Wil, I agree with you in principle, but as a practical matter making geoengineering research (let alone deployment) contingent on "overwhelming support" within UNFCCC is deeply problematic. The UNFCCC has been in existence for 20 years now, and has yet to take concrete steps to reduce GHG emissions by any significant amount. Given this record, the urgency of beginning substantive research, and the possibility of passing tipping points and climate emergencies, relying on UNFCCC is a flawed political strategy. There are other multilateral and bilateral structures that are more promising sites for international governance (though probably not CBD!).
Josh On May 20, 12:58 pm, Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > In reference to Ken's comments about whether the CBD is the appropriate > venue for making this assessment, I think it's an interesting question that > needs to be engaged more by scientists and policymakers. From the > perspective of international law, when there are multiple regimes that could > potentially regulate a process or activity, and their approaches can't be > reconciled, we apply the principle of either lex posterior (the newer regime > controls, assuming disputants are parties to both regimes), or lex specialis > (the more "specialized" regime in terms of the locus of the dispute > controls). > > I would argue that we should not reach the point where we have conflicting > mandates (as could happen in the case of OIF with the London Convention and > the CBD if one reads the term "geoengineering activities" expansively, and I > agree with Ken that it's extremely vague, probably intentionally so give the > politics of crafting such language in a CBD forum), but rather should seek > to establish a clear governance framework within the UNFCCC. I think it's > the most appropriate venue for governing geoengineering activities because: > 1. Unlike the London Convention, with its extremely limited membership, it > carries the legitimacy of being a universally subscribed regime; 2. Its > expertise on potential climatic impacts of geoengineering is superior to > that of the CBD, and it has far more cohesive working relationships with > other scientific bodies whose expertise would be pertinent in this context; > 3. If geoengineering schemes were deployed, this would presumably be done so > within the context of broader climate policy, i.e. either as an emergency > response, with the need to develop parameters for when, as Alan Robock > suggested in Congressional testimony, the emergency is "over," or as a stop > gap policy, which would still require the parties to establish emissions > reductions parameters in conjunction with this program per Article 2. The > UNFCCC's mandate to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the > climate system would also imbue it with jurisdiction in this context. And, > finally, should we proceed down the road of according offset credits for > schemes, e.g. OIF, the regime might either expand the flexible mechanisms to > permit credit, or even if this remained in the realm of the voluntary > offsets market, the UNFCCC is the regime with the expertise to help develop > reasonable standards to guide such markets. > > I know that some, e.g. David Keith on this list, are leery of developing > governance mechanisms too quickly, arguing that a bottom-up approach might > make more sense. I have to disagree. If one doesn't seek the consent of the > international community early in the game, this approach will wholly lack > legitimacy. It not only is likely to engender substantial push back by > several regimes, but also it will help to further undermine trust in the > climate regime on the North-South plane. A more salutary approach, from my > perspective, is to engage the UNFCCC actively on this issue to seek to > develop a protocol for research and development. I'm not necessarily saying > that this protocol should embrace the expansive definition of "consensus" > that governs the regime currently, but without overwhelming support for > geoengineering, I think we face undermining international law, the > legitimacy of climate change negotiations, and ultimately, engender a > backlash against geoengineering that could be fatal. > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, > <[email protected]<geoengineering%2bnore...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > Today's Topic Summary > > > Group:http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics > > > - FW: UN moves towards geoengineering > > moratorium<#128b5393d3bb289a_group_thread_0>[1 Update] > > - Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's > > Climate Choices report <#128b5393d3bb289a_group_thread_1> [3 Updates] > > - Convention on Biological Diversity Subsidiary Group Recommends > > Geoengineering Moratorium <#128b5393d3bb289a_group_thread_2> [2 > > Updates] > > - FW: UN moves towards geoengineering > > moratorium<#128b5393d3bb289a_group_thread_3>[1 Update] > > > Topic: FW: UN moves towards geoengineering > > moratorium<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/4608f2084bf09fcc> > > > Greg Rau <[email protected]> May 19 04:27PM -0700 > > ^<#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > Thanks, Margaret. As you said at the Asilomar > > opening, we would be quite relieved if > > geoengineering research weren't necessary. But > > since other technological and non-technological > > approaches are failing to solve the problem, it > > would seem a little premature if not extremely > > dangerous for the UN to impose a moratorium on > > evaluating other options. If ETC has viable > > solutions, let's hear them. Otherwise, what is > > their agenda, and why is it threatened by > > geoengineering? "Hands off mother