U.S. Blocks U.N. Resolution on Geoengineering

According to this article in Scientific American

The United States joined Saudi Arabia to derail a U.N. resolution that sought to improve the world’s understanding of potential efforts to lace the sky with sunlight-reflecting aerosols or use carbon-catching fans.

The two countries were joined by Brazil in blocking the resolution at the U.N. Environment Assembly conference in Nairobi, Kenya, earlier this week. The measure asked the world’s decisionmaking body on the environment to commission a report outlining research and planning related to carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Those controversial efforts are still in the planning stage and are not operational.

Switzerland and nine other nations originally asked the U.N. Environment Programme for guidance on possible future governance options and analysis of the implications of geoengineering, but they agreed to substantially reduce the scope of their resolution in hopes that the United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil would allow it to move forward. The final version, which failed to gain consensus Wednesday, would have asked UNEP only to provide a compilation by next year of current scientific research on geoengineering and U.N. bodies that have adopted resolutions regarding it.

Here’s an unexpected twist

The proponents wished to see UNEA become the institutional home for geoengineering within the U.N. structure. But sources said the United States in particular insisted that questions about geoengineering be left to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body with a narrow focus on global warming.

Because…

The United States’ focus on the IPCC raised eyebrows. Both the United States and Saudi Arabia angered parties at the U.N. climate talks in Katowice, Poland, in December by questioning IPCC’s work.

And of course,

Environmentalists expressed disappointment.

“There’s definitely a lot of frustration on the part of those countries that have fought for the resolution in the last two weeks and have tried to improve it and find consensus,” said Linda Schneider, a senior program officer with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.

A likely non-problem looking for a solution.

Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, said carbon capture and SRM would ultimately need to be treated separately when it came to global governance issues.

Mitigation means reducing emissions, and direct carbon removal will likely become a larger part of nations’ goals under the Paris Agreement, he said.

“When it comes to solar radiation management, that’s where the challenge is. There’s no home,” said Pasztor, who is a former U.N. official.

Read the full article here.

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “U.S. Blocks U.N. Resolution on Geoengineering

      • Trillions would be spent and its effect on the climate would be total zero. Goons would spend their careers trying to find an effect. Ultimately they would just make it up.

        • Or even worse, on top of that we have to deal with the fallout of spewing tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.

    • What could go wrong? If you look at the case for Latham and Salter’s cloud ships then very little. They use sea water aerosols — in other words tiny salt particles — to increase the reflectivity of low level stratocumulus clouds. Turn off the ships and you go back to the previous level of cloud condensation nuclei in just a few hours.

      Sulphur dioxide bad, Cloud ships good.

      When I feel a bit better — I think I’m going down with flu — I’ll post about how some of the undoubted global warming may be caused by anthropogenic suppression of CCNs by one of several possible mechanisms.

      President Trump’s task force could do well to examine causes other than co2 for warming — it might explain why the models are less than optimum.*

      JF
      *A polite English way of saying ‘horse apples’.

      • Julian Flood

        I think Trumps idea is that if he dispels the myth of atmospheric CO2 driven planetary warming then, yes, we might be able to look at any problem we might have rationally. Until then, forget it, the climate faithful will always come back to it as a default.

        Then, in 1,000 years time, when we actually have a clue as to how climate works, and the world is genuinely overheating yes, by all means, launch fleets of ships to solve the problem.

        Meanwhile, creating a problem, to solve a problem we don’t understand in the first place, analysed observationally over only 50 to 100 years (unreliably) is just insane.

      • Quick question, what are the ships powered by?
        And how many ships, how much power is consumed, and what is the result?

        • If you search back there was kerfuffle about this some time ago on this blog. It’s worth reading, not least because it has Willis really making a super dooper blooper (I hope I get the patois right) about the power needed to drive the cooling effect. These things would be wind-powered with flettner rotor sails, robotic and very cheap compared with the insane notion of spreading sulphur aerosols at height. They use no power at all apart from wind and wave.

          If you google shiptracks nasa images you will see just how few CCNs are needed to enhance stratocumulus cloud density. Just a one percent increase in albedo is enough to offset all the (purported) CO2 caused warming, and those images show albedo changes of sixty or seventy percent. That’s the huge effect the ships are designed to exploit.

