Adam
Thanks for quick response.
The Geoengineering list archives are at:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/geoengineering/Fi3rdlGvTzI
Advocates on this list for all forms of Geoengineering. I find it the best
discussion group for papers like yours. Several messages each day.
For biochar, see:
www.biochar-international.org
Ron
On Jan 2, 2013, at 9:21 PM, Adam Abelkop <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would you mind providing us with something more in terms of an introduction
> to yourselves and your project(s)? We might then be able to provide a more
> thorough or direct answer.
>
> Best wishes,
> Adam
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]>
> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
> 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>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Abelkop, JD
> Doctoral Student in Public Policy, Indiana University
> School of Public & Environmental Affairs
> Department of Political Science
> [email protected]
> (770) 241-1145
--
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.
