Stephen: 1, Thanks for alerting us (below) to this scale definition issue in the CBD resolution re (both parts of) Geoengineering. Below, I will give one stab at it. First, some more background. I found the official CBD action at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299
2. The most important part for your question seems to be around footnote 76, which is part of paragraph 8(w), which reads (emphases added): 8(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 76 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; [RWL: One possible legal (I am not a lawyer) escape here (for Biochar and maybe others) is possible through the actions of the Australian government (that I just sent in separately) to officially encourage Biochar - implying (to me, the non-lawyer) that the necessary " ...adequate scientific basis... ", has indeed been established, through their past (maybe ten years? of) Government sponsored "...exception of small scale scientific research studies..." . Were ETC and Ms Bronson to complain of a violation of this resolution, I would expect the Australian government to claim they had the required proof (and I think correctly).] 3. Footnote 76: 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. It is noted 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 . " [RWL: Certainly Biochar (and I think all of CDR) fits this definition. No "precise definition" will be available (and it might exclude afforestation and or reforestation) until there is further UN action - probably not for several more years. However, Biochar (and maybe others) might not qualify as large scale (your question - addressed below) until well after that date. The question of " may affect biodiversity" also will likely not be an escape route, even though Biochar proponents will certainly claim that the "affect" of Biochar will be predominantly positive (and I assume the CBD will want to encourage anything with a positive impact). But this footnote leaves open the issue of "large scale " - which I am sure no Biochar investigator has yet come close to violating. But encouragement through Government incentives might be so construed as already being "large scale"; the Australian support won't begin until December. 4. So with that background from the key CBD document, "large scale" will probably have to be defined in both geographic (hectares) and weight (annual megatonnes C) terms. The latter is maybe the easier to specify - getting up to 0.1% of global anthropocentric levels (10 GtC/yr) would mean about 10 MtC/yr. That would be a very large effort for a single country in the next decade. The paper by Wolff etal, introduced by Greg Rau yesterday, achieved this annual global total in about the year 9 of their projected ramp-up. The question is whether 10 MtC/yr (or an impact of 1/1000 of today's human impact in any single country) is too large or too small? In terms of geography, a comparable number might be arrived at by assuming 10 tC/ha - which would mean an annual impact of 1million ha/yr (100 sqkm new per year - or a square of 10 km x10 km). Growing (rapidly) to this level in 10 years (over maybe 100 "large" countries, each getting up to a 1 sq km) would seem to have given enough time at "small" scale. One would probably not want any individual country to go beyond 1% of their land area - without agreement that the Biochar impacts were definitely supportive of biodiversity I am sure other CDR approaches would have different definitions of small/large - and these above are only off the top of one head - other Biochar proponents will have different views. I look forward to others' thoughts on the "exclusion" periods and on what it means to avoid "large". Stephen - again thanks for opening the question. I am sure the issue is different in your mostly SRM world. What is your answer? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Salter" <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:16:26 AM Subject: Re: [geo] EU Parliament Hi All The next thing they will have to do is define 'large scale'. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 13/10/2011 13:57, J.L. Reynolds wrote: > I've not seen this mentioned on the list. The EU Parliament recently approved > the statement that is "Expresses its opposition to proposals for large scale > geo-engineering" > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0430+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN > > at paragraph 90. This is part of the process of developing a common EU > position going into Rio+20. > According to the New Scientist > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20996-political-backlash-to-geoengineering-begins.html > > "The European Parliament's resolution was pushed through by Kriton Arsenis, a > Greek Socialist MEP. If the other bodies in the European Union approve it, > the anti-geoengineering statement could become part of the EU's negotiating > position for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio > de Janeiro in June 2012. In theory, it could then be included in any > international agreement that comes out of Rio." > > - Jesse > > ----------------------------------------- > Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. > PhD Candidate > Fulbright Fellow > Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society > Tilburg Sustainability Center > Tilburg University, The Netherlands > email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl > http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds > http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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. -- 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.
