Interview with South Africa’s Rehana Dada on the demands of non-governmental organizations, social movements and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations for the upcoming UN Climate Talks (COP-17) that will take place in Durban, South Africa in December of this year.
Category Archives: UN
Video: Rehana Dada on Demands for COP-17 Climate Talks in Durban
Comments Off on Video: Rehana Dada on Demands for COP-17 Climate Talks in Durban
Filed under Actions / Protest, Climate Justice, UNFCCC
Listen to GJEP’s Earth Segment from 17 June–Nukes and Bonn Climate Talks
Listen Global Justice Ecology Project’s weekly Earth Segment from last Thursday on The Sojourner Truth show on Los Angeles’ KPFK Pacifica radio station.
On this week: Independent journalist Tina Gerhardt discusses the backlash against nuclear power and the outcomes of the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany.
To listen, go to the following link. The interview starts at minute 26:55.
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_110616_070010sojourner.MP3
Comments Off on Listen to GJEP’s Earth Segment from 17 June–Nukes and Bonn Climate Talks
Filed under Climate Change, Energy, UNFCCC
Bolivia’s Indigenous social movements call for urgent action at UNFCCC talks in Bonn, Germany
Instead of trying to agree on a global deal that will actually stop climate change, governments are more worried about privatising Mother Earth.
Press Conference Webcast:
“Our Mother Earth is ill. The development model of unlimited economic growth and overconsumption has broken the balance between human beings and the environment” said indigenous leader Rafael Quispe.
“The countries negotiating in Bonn for the last two weeks are out of touch with reality. Climate change is affecting us now with more floods and draughts. As indigenous peoples we are one of the groups most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change”.
“Unless the peoples of the world unite the consequences of climate change will be much worse”, said indigenous leader Lauriano Pari.
“We call on Annex 1 parties to sign a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban that is legally binding, coercive and with the capacity to penalise Parties. We reject the attempt by developed countries to prolong the life of the Protocol to then replace it in 2020 by a treaty that merges the Kyoto Protocol with the Long-Term Group on Cooperative Action.”, underlined Lauriano Pari.
The Developed countries and their allies are not serious about reducing their emissions. They want to use existing markets and create new ones to pay others so that they take no action to confront the climate crisis. And now they want to put a price on “blue carbon” in the oceans.
All outcomes of the Kyoto Protocol must recognize and respect the rights of native indigenous peoples, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent.
“In order to achieve a net reduction of carbon emissions REDD plus cannot be financed by market-based mechanisms or used in carbon offsetting. Instead funds should come from developed countries and innovative funding sources should be explored. For example, by establishing a new mechanism for a tax on financial transactions that would generate funds without any conditionality”, added Lauriano Pari.
Forests are not providers of environmental services as some United Nations agencies and NGOs see them. Forests have multiple values, uses and functions and shall not be considered only as carbon sinks. There needs to be a study on the potential impact of issuing emission-reduction certificates on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular the impact on land rights, collective rights, and traditional livelihoods.
“It is clear the current proposals on the table in the climate change negotiations are not enough to stop climate change. We propose the model of living well in harmony with Mother Earth as the way forward to re-establish the balance between humans and nature. We believe Mother Earth has rights. She owns us. We do not own her. This is why we have developed a proposal for a Law of Mother Earth that will be approved soon in Bolivia”, said Rafael Quispe.
Notes to editors: A webcast of the full press conference at Bonn UN climate change talks is available here
Comments Off on Bolivia’s Indigenous social movements call for urgent action at UNFCCC talks in Bonn, Germany
Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, Indigenous Peoples, Latin America-Caribbean, UNFCCC
Civil Society Organizations to IPCC: Take Geoengineering off the Table!
Today, 125 international and national organizations, representing at least 40 countries from all continents, sent an open letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), demanding a clear statement of its commitment to precaution and to the existing international moratorium on geoengineering. The IPCC will hold an expert meeting on geoengineering 20-22 June in Lima, Peru. (The letter is available and open for signatures here.)
