Josh, I don't see joint governance leading to turf wars at all provide it is clear where responsibity lies for what.
Regarding other types of marine geoengineering, I was thinking of included (among others): 1. Increasing the alkalinity (and the pH) of the ocean and thus uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by: - Adding e.g. calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide or calcium carbonate directly to the ocean- see papers by Kheshgi (1995), Harvey (2008) and Rau and Caldeira (1999) and http://www.cquestrate.com/ - Enhancing the weathering of silicate rocks on land - see paper by House et al. (2007) and http://www.seas.harvard.edu/matsci/people/aziz/research/electrochem-weathering/electrochem-weathering.html 2. Increasing downwelling of carbon through increasing carbon concentrations in the downwelling water. See the papers by Marchetti (1977) and Zhou and Flynn (2005) and the abstract at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/pt637l16gt5r7023/ 3. Depositing crop wastes on the deep seabed - see the paper by Strand and Benford (2009) and http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/77a63eb86fca311c 4. - Bright Water - see http://jetlib.com/news/tag/russell-seitz/ References: House, K.Z., House, C.H., Schrag, D.P. and Aziz, M.J. (2007) Electrochemical acceleration of chemical weathering as an energetically feasible approach to mitigating anthropgenic climate change. Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 41, 8464-8470. Kheshgi, H.S. (1995) Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing ocean alkalinity. Energy Vol. 20, 915-922. Marchetti, C. (1977) On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Climatic Change Vol. 1, 59-68. Rau, G.H. and Caldeira, K. (1999) Enhanced carbonate dissolution: A means of sequestering waste CO2 as ocean bicarbonate. Energy Conservation and Management Vol. 40, 1803-1813. Strand, S.E. and Benford, G. (2009) Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 43, 1000-1007. Zhou, S. and Flynn, P. (2005) Geoengineering downwelling ocean currents: A cost assessment. Climatic Change Vol. 71, 203-220. Also see abstract at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/pt637l16gt5r7023/ Regarding how could cloud brightening be regarding as dumping, as I understand it it is likely that a significant proportion of the salt particle ejected into the atmosphere would fall back to the ocean surface. Bit tenuos perhaps. However, there is a precedent for this - ocean incineration due to the deposit of pollutants on the sea from clouds of burnt gases. As regards environmental protection, climate mitogation would not help deal with any immediate damage to the marine environment from the marine geoengineering activity itself. Chris Vivian. On Jun 8, 11:19 pm, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > Very interesting idea about joint governance, although it seems to me > this might well lead to a classic regulatory turf war between the two > bodies. You mention the LC/LP in the context of all marine > geoengineering, not just ocean fertilization. Does this mean that LC/ > LP would have jurisdiction over technologies such as marine cloud > whitening? Is there any move within LC/LP in this direction? How > could a strategy like marine cloud whitening be interpreted as > dumping? > > Your point about environmental protection as opposed to climate policy > is well taken, but I would tend to view climate policy (mitigation and > intervention) and marine protection as identical. Assuming that a > given geoengineering strategy is intended to help stabilize the global > climate system, one ultimate effect would be to protect and conserve > the marine environment. I'm not sure how helpful this distinction > will be in the future. > > Josh Horton > [email protected] > > On Jun 7, 3:28 am, Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ... > > 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.
