Hi all, The Fourth Report of DIUS parliamentary select committee is available in electronic form: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmdius.htm#reports
The particular section on geoengineering, reporting on the House of Commons hearing in November, is available here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/50/5007.htm Here's an extract: Policy considerations 183. We heard concern that current efforts to reduce GHG emissions may be insufficient, both in terms of scale and speed of implementation, to enable effective climate change management.[217] A similar view was expressed by Professor Launder, University of Manchester: There is increasingly the sense that governments are failing to come to grips with the urgency of setting measures in place that will assuredly lead to our planet reaching a safe equilibrium. Today, the developed world is struggling to meet its (arguably inadequate) carbon-reduction targets while emissions by China and India have soared. Meanwhile, signs suggest the climate is even more sensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels than had hitherto been thought.[218] 184. The potential for the Earth to undergo greater adverse climate change impacts than expected, or for carbon reduction measures to be less effective than anticipated, has led to the suggestion that geo-engineering technologies may need to be considered as an emergency option akin to an insurance policy.[219] That is, in the words of Professor Launder, geo-engineering schemes may "offer a means of gaining two or three decades of breathing space while the world must find routes for moving to a genuinely carbon-neutral society".[220] Lord Drayson also invoked the concept of an 'insurance policy' when explaining why he thought geo-engineering merited policy consideration: I do not subscribe to the view that you should on purpose put all your eggs in one basket to make sure that you look after that one basket really carefully. [.] I think it is right for us to have a watching brief [.] on these areas of geo-engineering. I think they could rightly be described as an emergency plan B. That does not mean we should not absolutely put full effort into focusing our investments in plan A. But one never knows. That is the value of pure research and that is why it is right for us to be putting a moderate amount of money into this area, to be focusing on aspects such as modelling where we can learn an awful lot without having to invest too much.[221] 185. Like the Minister of State for Science and Innovation, we believe that Government should give the full range of policy options for managing climate change due consideration, and we share the view of the Tyndall Centre that geo-engineering technologies should be evaluated as part of a portfolio of responses to climate change, alongside mainstream mitigation and adaptation efforts.[222] 186. However, this view does not appear to be held across Government, as according to Joan Ruddock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), DECC has decided not to countenance such a strategy: Scientists should probably not be looking at what I regard as being somewhere down the list of priorities and potentially the plan B [geo-engineering], because we need all our energies directed at the plan A [mitigation and adaptation].[223] 187. Given the need for urgent action in addressing the challenge of climate change, we can see no reason for not considering geo-engineering technologies as a 'plan B'. Quite the opposite, the decision not to consider any initiative other than 'plan A' could be considered negligent particularly, for example, if 'plan A' fails to act as planned or climate sensitivity is greater than expected. Asked why DECC was averse to exploring the potential of geo-engineering technologies, the Minister gave two reasons. The first appeared to be based on a presumption of failure: "If plan A has failed [.] then there is very little reason to imagine plan B could succeed",[224] and the second predicated on a belief that supporting geo-engineering research might be perceived as signalling a waning commitment to more conventional mitigation efforts: Our concern is that although we do not want to dismiss this work [.], it could be used politically in that way, which would be extremely unfortunate because what we know about engineering is that [. it] can provide us with well-tried and trusted solutions to reduce CO2 emissions from a huge range of activities and it is those existing engineering solutions that we seek to promote in the international arena [.]. So it could be a means of deflecting engineering from the very best work which can be done to help the world community to get such a deal.[225] 188. This argument is a rehearsal of that originally used against examining climate change adaptation measures. The argument went as follows: "if we actually start to take adaptation seriously and look at it and analyse it seriously, then we are encouraging people to believe that it is okay to carry on emitting greenhouse gases".[226] Thankfully, this argument was dismissed, and adaptation research is now firmly on the international agenda. Given that this argument has been discredited, we are disappointed that the Government has sought to bring it back to the fore, and do not consider it to be helpful in progressing debate. 189. None of the evidence we received suggested that the science and engineering community consider geo-engineering technologies as having the potential to act as a 'silver bullet' in mitigating global climate change, not least, as the Royal Academy of Engineering points out, because: "even if it [geo-engineering] could help to alleviate the effects of climate change it has nothing to add in terms of security or sustainability of energy supplies".[227] Instead, the overriding view of individuals we spoke to was that geo-engineering efforts might, in the future, have the potential to complement the conventional mitigation and adaptation agenda. 190. We find the divergent views of DECC and DIUS, as outlined by Lord Drayson and Joan Ruddock, as to the future potential of geo-engineering research to be confusing, and urge the Government to establish a clear view on the matter. 191. Further, we conclude that it would not be appropriate or sensible for opinion-leaders or the public to see any policy on the potential use of geo-engineering schemes as implying a lack of ongoing commitment to the development of conventional emission mitigation strategies or adaptation responses. We urge the Government to be proactive in communication efforts to dispel any incorrect perceptions. [end extract] The DIUS select committee press release on 27th March (from Becky Jones) quoted from 187 and 190: Given the "urgent need to tackle climate change", the Government should "consider the potential of geo-engineering technologies as a 'Plan B'", and the Government needs to "establish a clear view on the matter". Cheers, John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
