Laboratory ( <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org> www.handsoffmotherearth.org <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org> <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org> ).
“Our Home Planet Earth should not be treated as a laboratory for risky geoengineering experiments,” says Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group in Mexico from the Nairobi SBSTTA meeting. “Human-caused climate change already threatens our lands, seas, food supply and rights. We do not want to embark on another dangerous experiment with our planet. If they think that the people and governments of Ecuador, Peru or Chile – or anywhere else they might try -- will stand idly by as they mess with our oceans, clouds and weather, they are in for a surpise. Delegates here are shocked by these plans.”
“We knew Microsoft was developing cloud applications for computers but we didn’t expect this,” explained Jim Thomas of ETC Group, one of the founding organizations of the HOME campaign “Bill Gates and his cloud-wrenching cronies have no right to unilaterally change our seas and skies in this way. A global moratorium on geoengineering experiments just became a whole lot more urgent and the meeting in Nairobi is a fine place to ensure that it gets put into place rapidly.”
-30-
Additional background:
What: Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological proposals to fix climate change by deliberately altering the climate, weather, atmosphere and oceans. Examples of geoengineering schemes include dumping nutrients into the sea to grow algal blooms (called Ocean Fertilization), turning extensive monoculture plantations into charcoal to bury in the soil (called biochar) and deliberately polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphur or aluminium particles to reflect sunlight (called stratospheric aerosols) as well as cloud-whitening. All of these experiments have large potential impacts on environment, biodiversity and the livelihoods of people especially in the Global South. Geoengineering advocates argue that there is no time for a global political agreement to address the real causes of climate change, so brave new scientists and wealthy entrepreneurs should save the world for all of us instead, with their own technofixes.
There are now several geoengineering experiments getting underway without any global oversight framework in place and larger experiments are planned. Geoengineers, including those behind the Gates cloud-wrenching test have recently proposed “voluntary guidelines” rather than full independent multilateral oversight of the field. The proposal currently before SBSTTA 14 is for governments to look into the biodiversity implications of geoengineering (as well as to examine the ongoing work on ocean fertilization which began in 2008). Civil society groups are insisting experiments be stopped while governments examine the implications of such research.
Who: A new global campaign and coalition to stop Geoengineering experiments was launched last month at an international climate change meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia. This Hands Off Mother Earth (H.O.M.E.) Campaign is calling on governments through the UN to put a halt to unilateral open-air geoengineering experiments – arguing they are too risky and unjust. Supporters of the HOME campaign against geoengineering include high profile environmentalists such as Bill McKibben, David Suzuki, Vandana Shiva and Naomi Klein. Organizations supporting the HOME campaign include ETC Group, Friends of the Earth International, Third World Network, Indigenous Environmental Network, la Via Campenina, Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact, Biofuelwatch and many others.
Show of Hands: Additionally members of the public have been uploading their pictures with their hands held up with messages against geoengineering to a growing photo petition at http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/> . A giant poster displaying the protest is on display at SBSTTA 14 in Nairobi and ETC Group has three people at the meeting, working with campaign partners to inform delegates of the protest and the reasons behind it.
For more information about Hands Off Mother Earth Campaign see
http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/>
In Nairobi:
*Neth Dano, ne...@etcgroup.org <mailto:ne...@etcgroup.org> cell & SMS + 63 917 532 9369
Nairobi cell: +254 712 605 622
Silvia Ribeiro, sil...@etcgroup.org <mailto:sil...@etcgroup.org> cell & SMS +52 1 55 2653 3330
Nairobi cell: +254 712 601 660
*Molly Kane, mo...@etcgroup.org <mailto:mo...@etcgroup.org> cell & SMS: + 1-613-797 6421
In Canada:
Diana Bronson - di...@etcgroup.org <mailto:di...@etcgroup.org> ; cell: 514 629 9236
Jim Thomas - j...@etcgroup.org <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org> cell: 514 516 5759
Pat Mooney – e...@etcgroup.org <mailto:e...@etcgroup.org> cell: 613 240 0045
[1] See Ben Webster, Bill Gates Pays for artificial clouds to beat greenhouse gases, 8 May 2010, Times Online at <http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece <http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece>
[2] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. See <http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm> http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm <http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm>
Jim Thomas
ETC Group (Montreal)
Jim Thomas
ETC Group (Montreal)
Andrew Lockley
jim thomas