          I’d like to see the research done to make the case for these ships because I suspect that a major part of the so-called CO2 warming could be attributed to natural and/or anthropogenic changes to CCN production. Research and modelling on the effect of the cloud ships would give us data about how much, for example, oil pollution is reducing cloud cover. If it’s the oil then it’s not CO2. Forget turning off all the power stations, just stop spilling oil on the oceans. If it’s agricultural run-off then stop letting nitrates fill our rivers. Etc.

          These ships are the enemy of climate panic, not allies. They underline how puny the supposed CO2 warming is. They would be cheap and effective, so it’s revealing that no-one has built them. The global warming panic is not about warming, it’s about control of the people, manipulation of opinion — the fact that we could easily control warming if we needed to is an unwelcome fact to those driving this scam.

          JF
          Come on, Willis, time for a mea culpa.

          • Answer to why so many sea mamals wash ashore…birds call out of sky…autism…Been going on for so long under our noses. Do you remember the sky why you were a kid? Eisenhower knew we are easily eliminated

      • What could go wrong? If you have no clue how the climate works, screwing with it has effectively no chance of doing what you intend.

        • Not screwing. It’s no more screwing than putting up a sunshade on a hot day. Turn it off and it stops. It’s just spraying seawater into the air — go to a beach on a windy day and you’ll see the same effect, and it is just as temporary.

          JF

    • Done.
      But now we are taking SO2 out of the system in a rate of two Pinatobos per Year!
      And that leads to the opposite of the cooling when aerosols hit us 1991.
      Geoengineering has been done and no one ever has noticed it.
      SO2 peaked 1980 and are now at 1960 years level.
      https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution
      Dammed we missed to tell that it gives heat-sorry. (it started at 1980 not before as CO2)
      (Solar brightening due to less clouds)
      https://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.143989.1548428766!/image/allsack_1983-lastyear.jpg_gen/derivatives/Original_1256px/image/allsack_1983-lastyear.jpg

  1. We did that already…then spent $billions getting it out
    …so the same people could claim temps were accelerating

  2. The craziness seems to be increasing exponentially as months go by, without any end in sight.
    it’s global mass hysteria. Will it end? When will it end? How will it end?

  3. ” … said Linda Schneider, a senior program officer with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.”

    What a terrible affliction. I believe it gets to the point where you can’t move your tung at all.

    • LOL. From Wikipedia, after getting past the usual “green” front of these groups, you get to the heart of the beast:

      “We place particular emphasis on gender democracy, meaning social emancipation and equal rights for women and men. We are also committed to equal rights for cultural and ethnic minorities and to the societal and political participation of immigrants”

  4. This one deserves a Youtube video of my head shaking, but I don’t have the resources to make it.

    So, this post will have to do to serve as my implied head shaking.

  5. “the resolution sought to improve the understanding …”

    Why do all the other countries need the cooperation of the three no votes to do that? They can all just get together, cooperate (put their monies together), and seek to improve their understanding without us joining in.

    The resolution obviously was for more than just the stated PR goal.

      • “They want our monies.”

        …..One of the really important things that they fail to understand is that we no longer have any real money == And any that we may have in the future is already owed to our creditors.

  6. What could go wrong? If you look at the case for Latham and Salter’s cloud ships then very little. They use sea water aerosols — in other words tiny salt particles — to increase the reflectivity of low level stratocumulus clouds. Turn off the ships and you go back to the previous level of cloud condensation nuclei in just a few hours.

    Sulphur dioxide bad, Cloud ships good.

    When I feel a bit better — I think I’m going down with flu — I’ll post about how some of the undoubted global warming may be caused by anthropogenic suppression of CCNs by one of several possible mechanisms.

    President Trump’s task force could do well to examine causes other than co2 for warming — it might explain why the models are less than optimum.*

    JF
    *A polite English way of saying ‘horse apples’.

    • “What could go wrong?”
      HEY Everybody, I have a Great Idea!
      Let’s destroy the Ozone Layer! What could go wrong?

      It is now thought that Chlorine, ultimately derived from sea salt, plays a substantial role in the mediation of the concentration Ozone in the Ozone Layer. Of course, very little Chlorine actually makes it up that high, but once it does, it is fairly persistent.

      We can manufacture special purpose ships to blast as much salt as possible, as high as possible into the atmosphere. Once the disastrous consequences become apparent, it will be way too late.
      If I was the villain in a James Bond movie, I could hardly do better.