–
Geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of Earth systems to alter the climate, including high-risk technologies such as blasting particles into the stratosphere to mimic volcanic eruptions (to block sunlight) and “fertilizing” oceans to grow plankton blooms for carbon sequestration. Formerly in the realm of science fiction, geoengineering has been gaining ground as a possible – even necessary, some argue – response to the climate crisis.
–
Climate manipulation has been on the radar of powerful Northern governments for decades. Originally conceived as a military strategy, climate manipulation has been rebranded as geoengineering: a weapon in the war on climate change.
–
The U.S. and UK governments appear especially open to the prospect of geoengineering, which is no surprise, according to Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group: “It’s a convenient way for Northern governments to dodge their commitments to emissions reduction.” Ribeiro continues, “But the climate is a complex system; manipulating climate in one place could have grave environmental, social and economic impacts on countries and peoples that had no say on the issue. Scientists estimate that blasting particles into the stratosphere could alter monsoon and wind patterns and put at risk the food and water sources for 2 billion people.”
–
“As the world watched the Australian airline industry thrown into chaos this week by volcanic ash drifting from Chile, it’s absurd that the IPCC is considering how to do the same thing on purpose. The potential for unilateralism and private profiteering is great; the likelihood that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful solution to the climate crisis is miniscule,” said Ricardo Navarro, of Cesta and Friends of the Earth International, detained in Buenos Aires due to the volcanic ash.
–
In October 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity established a moratorium on geoengineering. Nonetheless, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC told The Guardian last week, “We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere,” referring to geoengineering techniques.
–
Meenakshi Raman from Third World Network – Malaysia, another signatory of the letter to the IPCC, argues, “It is completely misguided for Ms. Figueres to suggest that we work on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere rather than stop putting it in; it is equally misguided for the IPCC to assume that geoengineering has any place at all in what they call the ‘portfolio of response options’ to climate change.”
–
The open letter criticizes the IPCC for reneging on its pledge to be “policy-neutral.” The Scientific Steering Committee (SSG) that organized the expert meeting includes geoengineering researchers who have advocated increases in research funding and real-world experimentation, as well as scientists with patents pending on geoengineering technologies and/or other financial interests. The SSG did not allow committed civil society organizations to participate, even as observers. Still, the IPCC says it will take up the issue of “governance” and “social, legal and political factors.”
–
Raman stresses that the IPCC has no place taking up the issue of geoengineering governance because “this is not a scientific question; it’s a political one.”
–
La Via Campesina, the world’s largest small-scale farmers network, is concerned that the impacts of climate manipulation on agriculture would be felt particularly by peasants in the South and that tinkering with the oceans could destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small fishermen. Via Campesina argues, “Geoengineering is a false solution to climate change and so dangerous to nature and to the world’s people, it should be banned.”
–
Alejandro Argumedo from the indigenous organization ANDES (Peru) agrees. Argumedo is one of the organizers of activities for civil society organizations, which will take place in Lima at the same time as the IPCC’s expert meeting: “The IPCC shut out civil society from their meeting, even though the Panel’s experts plan to discuss the ‘social factors’ of geoengineering. 125 international and national organizations from around the world just gave them something to talk about.”
–
For further information:
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, silvia@etcgroup.org; Mexico, +52 55 5563 2664
Cellphone: +52 1 55 2653 3330
Pat Mooney, ETC Group, etc@etcgroup.org; Canada, +1 613 241 2267
cellphone +1 613 240 0045
Ricardo Navarro, Cesta – Friends of the Earth, El Salvador cesta@cesta-foe.org.sv
Contacts in Bonn (attending climate negotiations)
Diana Bronson, ETC group, diana@etcgroup.org;
cellphone: +1-514-629-9236
Meenakshi Raman, Third World Network, meenaco@pd.jaring.my;
cellphone +49 15222393647
Contacts in Lima during IPCC workshop, June 19-22:
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, silvia@etcgroup.org
local cellphone: +51 984 400 073
Alejandro Argumedo, Asociación Andes, alejandro@andes.org.pe, tel 51-84-245021,
cellphone +51- 984706610
Hands Off Mother Earth / HOME campaign in opposition to geoengineering www.handsoffmotherearth.org
ETC Group, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217
Comments Off on Civil Society Organizations to IPCC: Take Geoengineering off the Table!
