My dear friends,

We came back from the Royal Society meeting with a notice “Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative - call for submissions”.

It’s conduced by TWAS (I don’t know what it is exactly), the academy of sciences for the developing world, the Royal Society and the Environmental Defense Fund and focuse on Solar Radiation Management (SRM), as “at present there are few international controls on SRM research, and little to ensure that is done is undertaken responsiblly, transparently and safely. The initiative will seek to make recommendations on the kind of governance arrangements that might be desirable or necessary should SRM geoengineering research go ahead.

We are seeking as wide a range of views as possible to assist our study...

...the papers will need to be focused on real-world policy recommendations rather than academic discussion...”

The deadline for submissions is Friday 3 December.”

Those submissions will provide the material for the SRMGI conference in March 2011

All the details in the original paper in attached (4 PDF, 3 in following messages because heavy).

It’s a wide door open to us to express officially, gently (!) our points of view.

Each of us, or organisation, can contribute, each of us based on his particular field: politics, justice, health and climate/planetology.

Our different voices may be very strong focused together in this next March meeting.



So, I’m now working on a contribution, arguing that

• first , we must consider the already ongoing geoengineering – and the military one which is working for several decades – aerial sparying of chemical substances, ionospheric researches with VHF and UHF/ VLF and ULF (military-HAARP, SURA and civil ones –EISCAT) that heats the ionosphere.
• serious studies for civil geoengineering would rather understand the consequences of them before planning even more geoengineering
• CO2 as a serious cause of greenhouse effect on the Earth which could cause an hypothetical  climate emergency is scientifically controversed. It is rather an up-to-date way of thinking than a serious planetology research. So is it serious to found hazardous SRM upon such an uncertain statement ?
• In spite of that, if it was, may Solar Radiation Management be a good solution ? Plants love CO2 and transform it into oxygen when receiving solar radiation. If solar radiation is dimmed can they do it as well ?
  

I hope you’ll take the opportunity too.

It is a circumstance in which we can raise up our serious voice, take responsability and get power for good sense of living on the earth while organisers look like so uncertain and ask every one to answer. Just be in the sought and forms requested.