Don't the representatives to these various international bodies have to vote
the will of their governments? For example, it would be unlikely that
country A's rep to the LC or LP would have a different response to OIF than
its rep to the UNFCCC. And since there is such overlap between the two
organizations, then in theory, they should come to the same conclusion. If
OIF is to be used to generate carbon credits, UNFCCC should have some say so
over it, at least the part dealing with credits. Remember, the idea behind
OIF is that it will remove CO2 from the air, albeit indirectly, by adding
something to the water. Albedo enhancement strategies have nothing to do
with ocean disposal, so I don't see a role for the LC or LP in that area,
unless it involves increasing the whiteness of the seawater itself by adding
some chemicals for which there is no technology proposed. Having all
existing bodies like the UNFCCC, the LC/LP and others, Arctic Council, etc.
involved in approving field trials and full scale deployments makes sense in
that each one has its own expertise, but as the UNFCCC is the largest of all
by number of members, it would seem that it should be the final arbiter.
Countries who don't like the outcome can then run to the Security Council
and demand redress there. And like an appeals court, the Security Council
is not obligated to hear their petition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <[email protected]>
To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:01
Subject: [geo] Re: Digest for [email protected] - 3 Messages
in 3 Topics
Wil raised an interesting question "What would happen in a case where
the LC deemed an experimental approach safe under the risk assessment
protocol being developed and the parties to the UNFCCC did not?". I
assume Wil was referring to a marine environmental issue but I find it
difficult to conceive how the UNFCCC could come to such a view since
the issue would be outside its remit and area of expertise. However.
in my personal view the LC/LP view should prevail in such
circumstances. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is of course
the pre-eminent legal instrument in matters to do with the sea and
might be seen as the ultimate arbiter in such disputes. The LC/LP
should only permit operational geoengineering activities for climate
mitigation purposes if they have been clearly approved by the UNFCCC.
While some may see the LC/LP as a North/corporate regime, developing
countries make up about half the contracting parties to one or both
instruments. It is true that we do not get widespread attendence at
meetings from developing countries, probably main due to the cost of
travelling to the meetings. However, if a country is a member of the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO), then there there is no
membership fee to join the LC/LP - preferably the latter as the more
modern instrument - but there are clearly costs in setting up
legislation and licensing regimes in the countries to meet the
requirements of the instruments as well as travelling to meetings.
Chris Vivian, Chairman of the Scientific Groups of the London
Convention and Protocol
[email protected]
On Jun 8, 4:53 pm, Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
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...@googlegroups.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...@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- 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.
--
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.