Filed under Geoengineering, UNFCCC
Bolivian indigenous social movements worried about future of Kyoto Protocol and reject commodification of forests.
Press Conference: http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/110606_SB34/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=3597&theme=unfccc
After one week of UN climate change negotiations in Bonn it is still unclear whether countries will adopt a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only legally binding treaty which obliges developed countries to reduce their emissions of green house gases.
“These reduction targets must be binding for all Annex 1 countries. They must be ambitious to guarantee a level of reduction in line with what is demanded by science. Current emissions targets will lead to an increase of four degrees centigrade in temperature by the end of this century”, said social movement leader Lauriano Pari.
With 2010 one of the hottest years on record, Bolivia’s indigenous peoples demand urgency on a comprehensive global deal to prevent irreversible climate change. Time is running out as the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol finishes at the end of 2012.
Indigenous leader Rafael Quispe said: “Our glaciers are melting, causing desertification of our lands. Now our communities are forced to migrate to the cities. It is not possible that forests, that are our home and that we have been the guardians of for many centuries, are converted into simple carbon sinks and providers of environmental services. They should have a broader vision viewing them as areas of biodiversity and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples”.
“There must be a holistic vision of forests. Forests will not be protected through a mechanism that issues certificates for the reduction of emissions to be sold on a carbon market. With these certificates for the reduction of emissions in our forests developed countries and companies will not fulfill their emissions reductions obligations”, added Lauriano Pari.
“There must be financial reward for countries and indigenous peoples who preserve their forests. This financial reward cannot be based on market mechanisms. Instead funds should come from developed countries and innovative funding sources should be explored. For example, by establishing a new mechanism for a tax on financial transactions that would generate funds without any conditionality”
Lauriano Pari finished by saying, “We believe that in the build up to the Conference of the Parties COP17 instead of promoting the commodification of nature through the REDD mechanism we should follow a path where we recognize the rights of Mother Earth”.
Notes to editors
A webcast of the full press conference at Bonn UN climate change talks is available here
The indigenous leaders who spoke in the press conference were Tata Rafael Quispe, Mallku of CONAMAQ and Lauriano Pari, Secretary of Natural Resources of the CSUTCB.
The Pacto de Unidad is a coalition of Bolivia’s five main social movements representing millions of people – the Committee of the Confederation of Bolivian Peasant Workers (CSUTCB), the National Confederation of Native Indigenous Peasant Women (CNMCIOB-BS), the National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), the Confederation of Intercultural Communities of Bolivia (CSCIB) and the Confederation of Bolivian Indigenous Peoples (CIDOB).
Comments Off on Bolivian indigenous social movements worried about future of Kyoto Protocol and reject commodification of forests.
Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Change, False Solutions to Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples, Latin America-Caribbean, REDD, UNFCCC
Report Reveals World Bank’s Role in Fuelling Climate Chaos
BONN [GERMANY], June 11, 2011 – A new report released today by Friends of
the Earth International during the UN climate talks in Bonn this week
shows that the World Bank Group has been increasing its investments in
fossil fuels and promoting corporate-led false solutions to climate
change, including carbon trading, that serve to deepen rather than
alleviate the current environmental crisis.
The report, ‘Catalysing Catastrophic Climate Change’, follows widespread
concerns voiced by developing countries about the growing role of the
World Bank in delivering climate finance.
The report shows how the Bank’s dirty fossil fuel financing is on the
rise, locking countries such as India and South Africa into an even
greater reliance on coal. Furthermore, the Bank is driving the expansion
of carbon markets, an escape hatch for rich industrialised countries from
cutting their emissions, whilst causing ecological damage and the
displacement of communities in the global South. And despite negative
environmental, social, and climate change impacts, the World Bank is
significantly scaling up support for large hydropower.
