Of course, ETC's claim of a "de facto moratorium" is misleading, at
best.
The CBD has provided a consistent definition of *geoengineering*. The
language is
*any technologies that deliberately** reduce solar insolation or
**increase
carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may
affect
biodiversity** (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels
when
it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere)
**should
be considered as forms of geo-engineering*
Since large-scale reforestation would *deliberately increase carbon
sequestration on a large scale and affect biodiversity*, large-scale
reforestation would be considered a form of geo-engineering under this
definition.
My understanding is that this was discussed in Nagoya, but it was felt
that
large-scale reforestation would fall under the exception when
* 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*
Thus, it appears to me that* for the first time in history, a recognized
international body (the CBD) has considered a form of geoengineering and
found it acceptable for deployment.
*
----
Beyond the spin-doctoring efforts of ETC, the underlying principles
behind
the adopted language -- that we want to protect biodiversity, diminish
environmental risk, and develop appropriate safeguards governing
experiments
that could potentially have significant adverse impact on
biodiversity --
are exemplary.
The main problem is that the adopted language is a bit sloppy. For
example,
there is the phrase "may affect biodiversity", but of course everything
affects everything so one could say that anything and everything *may
affect
biodiversity* (even silly press releases from ETC). However, if this
phrase
is understood to mean "*may significantly and adversely affect
biodiversity*",
then we are close to being on the same page.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212
[email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
@kencaldeira
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Diana Bronson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> See news release below from the ETC Group at the CBD negotiations
in > Nagoya
> and watch the press conference
<http://webcast.cop10.go.jp/index.asp> of
> ETC Group explaining the moratorium.
> News Release
> 29 October 2010
>www.etcgroup.org
> *Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan
> Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked*
> NAGOYA, Japan - In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN
> Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial
> meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and
> experiments. "Any private or public experimentation or adventurism
> intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in
violation of > this
> carefully crafted UN consensus," stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American
> Director of ETC Group.
> The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week
> meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments
to > ensure
> that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the
> environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and
> economic
> impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as the
> socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to
> report
> back on various geoengineering proposals and potential
intergovernmental
> regulatory measures.
> The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008
moratorium on
> ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn,
put > the
> brakes on a litany of failed "experiments" - both public and
private - > to
> sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans' depths by
spreading
> nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a
> range
> of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via
> large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer
> space
> that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.
> "This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the
> United Nations where it belongs," said ETC Group Executive Director
Pat
> Mooney. "This decision is a victory for common sense, and for >
precaution.
> It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on
> geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a
small
> group of countries that establish self-serving 'voluntary
guidelines' on
> climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had
in > some
> policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this
decision. > The
> UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation
> Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world's >
governments
> have collectively decided that future deliberations on
geoengineering > should
> take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table
and > where
> civil society can watch and influence what they are doing."
> Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential
threat > that
> deployment - or even field testing - of geoengineering technologies
> poses to
> the protection of biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in
long > and
> difficult late night sessions of a "Friends of the chair" group, >
attended by
> ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October
> 2010.
> The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the
final
> text "a highly delicate compromise." All that remains to do now is
gavel > it
> through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).
> "The decision is not perfect," said Neth Dano of ETC Group
Philippines.
> "Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim >
definition
> of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon
> Capture
> and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will
be > ample
> opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate
> techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to
important
> debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A
change > of
> course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way
forward."
> In Nagoya, Japan
> Pat Mooney: [email protected] (Mobile +1-613-240-0045)
> Silvia Ribeiro: [email protected] (Mobile (local): + 81 90 5036
4659)
> Neth Dano: [email protected] (Mobile: + 63-917-532-9369)
> In Montreal, Canada:
> Diana Bronson: [email protected] (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236)
> Jim Thomas: [email protected] (Mobile: +1-514-516-5759)
> Note to Editors:
> The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied
> below:
> Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
> 8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national
> circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and
> processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, >
sustainably
> use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while
contributing > to
> climate-change mitigation and adaptation:
> ....
> (w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean
> fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence
of > science
> based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory >
mechanisms
> for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary
approach > and
> Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering
> activities[1] that may affect biodiversity 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,
with > the
> exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be
> conducted
> in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the
Convention, > and
> only if they are justified by the need to gather specific
scientific > data
> and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential
impacts > on
> the environment;
> [1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of
> geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that
> deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon
sequestration > from
> the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity
(excluding
> carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures
carbon > dioxide
> before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as
forms > of
> geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological
> Diversity
> until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar
> insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy
received on > a
> given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is
> defined
> as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool
> other
> than the atmosphere.
> AND
> 9 9. Requests the Executive Secretary to:
> ....
> (o) Compile and synthesize available scientific information, and
views > and
> experiences of indigenous and local communities and other
stakeholders, > on
> the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and
> associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and
options on
> definitions and understandings of climate-related geo-engineering >
relevant
> to the Convention on Biological Diversity and make it available for
> consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, >
Technical
> and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the
Conference > of
> the Parties;
> (p) Taking into account the possible need for science based global,
> transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms,
...
read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