      • Please look up the difference between chlorine and sodium chloride. One is a poisonous gas. The other is what you put on your chips.

        JF

      • Please read the original post and do some research. The cloud layer involved in the cloud ship proposal is around one to two thousand feet, not high in the atmosphere at all. Increasing its albedo by two or three percent might be enough to counter the supposed warming of CO2. Using completely natural CCNs is as safe as you cn get. And chlorine is not salt. Sodium chloride is salt.

        If you intend to criticise a proposal it is best to read what it is first.

        You want a villain plot?

        Let’s say you’ve got this brilliant scam going. You’re milking every user of electricity for climate taxes, you’ve cornered the market in solar panels, wind turbines etc. then some bas tard has this really simple and cheap way of demonstrating that the global warming business is a scam. Enter man stroking white cat. “These cloud ships must be stopped. they’ll prove that there’s no need to panic. If there’s no need to panic we lose control.”

        JF
        Mods, what the hell is the problem? I’m am being polite, i am not using obscene language. Why do my post s keep… aha! Bond villain time. I’m off to lock all the doo

  7. Do you see what this is all about? They know that global warming science is failing. They are anxious to do some terrble thing like this so that when the cooling comes, they can say they saved the world. With nothing done, which they now understand is the way this is all going to go, they will be fully shown to have propagated a hugely expensive mistake on the world. They will gi down in history as either charlatans or idjits (most likely a big mix of both). Don’t let this gang of the hook. The cold snowy winters are sewing doubt and nature’s chimirical ways are exasperating for them.

    • They are anxious to do some terrble thing like this so that when the cooling comes, they can say they saved the world.

      I don’t believe that it is terrible. Government is just awful at accomplishing anything so no matter what money they throw at it, results will be unmeasurable, except for the huge increases in personal bank accounts of those connected to the project.

      But you are likely right, they need to do some stupid thing and claim that the world is saved so that they can justify heroic statues and royalties.

    • Gary Pearse

      They don’t need this as a reason for their ‘success’. The means are already there, renewable energy i.e. wind turbines and solar panels etc.

      If the earth’s temperature falls over the coming 50 years or so, of course they will celebrate renewables as the reason. Too bad if the MSM turn on them and declare “Global cooling” as they did in the 70’s.

      It’s worth examining the motives of ones bedfellows. Scientists have proven remarkably bad at that over the years.

    • Gary, I had the exact same thought. There is no global warming and nothing is changing. But trillions of dollars have been spent and professional reputations are at stake. They can’t simply say “oopsie.” But if they do a geo-engineering stunt – it doesn’t matter what it is – then they can say “see we saved you from this horrible danger (now pay us)” Good Gore but these people are so obvious and so unscrupulous.

      Of course the danger is that even though the plan might be to just go through the motions and actually do nothing that would have any real impact these screw-ups might accidentally succeed in lowering the global temperature. Wouldn’t that be fun! You only thought you missed the Pleistocene.

  8. Keep all of the silly climate rats in one nest.

    They already quote each others’ redundant efforts as supporting their own narrow claims.

  9. Why the high tech spraying of aerosols into the stratosphere? If they really believe that CO2 is the villain why not more experimentation with seeding the oceans with iron ions? This causes massive phytoplankton blooms that should draw down some of the excess CO2. When this has been done before (an Alaskan volcano, and an unauthorized experiment about a decade ago) the main side effect seems to have been a large increase in salmon returns to the Pacific North West. Possibly a win win cheap solution that only the greens could hate because it doesn’t wreck capitalism.

  10. The Law of Unintended Consequences includes the introduction of prickly pear, cane toads and rabbits into Australia as well as tumbleweed into the US …

  11. “questions about geoengineering be left to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

    That makes sense. When we get the IPCC deep sixed, we can get rid of this nonsense at the same time.

    • The ARs are supposed to steer clear of policy recommendations.
      Policy is left to the COP process which created the Kyoto Accord, Paris Agreement etc.

  12. These people are out of their F-ing minds.

    There doesn’t seem to be an idea that is so stupid, that it won’t attract the adherence of intellectuals.

    Crazy creep has to do with regulatory bodies. It’s the slow migration of their internal logic to eventually make the insane seem normal.

    The UN exhibits that tip into insanity. It really does need to be shut down.

