Andrew and list (adding two new ccs): 1. I found the full article (for free) at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2165372
It is quite complete - 46 pages, 265 footnotes (a good many fewer references - but a lot) 2. Here are the final five paragraphs: IV. TOWARD GEOENGINEERING GOVERNANCE <skip many pages> E. The Scientists Decisions concerning geoengineering must be based on sound science. Proponents of geoengineering propose to make massive, possibly planetarywide, changes to the earth’s climate system. Before any such proposals are allowed to move forward, they must be subject to a careful, independent, and neutral scientific assessment of their feasibility, likely effectiveness, and risks. If geoengineering is a necessary part of the solution to our climate problem (and we fear it may be), then international decisions about approving geoengineering must be structured to ensure that approved projects are those that are most likely to succeed, that the projects do not conflict with one another, and that special pleading or political influence does not trump science in the approval process.258 International environmental treaties seek to secure scientific input into the international policy-making process in a variety of ways.259 We think the concerns noted above require a very strong mechanism for science advice in any geoengineering agreement. A scientific advisory committee should be created and given power to review and make recommendations concerning any geoengineering proposal that is presented to the international governing body.260 Ideally, no action could be taken without the concurrence of this body, but such a requirement might overly politicize the group and would certainly complicate negotiations concerning its composition. Therefore, it may be preferable to make its decision recommendatory only. With respect to composition, the minimum requirements should be that the individuals serving on the panel are persons of recognized scientific standing with expertise in climate change, geoengineering, weather modification, or the human/social impacts of climate instability. To ensure the independence of members, they must be expressly authorized to serve in their individual capacities and not as government representatives.261 A scientist’s home state should be expressly precluded from giving the scientist instructions or seeking to influence the scientist’s decision. 262 Finally, reports and recommendations of the body should be publicly available, which will allow for scrutiny and analysis by other independent scientists.263 V. CONCLUSION We have no illusions that the governance roadmap we have provided in this paper is comprehensive; we know that many details must be worked out in negotiations. Nevertheless, we believe that the principles and basic governance structure sketched out above could provide the foundation for a workable agreement to bring geoengineering under coherent and effective international control. We hope in a future paper to offer more detailed suggestions about the content of a treaty on this subject. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand described a composer named Richard Halley who, like many of Rand’s protagonists, was a man of transcendent and unappreciated genius. Halley wrote an opera based on the myth of Phaëthon. As anyone familiar with Rand’s work will probably guess, Halley’s operatic version of the myth departs from the Greek story in one significant way: Phaëthon controls the chariot and completes his flight; humankind triumphs even against the forces of gods and nature.264 We think it is almost inevitable that humankind will seek to fly Phaëthon’s chariot. We must hope that Rand’s optimistic and utopian modern mythology is more prophetic than the fatalistic vision of the Greeks and Romans. We must also work as best we can to ensure the enterprise’s success. 256 Martinez-Diaz, supra note 246; Woods & Lombardi, supra note 232. 257 See Buira, supra note 248. 258 Financial muscle and political influence is already lining up behind certain geoengineering solutions, and leading scientists are acquiring financial stakes in particular techniques that may influence their future advocacy of particular geoengineering proposals. See generally Vidal, supra note 132. 259 See, e.g., Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution [LRTAP], art. 7, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302 U.N.T.S. 217 (encouraging research and research cooperation with respect to air pollution); Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer art. 7, Sept. 16, 1987, 1522 U.N.T.S. 3 (establishment of expert panels to conduct scientific assessment of measures to control ozone-depleting substances); UNFCCC art. 5, supra note 178 (research support and cooperation); id., art. 9 (establishment of intergovernmental body for scientific assessment); Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade art. 5–7 & 18, Sept. 11, 1998, 2244 U.N.T.S. 337 (establishing a Chemical Review Committee, consisting of experts in chemical management, to advise parties on listing of chemicals in treaty annexes). 260 See Long & Winickoff, supra note 214. 261 A model for this approach at the international level can be found in the World Trade Organization (“WTO”)’s provisions for dispute settlement. See WTO, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, art. 8, para. 9 (1994), available at www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispv_e/dsv_e.htm. “Panelists shall serve in their individual capacities and not as government representatives, nor as representatives of any organization. Members shall therefore not give them instructions nor seek to influence them as individuals with regard to matters before a panel.” Id. 262 Again, the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding provides a model. See id. 263 David Victor argues that international assessment of geoengineering solutions should “enlist multiple strong assessment institutions rather than a single, global, and weak institution. A few competent groups could prepare assessments in parallel—ideally groups that are connected to active scientific research in the area—and then compare the assessments.” Victor, supra note 29, at 330. We are in basic agreement with Victor’s belief that “multiple strong assessment institutions” are desirable, and our proposal for a treaty-based advisory group is not intended to, nor would it, preclude rigorous assessment by scientific experts at the national level. To the contrary, we would expect research and assessment activities to be ongoing, and we would expect international comparison of the results of those assessments, pursuant to the information sharing and related norms discussed earlier in this paper. 3. There is almost no discussion of specific geoengineering approaches. But, unusually, there is plenty on CDR, as well as the usual majority emphasis on SRM. However the word "biochar" never once appears. There are 2-3 sentences that one can interpret as possibly including biochar . But I could make a pretty strong argument that the concept of biochar was intentionally left out - which would of course please thousands of biochar researchers . 4. In order to check on the authors' intent re biochar, I have included the two authors in this extension of Andrew's message. I hope they will comment on the ethics of, and needed regulation of, the only CDR approach that additionally supplies energy and improves soils (and food), with numerous out-year benefits, (and the research is NOT being driven much by biochar's CDR characteristics) . Also, I ask whether failing to use the word "biochar" might have been intentional (biochar being well known in the state of Iowa). 5. In sum, I think this paper worthy of more discussion on this list. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:20:25 PM Subject: [geo] Published in Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems: Geo-Engineering For Global Warming Needs International Laws With Teeth http://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_global_warming_needs_international_laws_teeth-100073 Geo-Engineering For Global Warming Needs International Laws With Teeth <rest snipped as not being needed> -- 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.
