With reference to Chris's response to my messages about the proper
province
for governance, I think co-governance is an interesting idea. There
hasn't
been a lot of precedence in this context, but it might be an
extremely
effective approach, so many thanks for expanding my horizons in this
context! One question I would ask is how this would work
empirically should
a conflict arise between the regimes. As you point out, many
developing
countries view the LC as largely a North/corporate regime, fairly
or not.
I guess we would have to agree in advance that the LC's
assessment should prevail given its expertise in assessing impacts of
stressors on the marine environment, but it might be hard sell. wil
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:34 AM,
<[email protected]<geoengineering
%2bnore...@googlegro ups.com>
wrote:
Today's Topic Summary
Group:http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics
- New study on cloud albedo
enhancement<#129172064e1bd9f8_group_thread_0>[1 Update]
- New Clive Hamilton piece on
geoengineering<#129172064e1bd9f8_group_thread_1>[1 Update]
- Digest for [email protected] - 4 Messages in 4
Topics<#129172064e1bd9f8_group_thread_2>[1 Update]
Topic: New study on cloud albedo enhancement<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/a4dbf849f6b0ecb7
>
Wil Burns <[email protected]> Jun 07 11:52AM -0700
^<#129172064e1bd9f8_digest_top>
For those of you haven't seen this yet, there's an interesting
recent
study
in Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics (
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/4133/2010/acp-10-4133-2010.pdf)
assessing
the impacts of marine cloud albedo enhancement using a global
aerosol
transport model. Among the takeaways from the study:
- Changes in cloud drop number concentration (CDNC) were small
(20% or
less), and in one of the four regions studied (North Pacific,
as well
as off
the coast of Chile), even negative. The authors argue this was
attributable
to the fact that particles suppress in-cloud supersaturation,
preventing
existing aerosol particles from forming cloud drops;
- A run with 5x higher emissions showed much greater CDNC
changes, but
the median was still below that found in previous studies;
- The study showed substantial differences in CDNC between and
within
regions, in distinction to far more regional homogeneity in
previous
studies
It would be interesting to hear the take of some of the folks
on this
list
with expertise in this context. wil
--
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
Topic: New Clive Hamilton piece on geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/54a613415891c429
>
Wil Burns <[email protected]> Jun 07 05:30AM -0700
^<#129172064e1bd9f8_digest_top>
FYI:
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/dr_stran
...
.
wil
--
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
Topic: Digest for [email protected] - 4 Messages
in 4
Topics <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/ff1c90fda6351ec3
>
Chris <[email protected]> Jun 07 12:28AM -0700
^<#129172064e1bd9f8_digest_top>
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
--
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...@go oglegroups.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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
