Hello Vivian, Thank you very much for your comments. I will surely correct our paper to include the two points you mentioned in the next round of the revision.
Best, Masa Sugiyama On Dec 13, 8:47 pm, Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > Masahiro, > > Just a couple of comments on paragraph 3 on page 7 of your paper: > > 1. The London Convention and Protocol (LC/LP) were engaged from 2007 > in discussions on ocean fertilization. The report that I wrote in the > Geoengineering Quarterly provides a full description of the LC/LP > activities in this area and can be found > at:http://www.oxfordgeoengineering.org/pdfs/geoengineering_quarterly_fir.... > > 2. The LC/LP meeting held in October 201- did more than just agree the > assessment framework for Ocean Fertilization. There was also an > extensive discussion about legal options for regulation and an > agreement for an intersessional working group to study a limited > number of these options in 2011. The report of the meeting can be > found through the IMODOCS website that does now have public access to > a large part of it. Go tohttp://docs.imo.org/. You will have to > register to gain access. After that click on the Meetings tab, then > select LC Documents near to the bottom left of the screen and if you > scroll to the bottom of the page you will find document LC 32/15 that > is the Meeting Report. Section 4 in the meeting report plus Annex 7 > cover the ocean fertilisation issue. > > Best wishes > > Chris Vivian > Chairman Scientific Groups of the London Convention and Protocol > > On Nov 30, 3:01 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.
