Dear Diana, I would like to add to Dan's list, the American Meteorological Society's statement on geoengineering from July, 2009, which will be considered by the American Geophysical Union for endorsement next month. Indeed there is a consensus for many forms of indoor research (to paraphrase Jim Fleming) on geoengineering. But there is not a consensus on outdoor research, that is doing field tests in the atmosphere, on land, or in the ocean. I think you have to clearly distinguish between these two types of work.
By the way, at a geoengineering workshop here in Hamburg, Germany, that ended yesterday, Yuri Izrael, former head to the Russian Hydrometeorological Office, and now director of Institute of Global Climate and Ecology in Moscow, called for an international geoengineering conference including all the nations of the world, not just the developed ones who are now doing climate modeling, to consider their interests in this subject and to keep all the work in the open and transparent. This is exactly what you proposed to several of us last week in Montreal. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Dan Whaley wrote: > Diana, > > It's good to see movement in the ETC position. > > You and Jim will of course remember that issues of governance are > discussed here regularly, so your final entreaty that this forum "move > beyond the technical" is perhaps moot. Non-technical discussions > occur here frequently. > > Governance is of course high on the priority list of many people in > this community. The LC meetings are a great example--which many on > this forum have attended and supported. That process moved from a > statement of concern to unanimous consent for scientific projects to > move forward last fall. This spring the OIF working group and the > Scientific Group each met separately to begin crafting the OIF Risk > Management Framework for what reporting would be required from those > projects, and just last month the regular LC meeting was held again > and spent considerable time reviewing progress on those activities. I > was at each of these meetings and I think it is quite inaccurate to > say that the LC process has tended to "caution against real world > experimentation". In fact, I would say that the LC has now shaped an > administrative process to support exactly that. And of course, this > is a UN body. > > Also, while existing framework documents for the UNFCCC may not > mention geoengineering, I think this is an extraordinarily weak piece > of evidence to argue against a growing consensus for research into > geoengineering. If the Royal Society recommendations, the House > subcommittee hearings, the National Academies' forthcoming report, the > 13 National Academies joint statement from last year, Bob Watson's > remarks in the UK Guardian yesterday, and the London Conventions > deliberations aren't enough to convince you, then I'm honestly not > sure what would. Clearly there is a strong call from the most > respected institutions, each of which had to engage in consensus- > finding processes in order to generate such statements that research > is appropriate. To fault Ken for referring informally to this group > that there is a consensus seems somewhat pointless. > > Clearly you have mentioned many organizations-- some of them active > bodies, some of them treaty organizations-- which would have an > interest or remit to consider these questions. Many of the > individuals here in this same community have been quite active in > exploring the implications of these and the correct way to go about > engaging on these questions. Papers are forthcoming, talks will be > given in Copenhagen. In fact, there will be no less than three side > sessions specifically on the governance of geoengineering there, one > of them an official, UNFCCC event. Perhaps you will be able to > attend. > > "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." > > Your point might be a good one, but clearly the one example of > governance that has already been established--the LC process for OIF-- > avoids exactly that, right? So, could we say we're on the right > track? > > Thanks for your considered remarks. > > By the way-- the LOHAFEX project was forced to low silicate waters > largely as a result of the delays caused by some last minute > activism. Perhaps you have another technical interpretation? > > Dan > > On Nov 25, 5:00 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 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. > > > -- 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.