Despite the Bank’s lending for highly unsustainable projects around the
world, it is seeking an influential role in the UN’s new Green Climate
Fund and in mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation (REDD).
Friends of the Earth International Economic Justice Program Coordinator
Sebastian Valdomir said:
“The World Bank is part of the climate problem, not the climate solution.
Its conflicts of interest, and appalling social and environmental track
record, should immediately disqualify it from playing any role whatsoever
in designing the Green Climate Fund, and in climate finance more
generally.”
The World Bank has been accused of having a conflict of interest with
regards to serving as both the interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund
(fiduciary function) and on the Technical Support Unit designing the fund
(consultancy function). In effect, the Bank would be designing a fund that
is meant to oversee its own activities.
The World Bank’s fossil fuel lending practices and propagation of false
solutions to climate change, such as carbon trading and large dams, should
lead to its exclusion from any role in designing the UNFCCC’s Green
Climate Fund.
Friends of the Earth International calls for climate finance that is
derived from assessed budgetary contributions and other non-market-based
innovative sources – like financial transaction taxes – that is
commensurate with rich countries’ disproportionate role in creating the
problem of climate change.
Policy Analyst at Friends of the Earth United States Kate Horner said:
“The World Bank claims to provide leadership on climate change but, as
shown in this report, it is a major funder of dirty fossil fuel projects,
carbon trading and mega dams. These initiatives deepen poverty and push us
closer to the brink of a global environmental disaster.”
NOTES:
[1] The report shows that in 2010 the Bank hit a new record in terms of
its fossil fuel funding, totaling US$6.6 billion, a 116% increase over
2009. US$4.4 billion of this total was invested in coal, also a record
high, and a 356% increase over the previous year.
[2] The World Bank’s private lending arm, the IFC, approved investment of
US$450 million for the Tata Mundra 4,000-megawatt coal-fired power plant
in Gujarat, India, which is expected to emit an estimated 25.7 million
tons of CO2 annually for at least 25 years.
In April 2010, the World Bank also approved a massive US$3.75 billion
loan, the overwhelming majority of which will finance the 4,800 megawatt
Medupi coal-fired power plant being built by Eskom, South Africa’s
state-owned power utility. The loan will lead to 40 new coalmines opening
up to feed the Medupi plant and related projects. South Africa is
currently responsible for 40% of all of Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions,
and this loan will add to these emissions.
[3] The World Bank has been increasing investment in large hydropower
since 2003, following a lull in such investment in the 1990s, despite that
dams have already displaced 40–80 million people.
[4] The World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) include a Pilot
Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), which allows for loans for
adaptation, unlike UNFCCC funds and the Adaptation Fund, which has
recently led to protests in Nepal and Bangladesh.
[5] The English version of the report can be found at:
http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2011/world-bank-catalysing-catastrophic-climate-change/
The Spanish version of the report can be found at:
http://www.foei.org/es/recursos/publicaciones/pdfs-por-ano/2011/banco-mundial-catalizador-del-cambio-clima301tico-devastador/
[6] Key findings from the report will be presented at a side event at the
UNFCCC climate talks in Bonn, Germany on Saturday 11 June: 18:15—19:45,
WIND, Ministry of the Environment building.
Comments Off on Report Reveals World Bank’s Role in Fuelling Climate Chaos
Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Energy, UNFCCC
REDD and Bioenergy: Impressions from the Bonn Climate Talks
Note: Global Justice Ecology Project is the North American Focal Point for Global Forest Coalition and teams with GFC on programs on GE trees and wood-based bioenergy, and to protect forests and defend the rights of Indigenous and forest dependent communities.Photo: GFC meeting in Namanga, Kenya, 2006 by Petermann/GJEP-GFC
–
by Simone Lovera, Executive Director, Global Forest Coalition
–
A quick first impression from the ongoing climate talks in Bonn as far as bioenergy is concerned: It is too early to say a lot about REDD as they have not started discussing it yet. The Ad Hoc Working Group on LCA will have its first REDD-discussions tomorrow (probably these will be open to observers), and the SBSTA only adopted its agenda this morning, which is typifying for the atmosphere of mistrust and confrontation here in Bonn.