Dear ETC,Before you go issuing press releases it would be nice if you would do a little fact checking rather than spreading around false and misleading information.Kelly Wanser and Silver Lining have not received any funds from Bill Gates either directly or indirectly.David Keith and I allocated funds to Armand Neukermans to use laboratory experiments to establish whether it would be technically feasible to produce seawater sprays that would be fine enough to meet the requirements of the Latham cloud whitening proposal.There was no funding given to Silver Lining or any other team beyond a small group of close associates of Armand Neukermans working to produce fine seawater sprays in the laboratory. There was no funding given for the planning, preparation or execution of any field tests.David Keith and I decided to make this funding available it was our decision, not anybody else's.I have expressly said that private efforts to conduct field tests should await the development of appropriate governance structures. I am opposed to private entities conducting field tests without appropriate governance and would oppose funding such activites.Our reason for funding Armand Neukermans was that many people felt it was impossible to make the kind of sprays required by the Latham proposal. If it could be established that such sprays were infeasible, that would save many people from wasting time researching and discussing and arguing about an infeasible option. If such sprays are technically feasible, then the research emphasis should shift to using climate and other environmental models to establish the possible environmental consequences of such seawater sprays.In short, David Keith and I allocated funds to Armand Neukermans to test the feasibility of fine seawater sprays in the laboratory. That is the story.Best,
From: Eli Kintisch <eli...@gmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2010 19:24:31 GMT+02:00
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@stanford.edu>, David Battisti <batt...@washington.edu>, Kelly Wanser <kelly....@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
I'd like to talk to any one of you about this release (which I find highly misleading). Any time today? Thanks, Eli
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jim thomas <j...@etcgroup.org>
Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Subject: ETC news release on Silver Lining project and CBD talks
To: Eli Kintisch <eli...@gmail.com>
------------
ETC Group
News release
10 May 2010
As huge cloud-whitening experiment goes public, global coalition urges an immediate halt to geoengineering
First UN talks on issue in thirty years begin today
http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org
Amidst revelations in this weekend’s London Times newspaper[1] that a team of scientists and engineers funded by billionaire Bill Gates are planning to carry out a 10,000 square kilometer field trial of controversial “cloud-whitening” technology, over one hundred civil society groups are urging governments meeting on biological diversity in Nairobi to stop risky geoengineering experiments now. Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological schemes to intentionally alter the planet’s systems as a quick fix for climate change.
The San-Francisco based “Silver Lining Project” directed by entrepreneur Kelly Wanser has so far received $ 300,000 dollars from Bill Gates to develop technologies that will increase the whiteness of marine clouds. Theoretically, executed on a massive scale, whiter clouds could increase the earth’s albedo, reflecting more sunlight back to space and thereby reduce global warming (without changing the composition of greenhouse gases which cause warming). The Silver Lining Project has decided to press ahead with plans to alter cloud-cover over an undisclosed 10,000 square kilometre patch of ocean (as large as the BP oil slick was a few days ago). If not stopped, the Gates ‘cloud-bleaching’ experiment would be the largest known geoengineering field trial to date. Its effects could include changes in rainfall and other altered weather patterns. One site frequently spoken of by scientists engaged in this research is the Pacific coast of North and South America (specifically California, Ecuador, Peru and Chile).
Most worrisome, the Times revealed: “The British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate.” Such rules could be set in motion this week as scientists and diplomats from 193 nations meet under the auspices of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s scientific body. The meeting in Nairobi of SBSTTA 14 (Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, running from May 10-21 2010) is the first time a UN Body has addressed geoengineering as a whole since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in Geneva in 1976 that banned environmental modification for “hostile uses”.[2].
A new global coalition will be urging governments in Nairobi to adopt a moratorium on all geoengineering experiments, just as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a moratorium on ocean fertilization in 2008. Over one hundred organizations and individuals, including leading names in the environmental and global justice movement have joined H.O.M.E. campaign: Hands off Mother Earth--Our Home is not a Laboratory (www.handsoffmotherearth.org).
“Our Home Planet Earth should not be treated as a laboratory for risky geoengineering experiments,” says Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group in Mexico from the Nairobi SBSTTA meeting. “Human-caused climate change already threatens our lands, seas, food supply and rights. We do not want to embark on another dangerous experiment with our planet. If they think that the people and governments of Ecuador, Peru or Chile – or anywhere else they might try -- will stand idly by as they mess with our oceans, clouds and weather, they are in for a surpise. Delegates here are shocked by these plans.”
