|
UNITED NATIONS BANS CHEMTRAILS
BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails
Posted on October 28, 2010 by coto2admin
Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed
at
UN Ministerial in Japan
By ETC
Group
Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked
NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member
UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth
biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering
projects and experiments. “Any private or public
experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the
planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully
crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American
Director of ETC Group.
The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the
two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks
governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities take
place until risks to the environmental and biodiversity and
associated social, cultural and economic impacts risks have been
appropriately considered as well as the socio-economic impacts.
The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report back on
various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental
regulatory measures.
The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008
moratorium on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at
COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a litany of failed
“experiments” – both public and private – to sequester
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ depths by spreading
nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned
to a range of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of
solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the atmosphere,
stratosphere and outer space that would alter global
temperatures and precipitation patterns.
“This decision clearly places the governance of
geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said
ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney.
“This decision is a victory for common sense, and for
precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research.
Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of
scientists from a small group of countries that establish
self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What
little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy
circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision.
The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar
Radiation Management Governance Initiative and respect that the
world’s governments have collectively decided that future
deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the UN,
where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil
society can watch and influence what they are doing.”
Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential
threat that deployment – or even field testing – of
geoengineering technologies poses to the protection of
biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and
difficult late night sessions of a “Friends of the chair” group,
attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1
Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and
biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly
delicate compromise.” All that remains to do now is gavel it
through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).
“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group
Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that
the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because
it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies.
Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample opportunity to
consider these questions in more detail. But climate
techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to
important debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit
approaches. A change of course is essential, and geoengineering
is clearly not the way forward.”
####
The full
texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied
below:
Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national
circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations
and processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to
conserve, sustainably use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem
services while contributing to climate‑change mitigation and
adaptation:
….
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on
ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the
absence of science based, global, transparent and effective
control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in
accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the
Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering
activities[1] that may affect biodiversity take place, until
there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such
activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks
for the environment and biodiversity and associated social,
economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale
scientific research studies that would be conducted in a
controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the
Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather
specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior
assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;
[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition
of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any
technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or
increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large
scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and
storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before
it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as
forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on
Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be
developed. Noting that solar insolation is defined as a measure
of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a
given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the
process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool
other than the atmosphere.
AND
9 9. Requests the Executive Secretary to:
….
(o) Compile and synthesize available scientific information, and
views and experiences of indigenous and local communities and
other stakeholders, on the possible impacts of geo‑engineering
techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and
cultural considerations, and options on definitions and
understandings of climate-related geo-engineering relevant to
the Convention on Biological Diversity and make it available for
consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting
of the Conference of the Parties;
(p) Taking into account the possible need for science based
global, transparent and effective control and regulatory
mechanisms, subject to the availability of financial resources,
undertake a study on gaps in such existing mechanisms for
climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, bearing in mind that such mechanisms may
not be best placed under the Convention on Biological Diversity,
for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical
and Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the
Conference of the Parties and to communicate the results to
relevant organizations;
Under New and Emerging Issues UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.2 :
4. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations
to submit information on synthetic biology and geo-engineering,
for the consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice, in accordance with the
procedures of decision IX/29, while applying the precautionary
approach to the field release of synthetic life, cell or genome
into the environment;
Under Marine and Coastal Biodiversity UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.42
13. Reaffirming that the programme of work still corresponds to
the global priorities, has been further strengthened through
decisions VIII/21, VIII/22, VIII/24, and IX/20, but is not fully
implemented, and therefore encourages Parties to continue to
implement these programme elements, and endorses the following
guidance, where applicable and in accordance with national
capacity and circumstances, for enhanced implementation:
(e) Ensuring that no ocean fertilization takes place unless in
accordance with decision IX/16 C and taking note of the report
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7) and development noted para 57 – 62;
Impacts of ocean fertilization on marine and coastal
biodiversity
57. Welcomes the report on compilation and synthesis of
available scientific information on potential impacts of direct
human-induced ocean fertilization on marine biodiversity
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7), which was prepared in collaboration
with United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Maritime
Organization in pursuance of paragraph 3 of decision IX/20;
58. Recalling the important decision IX/16 C on ocean
fertilization, reaffirming the precautionary approach,
recognizes that given the scientific uncertainty that exists,
significant concern surrounds the potential intended and
unintended impacts of large-scale ocean fertilization on marine
ecosystem structure and function, including the sensitivity of
species and habitats and the physiological changes induced by
micro-nutrient and macro-nutrient additions to surface waters as
well as the possibility of persistent alteration of an
ecosystem, and requests Parties to implement decision IX/16 C;
59. Notes that the governing bodies under the London Convention
and Protocol adopted in 2008 resolution LC-LP.1 (2008) on the
regulation of ocean fertilization, in which Contracting Parties
declared, inter alia, that given the present state of knowledge,
ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific
research should not be allowed;
60. Recognizes the work under way within the context of the
London Convention and London Protocol to contribute to the
development of a regulatory mechanism referred to in decision
IX/16 C, and invites Parties and other Governments to act in
accordance with the Resolution LC-LP.2(2010) of the London
Convention and Protocol ;
61. Notes that in order to provide reliable predictions on the
potential adverse impacts on marine biodiversity of activities
involving ocean fertilization, further work to enhance our
knowledge and modelling of ocean biogeochemical processes is
required, in accordance with decision IX/16 (c) and taking into
account decision IX/20 and LC-LP.2 (2010);
62. Notes also that there is a pressing need for research to
advance our understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics and the
role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle;
####
Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering is a new publication
by ETC Group that provides an overview of the issues involved.
See here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217
Also see the new film What in the World Are They Spraying? Watch
the entire film by G. Edward Griffin, Michael J. Murphy, and
Paul Whittenberger. (2010, 98 mins). Go HERE to purchase a DVD,
make copies, and spread the word.
This
news is at:
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails
STOP CHEMTRAILS
|