–
In general, talks are going very slow and are unlikely to lead to any concrete outcomes on anything. As it seems like there will not be any other negotiation rounds before the next conference of the parties in Durban in December (at least, this is what is being said now, it could change), hopes for any agreement on anything are very minimal. In this light it is important to note that the suggestion that REDD+ could be financed through mandatory carbon markets seems more and more a fairy tale as skepticism about existing (CDM) and new carbon markets seems to be growing, especially in the absence of clarity on the future of the Kyoto Protocol or any other binding emission reduction targets. Many countries rightfully reject trade without caps. And a growing number of countries is particularly hesitant about financing REDD+ through markets. But this debate is flowing.
–
Meanwhile, there have been some fascinating side events related to bioenergy.
–
Most remarkable was the presentation of the full report on renewable energies of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Well, “presentation”; the actual report is not published yet as it seems the discussions between the different scientists were a bit overheated and they could not easily reach consensus, so the publication of the full report was delayed until the 14th and perhaps later. At a presentation during the climate talks on June 7 it became clear why: There was no consensus about the impact of bioenergy on sustainable development, food security and land use change.
–
The summary for policy makers that was launched a month ago stated quite bluntly that ” most” biofuel has a positive impact on climate change mitigation, and hardly mentioned impacts on food security or land use. This was considered to be very disappointing in the eyes of many bioenergy campaigners. Meanwhile the IPCC presentation of the full report included a clear admittance that bioenergy has a range of direct and indirect land use change impacts that might nullify any positive impacts bioenergy has on climate change mitigation.
–
The presentations on basis of the full report mentioned clearly that there were a lot of direct and indirect land-use issues to be addressed, that biomass smoke caused more deaths than malaria or tuberculosis, and that there were serious concerns about potential impacts on food security. On the latter, they openly admitted the different authors had a big dispute over this, but that they sort of agreed that impacts on food security depended on the level of optimism about potential intensification of agricultural production. And even this “consensus” was disputed, one day later, by Frances Seymour, exective director of the Centre for International Forestry Research, who stated during another side event that governance and land use planning have a more important role to play, and that agricultural intensification might also have negative impacts on land use.
–
When asked why the summary report for policy makers was so much more positive on bioenergy than the full report, and whether this was not a form of misrepresentation, the rather eye-opening response was that the summary for policy makers is ” a negotiated document” (sic).
More critique on bioenergy was exposed at another CIFOR-sponsored side event on Wedneday night, where the Joanneum Institute presented research on the carbon debt of bioenergy and how many years one has to produce bioenergy on the same piece of land to compensate for the carbon emissions caused by converting natural vegetation in feedstock plantations. Figures were astonishing: from some 20 – 30 years for soy to up to 74 years for Jatropha, which scored almost as bad as oilpalm on peatland! Needless to say “permanence” is a major issue in this scenario, it is quite unrealistic to assume farmers will commit themselves to producing the same feedstock for up to 74 years.
–
Regretfully, the report itself is not yet online, but The upfront carbon debt of bioenergy which was published last year includes quite some useful information on this.
–
More later, as the talks continue (and/or continue to be stalled…..)
–
Simone
Comments Off on REDD and Bioenergy: Impressions from the Bonn Climate Talks
Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Climate Change, REDD, UNFCCC
ETC Group on Geoengineering Developments and How to Take Action
There are three important new developments on geoengineering (large-scale intentional manipulation of the Earth systems in an attempt to affect the climate) that we we like to bring to your attention. What has long been lurking in the shadows of climate negotiations as a wealthy country Plan B has all of a sudden come front and center. We urge you to pay attention to these developments and intervene where you can.
–
1. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC gave an interview to The Guardian in the UK on the weekend, stating that “We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere”. Capturing carbon from the atmosphere is geoengineering. This takes place at a time when Canada and New Zealand are seeking to start a work programme for agriculture in the UNFCCC, looking at modalities for enhancing the amount of carbon that can be stored in soil through techniques like biochar.
