Dear Dr Sugiyama Thank you.
A few comments on the report. On Pg 5 Table 1 - Proposed methods - Fertilize the oceans with iron to enhance photosynthesis, which drawsdown atmospheric CO2 (ocean fertilization). Why restrict the issue to only iron? A better wording would have been - Oceans naturally sequester large amounts of CO2, methods to enhance and supplement this natural sequestration. Page 10 1. States are asked to ensure that no geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place. It would have been good to add the work 'adversely' before affect. Geoengineering that may benefit biodiversity is also possible. Human intervention does not always have a negative impact on nature, it may sometimes be beneficial. I know that this is against the experience of the past 250 years and is now difficult to believe. Geoengineering is being interpreted as people vs nature. This need not be so, it can well be people and nature living in harmony. best regards Bhaskar On Nov 30, 8:01 am, Masa Sugiyama <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > We just finished our new discussion paper on CBD COP10 geoengineeering > decision. You can download it from here. > <http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/serc/research_re/10013.html> > (Excuse me for a duplicate posting, but as far as I remember, the > membership > differs between geoengineering and climate intervention google > groups. > Correct me if I'm wrong.) > > Comparing the decision with LC/LP decisions and other resolutions at > CBD shows that the language was quite weak (i.e., no-binding > guidance) from the outset, and got weaker when adopted. The final > language discourages deployment, while allowing for scientific > research that satisfy conditions (to be clarified yet). It turned > out to be a reasonable outcome, we believe, but the negotiation > process was not well informed and was precarious. Inputs from > scientific bodies like IPCC are vitally needed. > > Any comments are welcome. > > Best, > Masa Sugiyama > > Interpretation of CBD COP10 decision on geoengineering > Masahiro Sugiyama and Taishi Sugiyama > SERC Discussion Paper 10013 > Date : 2010 > > ABSTRACT > The delegates at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties > (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) discussed > geoengineering, the "deliberate large-scale manipulation of the > planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change," in > addition to main topics such as biodiversity conservation targets and > access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. > The draft decision contained a language to preclude geoengineering > including its research, although it was a non-binding guidance. The > agreed decision added numerous qualifiers and is complicated. It > requests countries that "no climate-related geo-engineering activities > that may affect biodiversity take place," in the absence of proper > scientific knowledge and governance, while allowing for "small scale > scientific research studies --- in a controlled setting." The decision > also gives a tentative definition of geoengineering. > Climate geoengineering is intended to counteract global warming by > either reflecting sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the > atmosphere. Although it is not an alternative to emissions reductions, > scientists are paying increasing attention to this set of techniques > because the slow progress of emissions reduction might lead to a > possibility of "dangerous" climate change. > At the COP10 in Nagoya, the delegates were not well informed about > geoengineering, and negotiations were conducted in haste without > proper scientific consideration. > The following two points are particularly important with regard to > the science of geoengineering: (1) There are two categories of > geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide > removal (CDR). The science and ecological impact vastly differ between > the technologies, and it is difficult to impose a uniform regulation > on geoengineering; (2) Owing to large uncertainties in the science of > climate change, even a very stringent emissions reduction does not > eliminate the risk of "dangerous" climate change. Emissions reductions > would be too slow to counter it because of the inertia of the climate > system. A blanket ban, as originally conceived, would not have been a > wise option if one admitted a scenario of "dangerous" climate change. > Viewed in this light, the agreed decision is a reasonable outcome, > though the negotiation process was precarious. > Geoengineering is likely to emerge as a crucial topic for > environmental negotiations in the future. The Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change is convening an expert meeting in June 2011. More > efforts like this are necessary to better inform policymakers and > citizens. > > -- > Masahiro Sugiyama > Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry > Socio-Economic Research Center > 2-11-1 Iwadokita, Komae-shi, Tokyo 201-8511 Japan > [email protected] > +81-3-3480-2111 -- 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.