  13. I can’t express the science behind this but the very idea of deliberately injecting particles into the atmosphere horrifies me. Is this not the very sort of thing that allegedly “caused” the “problem” in the first place? What are they intending to use? Sodium Chloride was mentioned. Chlorine ions floating around loose. What about fallout? Acid rain? saline rain? There are enough “chemtrail” nuts out there already without actually giving them something to feed on. No the whole idea needs putting back in the box.

    As for “carbon extracting fans” surely it would be much better to plant a few trees.

    • Not chlorine ions. Salt. You know, salt, the stuff you put on your burgers. That’s how dangerous it is. When you get a windy day at the beach with an onshore breeze you can see the same effect. Here’s a clue — it doesn’t harm you. It doesn’t kill all the vegetation. It’s natural, and a one percent increase won’t do you any harm. Or harm trees.

      Cloud ships would be cheap, harmless and would cool the oceans. No-one’s tried them because they would stop people panicking and that’s not allowed by the scam merchants. Are you happy thatthe scam continues?

      I’m with you about trees. The world needs more trees.

      JF

    • Salt is sodium chloride. A white solid you out on your chips. Chlorine is a poisonous gas.

      The intention is to spray the former, not the latter.

      JF

  14. “Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it.” Stephen Vizinczey
    I find it increasingly unbelievable that so called “educated people” are buying into such nonsense – Chicken Little for the educated ?
    Let’s erect columns to support the sky and stop it (maybe) falling – the precautionary principal.

    • I find it increasingly unbelievable that so called “educated people” are buying into such nonsense

      You should be so surprised considering how so much that passes for education these days is little more than indoctrination. There’s no idiot as dangerous as an educated idiot.

      • should have read: You should *not*be…

        I hate it when my fingers skip words when typing. Where’s that edit button when you need it?

  15. Damned. We have now to retrain on how to operate the chemtrail generators in stealth mode…

  16. Is the reduction in SO2 emissions part of the reason for the increase in global temperature?
    Geoengineering seems a very blunt weapon to reduce global temperatures.
    If a repeat of 1816, “the year without a summer” is caused, who do is due for crop failures etc?

  17. Of course it should be taken under the IPCC umbrella! Then, when that odious body is finally dismantled the whole concept disappears into the dustbin of very bad ideas. Which is where they both belong.

  18. The BBC’s ‘A Life Scientific’ program with Jim Al Kalili lauded a climate scientist from UEA (East Anglia Climategate University) for her stalwart work in further demonizing Carbon.

  19. I had always understood that to form clouds, nuclease, such as dust or salt particles are thought to be needed.

    So if one seeds clouds with salt particles then we should have seen a increaseinn cloud formation. This of course would cause the Earth to cool, so the Greens could then claim the credit. So did it happen ?

    MJE VK5ELL

  20. Someone asked when will it end how will it end. The answer is when the Sun explodes several billion years from now. Don’t bother marking your calendar chances are you won’t live to see it.

    Nor chances are you won’t live to see the CO2 end. ???

  21. Bonkers. If these people really think getting CO² out of the air is both important and possible, what’s wrong with trees? They have the added bonus of not having the potential to hasten the next ice age. I suppose Malthusians would love this, though.

  22. The makers of reflecting aerosols and their insiders at the UN staff will have to try again…in the post Trump over reach era.

  23. These schemes intend to change the climate, and we have all learned that climate change is bad.

  24. Unicorns and SRM –

    Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun

    Pink Floyd

    Little by little the night turns around
    Counting the leaves which tremble at dawn
    Lotuses lean on each other in yearning
    Under the eaves the swallow is resting
    Set the controls for the heart of the sun

    Over the mountain watching the watcher
    Breaking the darkness waking the grapevine
    One inch of love is one inch of shadow
    Love is the shadow that ripens the wine
    Set the controls for the heart of the sun

    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun

    Witness the man who raves at the wall
    Making the shape of his question to heaven
    Whether the sun will fall in the evening
    Will he remember the lesson of giving?
    Set the controls for the heart of the sun

    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun
    The heart of the sun

    Songwriter: ROGER WATERS

    Songtext von Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun © Point Music Ltd., Essex Music International, Guerilla Studios Limited, Essex Music International Inc., Essex Italiana Edizioni Musicali S.r.l., Blackhill Enterprices c/o Essex Music Int. Ltd., Westminster Music LTD

Comments are closed.