Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biodiversity vs. Climate
Although I cannot find in which Nagoya COP10 outcomes it might be included, Nature News talks of a small conflict biodiversity-climate (not the last one to come [Image: 357_animados-emotik_com.gif]):

Geoengineering faces ban

Quote:The Nagoya agreement grants an exception for smaller studies conducted in a "controlled setting", but only if they are thoroughly assessed and "justified by the need to gather specific scientific data". Ken Caldeira, a geochemist who studies geoengineering at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, finds the agreement's language vague and confusing. "What does 'specific' mean? Who is to determine the necessity of the data? How do I demonstrate a need to do anything?" he asks. Caldeira is also concerned that the agreement does not distinguish between controversial geoengineering technologies intended to block out the sun and less problematic techniques, such as removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

BTW.- George Monbiot is of the opinion that the agreement has not happened (legally binding) and that all what the media published last days was a press release. I´m not sure if he is right or there´s a lot of confusion with the obscure UN´s procedures:

We've been conned. The deal to save the natural world never happened

Quote:The evidence suggests that we've been conned. The draft agreement, published a month ago, contained no binding obligations. Nothing I've heard from Japan suggests that this has changed. The draft saw the targets for 2020 that governments were asked to adopt as nothing more than "aspirations for achievement at the global level" and a "flexible framework", within which countries can do as they wish. No government, if the draft has been approved, is obliged to change its policies.
Ni cien conejos hacen un caballo, ni cien conjeturas una evidencia (F. Dostoyevski)
It seems that everywhere you look there is another scare that requires huge sums of money to prevent/correct/mitigate/etc. Most people don't seem too concerned about biodiversity, at least it doesn't seem to arouse the religious partisan-ism of AGW and therefore will probably be ignored. There is just as much danger in that situation as there is in the AGW agenda. It could well allow the UN and other organisations to introduce their control and extortion mechanisms without too much opposition. Moreover, it may become a trojan horse through which the wider agendas of AGW are implemented.
"Correlation is NOT Causation"

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)