FYI, I believe this is from Diana Bronson of ETC: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/about/staff/diana-bronson
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Diana Bronson <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Ken and other Geoengineering Group members, > > > I am not sure exactly who the "we" in Ken Caldeira's message refers to, but > I think it would be premature (to be generous) to assert there is > meaningful consensus about the need to do research into climate > intervention/geoengineering. In fact, in the major intergovernmental forum > where responses to climate change are being discussed (the UNFCCC meetings > in preparation for Copenhagen) there has not been any discussion of this > topic. Recent relevant decisions in other fora, such as the Convention on > Biological Diversity , the London Convention and the UN Convention on the > Law of the Sea have tended to caution against real world experimentation in > geoengineering technologies (mostly ocean fertilization) . The vast > majority of the world's governments, peoples, environmentalists and other > civil society groups involved in these processes have very little -- if any > -- knowledge of what is being proposed in the field of geoengineering. > While one of the four pillars of the UNFCCC talks is technology, there is > no reference to geoengineering anywhere in the draft text. Surely if this > was a matter of consensus, one would find such a reference. > > I think the consensus that Ken is referring to is maybe one amongst a > narrow group of climate scientists, or perhaps amongst an even narrower set > of individuals interested in geoengineering. Such as most of the members of > this group? The recent flurry of reports, many of which were authored by > regular contributors to this group cannot possibly be construed as a > consensus. There is no way that a question of such magnitude and far > reaching implications should be conceived as a technical matter to be > resolved by a small group of scientists. Trying to restrain the debate and > frame it in such narrow technical terms will yield conclusions that are > wrong, incomplete and counter-productive to meeting the climate challenge. > > Let me be clear – Apart from geoengineering diverting funds from other > climate related research that in my view would be more fruitful, there is > some research into geoengineering technologies that is harmless. Climate > scientists should be free to explore whatever interventions they wish in the > laboratory or via computer modelling (‘behind closed doors among consenting > adults’ as it has been eloquently expressed). But we know how limited those > results can be and how such models often drive demands for real world > analogues to verify or disprove the In silico results and how pressure for > field trials follows quickly on the heels of interesting modelling results. > > It is quite another matter when it comes to leaving the lab and pursuing > experimentation "outside" as James Fleming usefully framed it last week at a > forum in Montreal. As we have already seen in the case of ocean > fertilization, scientists and companies are anxious to try out their > theories in the real world on ever larger and larger scales and won’t take > disappointing or downright negative results as a red light. In the case of > ocean fertilization, despite 13 small trials with poor results and > high-profile calls for caution, a rather large state-sponsored experiment > (Lohafex) was given a green light as some sort of cause celebre for free > scientific enquiry, despite the fact that that same state (Germany) has > helped to broker a moratorium at the Convention on Biological diversity less > than year earlier. That the results appeared to back up some of the reasons > for the moratorium is not exactly cause for celebration. By that time any > possible harm is already done. When it comes to the commons, like the > atmosphere, the stratosphere or the oceans, surely a more robust system of > regulation and governance would be required before "we" can allow a series > of experiments to be launched. And while the recently announced UK and US > Hearings into the question of governance of geoengineering, it would be the > height of arrogance to think that such a process is a replacement for a > global conversation. > > The order in which these things happen is of utmost importance and I would > hope that there would be a consensus on ironing out these governance issues > BEFORE real-world experimentation gets any serious consideration amongst > responsible scientists. Indeed, given that the purpose of the UNFCCC is to > "prevent dangerous anthopogenic interference with the climate system" > (article 2), it could be argued that such experimentation directly > contravenes the express purpose of the treaty. I am not qualified to make a > legal assessment of that eventuality but surely the only (however flawed) > international legal instrument we have on climate change cannot be ignored. > > But that is not all we have either. A quick scan of international > institutions would reveal a number of treaties and international agencies > with a direct interest in climate "intevention" ranging from the > Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) to an agency like the FAO > whose goal to eliminate hunger could be further set back by droughts > provoked by stratospheric aerosol injections or poorly executed > modifications of soil through biochar addition; or the Convention on > Biological Diversity that has already expressed concerns about > geoengineering, or the human rights system which aims to protect peoples > rights to free, prior and informed consent or to health or food or other > matter that could very well be affected not only by deployment, but even by > experimentation. Obviously any country that might be affected would also > want to have its say. > > And if we agree that some rules need to be determined before > experimentation gets any consideration, we must be clear that such rules > cannot be established only by scientists, only to be followed if people > sign up to them and only to be followed when it suits a scientific programme > to follow them. Exclusivity will not work. Elitism will not work. > Voluntarism will not work. The discussion on governance cannot be led by > scientists who will receive the research grants, corporations who will own > the patents and institutions with close connections to the corporations. > It must be democratic, participatory, informed and international. Those > on the front line of the fight against climate change (think Arctic peoples, > Indigenous Peoples, small island states, least developed countries, coastal > peoples) need to be involved. For the most part, they have not participated > in this conversation and are largely unaware it is even going on. > > Others on this list have made the point that silence should not be mistaken > for consent. In this case, since you are seeking input on what should be > prioritized, I would suggest that what is most urgently needed is some > serious research on the international governance mechanisms that are > currently in place, the gaps in terms of covering off the different > geoengineering technologies that exist and the beginning of a plan for how a > more comprehensive, democratic and sustainable approach could be devised > should we ever be in the unimaginably horrible situation where deployment > could be considered as a serious option. Also required is a throrough > engagement with communities beyond this narrow technical community that > allows those groups to bring their knowledge and their wisdom to bear upon > the question of whether large scale climate intervention is a wise approach, > not merely whether it is feasible. Determining the wisdom of the course of > action should at least come before sinking large amounts of taxpayers money > into building the mechanisms to deploy such systems. And never should such > technologies be allowed to be privately owned or unilaterally experimented > or deployed (as we know, with several of these technologies, experimentation > IS deployment). > > Thank you for opening up this debate - I just think it should move beyond > the technical and embrace some of the critical political questions that need > to be asked prior to those technical issues. > > Regards -- > > Diana Bronson > > > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- 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.