earth" is one > > approach, but it would seem to preclude all human > > activity, not just geoengineering. Interesting > > that Bill McKibben is cited below as a fellow > > "earther". As founder of 350.org, how does he > > propose to get back to 350 ppm CO2 any time soon > > with a "hands off" approach? If it's biochar, > > this would seem to be pretty hands-on, > > land-management-intensive to me. Guess this > > leaves us with only one option - praying. > > -Greg > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > Topic: Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's > > America's Climate Choices > > report<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/4d184df724bd14a7> > > > Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> May 19 09:26AM -0700 > > ^<#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > *See attached report summary from "Advancing the Science of Climate > > Change" > > + sections on Solar Radiation Management* > > > *http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782* > > Advancing the Science of Climate Change > > [image: Book Cover] <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782#toc > > > Status: Prepublication Available > > > Size: 506 pages, 7 x 10 > > > Publication Year:2010 > > > *Authors:* > > America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate > > Change; > > National Research Council > > ** > > > ***------------------------------ > > * > > > *Prepublication - What is it?* > > An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the > > book. > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > [email protected] > > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > John Nissen <[email protected]> May 19 07:41PM +0100 > > ^<#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > Thanks, Ken. > > > Others might like to read bios here: > > > http://americasclimatechoices.org/scienceslate.shtml > > > Is there any new perspective on geoengineering in the report? There is > > no mention of SRM to save the Arctic sea ice! But there is a small > > section > > discussing what constitutes an emergency: > > > [quote] > > > Develop metrics and methods for informing discussions and decisions > > related to “climate emergencies”. There are at least two components to > > this > > research need. For use of SRM as a potential "back-stop option” in the > > case > > of an emerging “climate emergency ", improved observations and > > understanding > > of climate system thresholds, reversibility, and abrupt changes (see > > Chapter > > 6)—for example, observations to let us know when an ice sheet or methane > > hydrate field may become unstable (eg, Khvorostyanov et al., 2008; > > Shakhova > > et al., 2010)—could inform societal debate and decision making about > > needs > > for deployment of a climate intervention system. Second, there is no > > consensus on what constitutes a "climate emergency", nor is there a > > consensus regarding when an SRM deployment might be warranted. The > > notion of > > an "emergency" is not simply a scientific concept, but one that involves > > both scientific facts and human values—quite similar to discussions about > > “dangerous interference in the climate system” (eg, Dessai et al., 2004; > > Gupta and van Asselt, 2006; Hansen, 2005; Lorenzoni et al., 2005; > > Oppenheimer, 2005; Smith et al., 2009). To some people, losing Arctic > > ecosystems constitutes a climate emergency, whereas to others the > > declaration of an “emergency” might require widespread loss of human > > life. > > Therefore, to inform a broader discussion of how society wants to address > > issues of risk, climate intervention cannot be studied in isolation but > > must > > be placed in a broader context considering, for example, drivers of > > climate > > change, climate consequences, socio-political systems, and human values. > > > [end quote] > > > So, Ken, what do you think constitutes a climate emergency to justify > > SRM? How much loss of Arctic sea ice? How much risk from methane release? > > How much risk of sea level rise from Greenland ice sheet disintegration? > > Can > > SRM ever be justified on the precautionary principle - and if not why > > not? > > What is proper risk management? What calculations are needed to justify > > geoengineering rather than further delay? > > > 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]<geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> May 19 11:00PM +0100 > > ^<#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > Rather cynically, I'd suggest that a 'climate emergency' exists only > > when > > the outcome of the next election hinges on it. > > > Perhaps someone can express that in maths and squiggles to make it look > > more > > 'sciencey'. > > > A > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > Topic: Convention on Biological Diversity Subsidiary Group Recommends > > Geoengineering > > Moratorium<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/ed1d31ecd5f2af15> > > > Josh <[email protected]> May 19 02:06PM -0700 > > ^<#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice > > (SBSTTA) has recommended that the CBD Conference of the Parties (COP) > > adopt a general moratorium on geoengineering activities at its meeting > > this October. Here is the formal text: > > > (w) [Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean > > fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, and in accordance > > with the precautionary approach, that no climate-related geo- > > engineering activities 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;] > > > It is not, however, a foregone conclusion that the COP will adopt this > > recommendation. > > > http://cdn.www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstt... > > > Josh