–
Technologies which capture CO2 from the atmosphere through chemical processes (known as direct air capture) are untested and unproven and recently received a particularly negative assessment from the American Physical Society. The APS found that the prototype direct air capture technology they assessed was not even economically viable before considering the enormous unresolved issues related to the eventual sequestration of carbon in deep geological formations. . Other geoengineering methods for CO2 removal include ocean fertilization and liming the oceans, both with potentially devastating consequences on marine ecosystems. See for example this review on ocean fertilization (which has been under a moratorium since 2008 but which is rearing its head again as a group of universities are intent are re-starting experimentation.
–
2. The three IPCC working groups will be holding a joint meeting on geoengineering in Lima, 20-22 June in preparation for the Fifth Assessment report. The terms of reference for the meeting are here. The organizing committee of the meeting includes prominent proponents of geoengineering such as American scientist Ken Caldeira, and Canadians David Keith (University of Calgary) and Jason Blackstock (CIGI) and the topics up for discussion include governance and social, economic and legal aspects of the question. Keith and Caldeira were instrumental in the Royal Society report on goengineering and both testified before Congress and the UK House of Commons in favour of more research. They both have patents pending, as you can see from the ETC Group report Geopiracy and are involved in a wide variety of initiatives on geoengineering.
–
They co-manage Bill Gate’s private geoengineering fund of $4.6 million. Jason Blackstock was recently described in the Canadian Walrus Magazine as “a young scholar with an almost luminous sense of self-confidence”. He was the main author of the peculiar Novim report on stratospheric aerosols and has been involved in getting prestigous mainstream foreign policy outfits involved in geoengineering in the UK, Canada and US . Blackstock is also slated to speak on a panel about geoengineering organized by the Canadian embassy (!) in Sao Paulo Brazil, 16 June 2011.
–
3. The Convention on Biological Diversity is also busy reviewing papers and convening meetings ito follow up on the de facto moratorium on geoengineering activities adopted at COP 10 in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010. The first consultative meeting on geoengineering organized by the CBD will take place June 10 in Bonn, on the margins of the climate negotiations. This mini-workshop will examine the question of how to define geoengineering, its impacts on biodiversity and questions about its governance — an ambitious agenda. To its credit, the CBD meeting is not invitation only (like so many others: the SRMGI consultation recently held in the UK, the International Risk Governance Council, the Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention ) and civil society organizations and governments are equally able to attend.
–
Furthermore, the CBD is mandated not to do a simple technical review of the proposals but to examine their risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts. The CBD has also created a “liaison group” to oversee its work on geoengineering that will hopefully provide some balance to the discussions thus far that have been dominated by a small group of scientific experts engaged in research, with notoriously low participation from developing countries, social scientists, women, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as other critical voices from civil society.
–
On the one hand, it is a positive development that different UN bodies are beginning to discuss geoengineering because any modification of our oceans and atmosphere will ultimately affect all countries. All countries must therefore be involved in discussions about it. However, there will also be tremendous pressure exerted by powerful countries who are counting on using this Plan B to move forward with research, public funding programmes and real-world experimentation with inevitable transboundary impacts. The global South and civil society must be clear that geoengineering is not an alternative to the existing and agreed upon priorities of mitigation and adaptation, according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Any new multilateral governance arrangement must strengthen the existing moratorium, not weaken it. That means a strict prohibition of all unilateral experimentation of geoengineering technologies — at least until there is a multilateral consensus that this avenue could or should be explored. So far, international consensus says we do not want to go down this road. Let’s keep it that way.
–
If you have not yet done so, you can join the international campaign against geoengineering experiments atwww.handsoffmotherearth.org.
A joint civil society letter is in the works regarding the IPCC meeting. If you are interested to see the letter and sign on behalf of your organization, please contact Veronica Villa: veronica@etcgroup.org.
From: Diana Bronson, ETC Group
Comments Off on ETC Group on Geoengineering Developments and How to Take Action
Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, Corporate Globalization, False Solutions to Climate Change, UNFCCC