“We knew Microsoft was developing cloud applications for computers but we didn’t expect this,” explained Jim Thomas of ETC Group, one of the founding organizations of the HOME campaign “Bill Gates and his cloud-wrenching cronies have no right to unilaterally change our seas and skies in this way. A global moratorium on geoengineering experiments just became a whole lot more urgent and the meeting in Nairobi is a fine place to ensure that it gets put into place rapidly.”
-30-
Additional background:
What: Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological proposals to fix climate change by deliberately altering the climate, weather, atmosphere and oceans. Examples of geoengineering schemes include dumping nutrients into the sea to grow algal blooms (called Ocean Fertilization), turning extensive monoculture plantations into charcoal to bury in the soil (called biochar) and deliberately polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphur or aluminium particles to reflect sunlight (called stratospheric aerosols) as well as cloud-whitening. All of these experiments have large potential impacts on environment, biodiversity and the livelihoods of people especially in the Global South. Geoengineering advocates argue that there is no time for a global political agreement to address the real causes of climate change, so brave new scientists and wealthy entrepreneurs should save the world for all of us instead, with their own technofixes.
There are now several geoengineering experiments getting underway without any global oversight framework in place and larger experiments are planned. Geoengineers, including those behind the Gates cloud-wrenching test have recently proposed “voluntary guidelines” rather than full independent multilateral oversight of the field. The proposal currently before SBSTTA 14 is for governments to look into the biodiversity implications of geoengineering (as well as to examine the ongoing work on ocean fertilization which began in 2008). Civil society groups are insisting experiments be stopped while governments examine the implications of such research.
Who: A new global campaign and coalition to stop Geoengineering experiments was launched last month at an international climate change meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia. This Hands Off Mother Earth (H.O.M.E.) Campaign is calling on governments through the UN to put a halt to unilateral open-air geoengineering experiments – arguing they are too risky and unjust. Supporters of the HOME campaign against geoengineering include high profile environmentalists such as Bill McKibben, David Suzuki, Vandana Shiva and Naomi Klein. Organizations supporting the HOME campaign include ETC Group, Friends of the Earth International, Third World Network, Indigenous Environmental Network, la Via Campenina, Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact, Biofuelwatch and many others.
Show of Hands: Additionally members of the public have been uploading their pictures with their hands held up with messages against geoengineering to a growing photo petition at http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org. A giant poster displaying the protest is on display at SBSTTA 14 in Nairobi and ETC Group has three people at the meeting, working with campaign partners to inform delegates of the protest and the reasons behind it.
Nairobi cell: +254 712 605 622
Silvia Ribeiro, sil...@etcgroup.org cell & SMS +52 1 55 2653 3330
Nairobi cell: +254 712 601 660
*Molly Kane, mo...@etcgroup.org cell & SMS: + 1-613-797 6421
In Canada:
Diana Bronson - di...@etcgroup.org; cell: 514 629 9236
Jim Thomas - j...@etcgroup.org cell: 514 516 5759
Pat Mooney – e...@etcgroup.org cell: 613 240 0045
[1] See Ben Webster, Bill Gates Pays for artificial clouds to beat greenhouse gases, 8 May 2010, Times Online at http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7120011.ece
[2] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm
jim thomas
jim thomas
Mike MacCracken
It would indeed be interesting to do another comparison—for example of the amount proposed to the moisture flow (or maybe the SO2/sulfate CCN flow) coming out from some of the large cooling towers for large coal plants. But under circumstances where clouds form, one can see cloud formation is resulting when flying across the Ohio River Valley area of US there are days one can see this happening over pretty good sized regions. Yes, some local surface cooling under those clouds, at least until the Sun burns them off or the winds come up and stir the air, but no really unusual effect—and this is over land where there is little surface heat capacity; over the ocean, only prolonged cloud incrementation will lead to measureable temperature change.
When proposed experiments are going to do something that is likely far less than what is being done right now in many places and times due to society’s other widespread activities, it seems to me that we need to keep criticisms in perspective. But this can only happen with real transparency, with efforts to draw such comparisons, and a good deal of thinking and explaining in terms of analogs, etc. The real problem for much of the proposed research is going to be detecting an effect.
Mike MacCracken
climateinterven...@googlegroups.com <mailto:climateintervention%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
<mailto:climateinterven...@googlegroups.com <mailto:climateintervention%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> >.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Jim Thomas
ETC Group (Montreal)
j...@etcgroup.org <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>
+1 514 2739994