Horton > > [email protected] > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> May 19 02:30PM -0700 > > ^<#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > At the very least they need to narrow the scope of what they are > > talking > > about. > > > "Climate-related geoengineering activities" seems horribly > > under-defined. > > > Does an activity need to be "geoengineering" in order for it to be a > > "geoengineering activity"? Does a field test aimed at getting > > information > > relevant to geoengineering that is not in itself geoengineering count > > as a > > "geoengineering activity"? > > > If so, does me writing this email count as a "climate-related > > geoengineering > > activity"? > > > Where are the boundaries and who determines them? > > > Is the Convention on Biological Diversity the vehicle to govern > > experiments > > that pose no threat to biological diversity (and indeed may provide > > information that helps maintain biodiversity [e.g., help stave off loss > > of > > Arctic ecosystems] )? > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > [email protected] > > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > Topic: FW: UN moves towards geoengineering > > moratorium<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/f892890cce7be46> > > > Margaret Leinen <[email protected]> May 19 01:27PM -0600 > > ^ <#128b5393d3bb289a_digest_top> > > > > > *************************************************************************** > > ******* > > > ETC Group > > News Release > > 18 May 2010 > > www.etcgroup.org<http://www.etcgroup.org/> > > > United Nations science body calls for halt on climate-hacking > > experiments > > Geoengineering moratorium proposal will go to UN Biodiversity > > Convention > > > http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/ > > > Nairobi, Kenya - A formal recommendation for a moratorium on all > > climate > > geoengineering activities is being sent to the United Nations > > Convention on > > Biological Diversity (CBD) for consideration by its 193 member > > governments > > when the CBD gathers in Nagoya Japan this October. > > > Governments attending the Nairobi meeting of the scientific > > subcommittee of > > the UN Convention (SBSTTA 14) agreed late last week to forward the > > groundbreaking recommendation after a high degree of consensus was > > reached. > > In a related move, the scientific subcommittee also reviewed and > > supported > > the ongoing global moratorium on one geoengineering technique, ocean > > fertilization, adopted by the Biodiversity Convention in Bonn in 2008. > > > The historic recommendation from SBSTTA 14 is the first time a UN body > > has > > addressed geoengineering governance since the adoption of the > > Environmental > > Modification Treaty in the 1970s. SBSTTA requests that ³no > > climate-related > > geo-engineering activities 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 impacts². (1) The moratorium proposal > > received > > near-unanimous support with strong statements from countries in Africa, > > Asia, Europe and Latin America. However, the recommendation will be > > forwarded to COP 10 (Conference of the Parties) of the CBD in October > > in > > "square brackets" signalling that the consensus is not absolute. > > Earlier in > > the week it seemed there was unanimous agreement on the text after some > > delegations consulted with their capitals. But on the final day Canada > > apologetically announced that it could not support the text and asked > > that > > it be placed in brackets for consideration in Nagoya. Decisions in the > > CBD > > are customarily consensus-based. > > > "The motion on geoengineering arose as part of the agenda on climate > > change > > and biodiversity," Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group (an international civil > > society organization) reports from Nairobi. "Canada is the bête noire > > of > > climate change negotiations and nobody was surprised to see it stand > > out as > > the main objector to this proposal. The delegation itself was > > embarrassed." > > > "Geoengineering" refers to any large-scale human-made effort to > > intentionally adjust major planetary systems to climate change. It > > includes > > proposals to pump sulphates into the stratosphere to block sunlight or > > blow > > ocean salt spray into clouds to increase their reflectivity. Last week > > it > > emerged that at least one team of engineers and scientists, the Silver > > Lining Project of San Francisco, is looking to run a 10,000 square > > kilometre > > geoengineering test on cloud whitening.(2) ETC Group¹s request to > > Silver > > Lining for clarification on the experiment¹s details has not yet been > > answered. > > > Geoengineering also includes transforming major tracts of land or sea > > in > > order to sequester excess greenhouse gases. Confronted with imminent > > commercial ventures, the 2008 meeting of the Biodiversity Convention > > adopted > > what the German environment minister (who chaired the CBD) called a "de > > facto moratorium² on ocean fertilization. Shortly after its adoption, > > however, another German ministry violated the moratorium with an ocean > > fertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean. The move caused a rift > > within the German cabinet, debate in the Bundestag, an international > > outcry > > and led last week to a strong reaffirmation of the moratorium by > > government > > delegates in Nairobi. > > > "The moratorium on ocean fertilization is stronger than ever," says > > Neth > > Dano of ETC Group, also in Nairobi. "But we expect its promoters to > > strike > > back. Big industry and big science want to press ahead with > > geoengineering > > either as a Œplan B¹, or as a free pass to avoid reducing emissions. > > It's > > the big lie that lets them pretend that we can all carry on drilling > > and > > driving business as usual!" > > > "The geoengineers are going to be furious with this moratorium," Silvia > > Ribeiro acknowledges. "The last thing they want is for the United > > Nations to > > step in. They argue that a handful of governments and corporations > > should be > > free to move ahead on geoengineering experimentation without > > independent, > > international oversight. (3) In March, geoengineers held a by > > invitation-only conference in Asilomar, California to discuss a > > Œvoluntary > > code of conduct¹ that would let them self-regulate their experiments. > > (4) > > Governments here in Nairobi have just told them they have no right to > > control the planet¹s thermostat.