It is my understanding that Normative Jurisprudence Law, such as treaties and conventions, is an exercise in political philosophy. As a layperson, I am very concerned with any political philosophy which calls for a non emergency response to an emergency situation.
1) The Esppo Convention model would be extremely difficult for most smaller nations to comply with on both the financial and science level. Should we provide massive grants? Science and Technical Advisors? Whoops, where do we find the trained Geoengineers to do the evaluations? The intra and intergenerational(?) transfer of wealth for such a model is substantial while producing no... zero... progress towards an actual solution.....for decades! 2) Ultra-hazardous activity liability can not be truly evaluated for SRM by any current or historical equivalent, SRM does not have a radioactive half life! Apples and oranges...This is more of a liability issue concerning the "*Social Fence" (*refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group). 3) Pooling vast amounts of money for largely unverifiable claims is not realistic in todays environment and probably not in tomorrows. Providing regional technical adjustments to the (proven) adversely effected areas (if any) is reasonable and funding for that should be secured. There will always be adjustments with such a global effort. The word "Emergency" should be on the lips of anyone interested in this debate. Emergency Geoengineering has no historical precedent in law and contorting the current (largely) dysfunctional environmental pacts only insures that those familiar with manipulating them will gain. The rest of us will hit a "Social Fence". We need a transformational treaty concept which provides for the development and testing of the science/technology of emergency forms of geoengineering and the means to use it. Coupling this ability to progressive CO2 reduction, unreasonable impact reviews, lengthy negotiations entwined with other legal issues is simply not prudent given the potential sudden nature of climate change. Doing business as usual got us here. Maybe, we should try something different? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
