With reference to Wil Burns comments on 20 and 25 May about governance of ocean fertilisation activities, I would disagree that the UNFCCC by itself would be the most appropriate body for governing ocean fertilisation or other marine geoengineering activities. The key issue that Wil does not mention in the context of ocean fertilisation activities, is the protection of the marine environment and this is the reason that the London Convention/Protocol (LC/LP) became involved with the issue. It is clearly within its remit (Article I of the LC and article 2 of the LP) and it is also clearly outside the remit of the UNFCCC. While the LC/LP may only have 92 states party to one or both of the instruments compared to the universal regime of the UNFCCC, that is not “an extremely limited membership”. When you take account of the number of land-locked states in the world – around 40 – the LC/LP membership has more than 50% of the coastal states in the world. The same point also applies with respect to the CBD that is in any case not a regulatory body. While some may regard the LC/LP as a “tool of the North”, those instruments have a significant number of developing countries as contracting parties and some of them are very active in meetings. In addition, there is an active programme to encourage additional states who are not LC or LP members to sign up to the LP as the main instrument for the future.
There are 2 separate issues that need to be addressed with respect to governance of operational marine geoengineering activities (as opposed to research studies) - protection of the marine environment and regulation of climate mitigation activities. The LC/LP is the appropriate body with the necessary expertise for the former while the UNFCCC is clearly the appropriate body with the required expertise for the latter. Thus, I suggest that it might be most appropriate and efficient for the UNFCCC to co-ordinate all climate mitigation aspects of marine geoengineering, including determining what activities are acceptable for climate mitigation purposes, claims for credits etc while the LC/LP regulates those activities determined as acceptable by the UNFCCC in order to protect the marine environment from harm i.e. a form of joint governance for ocean fertilisation or other marine geoengineering activities. This approach is consistent with the principles of lex specialis that Wil states in his posts. It also needs to be made clear that the current LC/LP approach only deals with the regulation of research activities since the non-binding resolution agreed in 2008 agreed “that given the present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed. To this end, such other activities should be considered as contrary to the aims of the Convention and Protocol and not currently qualify for any exemption from the definition of dumping in Article III.1(b) of the Convention and Article 1.4.2 of the Protocol”. It maybe that the UNFCCC does not need to be involved in the regulation of research activities, although it would clearly be interested in the outcomes of any research so that it can determine what activities are acceptable for climate mitigation purposes. I agree with Wil that we need to move rather swiftly to establish appropriate governance regimes for such activities and this is what the LC/LP are currently trying to do for ocean fertilisation in order to protect the marine environment. Chris Vivian Chairman, Scientific Groups of the London Convention and Protocol On May 25, 3:51 pm, Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > In response to Josh's comment about the UNFCCC's track record, I think > that's a bit unfair. The commitments coming out of Copenhagen substantially > bend the curve, and at the higher end, almost get us to the 2C guardrail. > Now, we obviously have to insert the substantial caveats, i.e. the Accord is > not legally binding, and the Parties may not achieve the upper end of the > commitments. But, this is an iterative process, and there's still hope that > the parallel AWG processes may get us where we need to be. What's the > alternative? Unilateral/bilateral pursuit of geoengineering strategies could > undermine trust even further and scupper efforts to cooperate to reduce > emissions, which could put us in a far worse place, since, as we know, > geoengineering is a band aid, not a long-term solution. And, as for other > multilateral regimes, I guess I would ask which one makes sense? The London > Dumping Convention doesn't make sense; it has an extremely limited > membership, is perceived to be a tool of the North by many countries in the > South, and doesn't address the issues I discussed in my original post, i.e. > scientific expertise in this context, the coordination of geoengineering and > mitigation/adaptation strategies, and possible claims for credits. The > Environmental Modification Convention suffers from even more infirmities. > So, what regime? You could look to UNCLOS for some of the schemes, but > again, I find the UNFCCC to make more sense when one applies the salutary > principles of lex specialis. wil > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:10 AM, > <[email protected]<geoengineering%2bnore...