² > > > Recognising that geoengineers will be mounting a major lobbying > > offensive > > to prevent the moratorium from being firmly established in Nagoya later > > this > > year, ETC Group has joined with over 100 other civil society > > organisations > > to press the case for a halt to geoengineering experiments. The Hands > > Off > > Mother Earth (HOME) campaign is a global grassroots campaign of > > individuals > > and organisations visible athttp://www.handsoffmotherearth.org > > <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/> . Its supporters include many > > grassroots organisations, international networks of farmers and > > indigenous > > peoples as well as renowned environmentalists and social justice > > campaigners > > such as Vandana Shiva, Bill McKibben, David Suzuki and Naomi Klein. (5) > > > "How dare they claim the right to block the sun? To colour the clouds? > > To > > change the chemistry of the ocean?² exclaims Canadian author Naomi > > Klein who > > is backing the HOME campaign. ³Look at the oil gushing into the Gulf of > > Mexico. If we learn one lesson from this disaster, let it be that we > > cannot > > control the effects of our technology, nor is our technology capable of > > fixing the Earth-disruptions that we unleash. It's time for some > > collective > > humility in the face of awesome natural forces, not more eco-hubris." > > > -30- > > > Notes : > > > 1. The full text of the proposed moratorium in SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body > > for > > Scientific, Technological and Technical Advice) > > UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/L9 is online at > > http://www.cbd.int/sbstta14/meeting/in-session/?tab=2. The relevant > > section reads : > > (w) [Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean > > fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, and in accordance > > with > > the precautionary approach, that no climate-related geo-engineering > > activities 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;] > > > 2. See ETC Group/H.O.M.E. News Release, ³As huge cloud-whitening > > experiment > > goes public, global coalition urges an immediate halt to > > geoengineering² > > 20th May 2010. Online athttp://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5137 > > > 3. See for example Lee Lane of the American Enterprise Institute, > > ³Geoengineering Experiments should not require global agreement², the > > Enterprise Blog, March 30 2010, available > > athttp://blog.american.com/?p=11895or the testimony of Canadian > > scientist > > David Keith before the UK Parliamentary Committee on Science and > > Technology > > hearings on the regulation of geoengineering available at > > > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/2... > > . > > pdf > > > 4. See ETC Group news release, ³Top-down Planet Hackers Call for > > Bottom-up > > Governance² 11th Feb 2010. Online at > > http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073. > > See also the letter from civil society groups opposing the Asilomar > > conference at:http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5080 > > > 5. For more information about the Hands Off Mother Earth Campaign and > > to > > view a gallery of hundreds of individuals expressing their opposition > > to > > geoengineering experiments seehttp://www.handsoffmotherearth.org > > <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/> Images available for picture > > desks. > > > For more information contact: > > > In Nairobi, Kenya: > > Neth Dano, [email protected] > > <http://us.mc1105.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> cell > > & > > SMS +63 917 532 9369 > > Nairobi cell: +254 712 605 622 > > Silvia Ribeiro, [email protected] > > <http://us.mc1105.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > > cell & > > SMS +52 1 55 2653 3330 > > Nairobi cell: +254 712 601 660 > > Molly Kane, [email protected] > > <http://us.mc1105.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> cell > > & > > SMS: +1-613-797 6421 > > Nairobi cell: +254 712 600 644 > > > In Canada: > > Diana Bronson - [email protected] > > <http://us.mc1105.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> ; > > phone > > +1 514 273 6661 cell: +1 514 629 9236 > > Jim Thomas - [email protected] > > <http://us.mc1105.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> phone > > +1 > > 514 273 9994 cell: +1 514 516 5759 > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > 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]<geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief > Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy > 1702 Arlington Blvd. > El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA > Ph: 650.281.9126 > Fax: 510.779.5361 > [email protected]http://www.jiwlp.com > SSRN site:http://ssrn.com/author=240348 > Skype ID: Wil.Burns > > -- > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