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > wrote: > > Today's Topic Summary > > > Group:http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics > > > - Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation Management > > section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices > > report<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_0>[1 Update] > > - Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's > > Climate Choices > > report<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_1>[1 Update] > > - Oil leak solutions, > > Innocentive<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_2>[1 Update] > > - Digest for [email protected] - 7 Messages in 4 > > Topics<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_3>[1 Update] > > > Topic: Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation > > Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices > > report<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/fb6bada7bdb580d0> > > > Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> May 24 09:47PM -0700 > > ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top> > > > Folks, > > > I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the > > National > > Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report has received > > almost no comment in this group or in the media. > > > This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have > > weighed > > in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research into > > geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The National > > Academies call for research into solar radiation management and > > everyone > > treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?". > > > (Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider: > > > http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-re... > > ) > > > I find it amazing that the US National Academies call for research into > > geoengineering options and it is met with a yawn. Have we come to the > > point > > where nearly everybody (except those involved in the CBD process) > > thinks it > > is obvious this research is necessary? > > > I think we have reached an important new milestone. Researching solar > > radiation management has ceased to be controversial (although field > > testing > > and deployment no doubt continues to be so). > > > Comments? > > > Best, > > > Ken > > > PS. Here is an extract. > > > However, the various SRM proposals and their consequences need to be > > examined, as long as such research does not replace or reduce research > > on > > fundamental understanding of climate change or other approaches to > > limiting > > climate change or adapting to its impacts. Some key SRM-related > > research > > needs, discussed in Chapter 15, include the following: > > > - Improve understanding of the physical potential and technical > > feasibility of SRM and other geoengineering approaches. > > > - Evaluate the potential consequences of SRM approaches on other > > aspects > > of the Earth system, including ecosystems on land and in the oceans. > > > - Develop and evaluate systems of governance that would provide a model > > for how to decide whether, when, and how to intentionally intervene in > > the > > climate system. > > > - Measure and evaluate public attitudes and develop approaches that > > effectively inform and engage the public in decisions regarding SRM. > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Caldeira < > > > -- > > 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> > > > John Nissen <[email protected]> May 22 03:05AM -0700 > > ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top> > > > Hi Ken, Andrew, and everybody, > > > I am feeling the heat! > > > I am in Finland with Albert Kallio, and it is extraordinarily hot - > > with risk of sunburn, as sun relentlessly beats down from early in the > > morning till late at night. This is the kind of weather they expect > > in July. Albert has just pointed me to the cryosphere today web site: > > > http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ > > > I think we have an emergency now. The Arctic sea ice is extremely > > thin in many places, and whole sections could melt away this summer, > > since it is only May. We could have a record minimum sea ice extent > > this year, lower even than 2007. There is no sign of a recovery. > > Perhaps even worse, there is extraordinarily little snow, on Siberia > > and other Arctic and sub-Arctic land masses, compared to the same time > > of year for previous years. > > > If this isn't an emergency, I don't know what is. The fuse on the > > time-bomb is lit. We may have left it too late. Even the most > > drastic use of stratospheric aerosols may not be enough to prevent > > catastrophic warming of the Arctic. How much worse does it have to > > get before we act? What sense is there for further delay? > > > 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. > > > Topic: Oil leak solutions, > > Innocentive<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/d2920f384a780463> > > > david kubiak <[email protected]> May 21 05:33PM -0700 > > ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top> > > > Cool (and literal) grassroots solution for the Gulf oil spill > > > http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/ > > > -- > > 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: Digest for [email protected] - 7 Messages in 4 > > Topics <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/faf282e2cb717108> > > > Josh <[email protected]> May 21 04:23AM -0700 > > ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top> > > > 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 > > > -- > > 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. > > ... > > read more »- 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.
