A few gems from below: "With mitigation efforts apparently failing to deliver, and the costs of adapting to climate change growing disproportionately as global temperatures rise, 'remediation' in the form of geoengineering is increasingly being considered as a back-up plan."
"Apparently failing"? - record increases in CO2 emissions occurred last year and there's no end in sight. How about geoengineering as the only plan? What is the viable option if nothing else is working?? "With geoengineering for climate change still almost entirely at the speculative and theoretical stage, its potential effects – whether harmful or beneficial – are still largely unknown." Since when are the climate and ocean acidification effects of stabilizing or reducing air CO2 conc (CDR) speculative? "the American Meteorological Society (AMS), for example, defines it [geoengineering] simply as 'deliberately manipulating physical, chemical or biological aspects of the Earth system', without specifying the ultimate goal of such manipulation." So given that we now know that BAU is deliberately manipulating physical, chemical and biological aspects of the Earth system, where are the ethics police when you need them? "The most promising geoengineering approach is stratospheric aerosol injection, but it is also potentially the most dangerous, especially with regard to ozone depletion and acid rain." More dangerous than BAU? Impossible to engineer aerosol injection to avoid ozone depletion and acid rain? "The intent of the British Columbian project was specifically to enhance salmon fisheries rather than to develop a better understanding of climate modification." The stated intent of the BC project was both to get carbon credits and to enhance salmon. The problem here is not intent, the problem is that the project was conducted in a way that the efficacy and well as the negative impacts if the Fe addition will probably never be learned. Meanwhile, the transfer of wealth from indians to entrepeneurs seemed to work pretty well. "Moreover, it may be just as hard to mobilise research and resources for large-scale geoengineering as it is to limit or reduce emissions." Well, since we know that the current efforts to reduce emissions are failing, perhaps it's time to invest a fraction of this effort in other ideas just to test the preceding assumption. Again, what's the better alternative? etc. -Greg ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> To: geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, January 4, 2013 2:18:12 AM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering science - International institute for Strategic Studies PDF http://www.iiss.org/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=71853&type=full&servicetype=Attachment Link http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-18-2012/december/geoengineering-rules-needed-for-climate-altering-science/ Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering science The dumping in July 2012 of 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean by a private company, in an effort to stimulate phytoplankton growth, has exposed the limitations of current legislation on efforts to alter the Earth's systems, known as 'geoengineering'. Though such technologies could play an important part in global efforts against climate change, the lack of a legal or regulatory framework is hampering responsible scientific research into geoengineering, while allowing 'rogue' research to proceed. Described by journalists as 'the world's biggest geoengineering experiment', the iron sulphate dump took place 200 nautical miles off the coast of British Columbia, Canada. The company behind it was founded by an indigenous community on the island of Haida Gwaii, whose attempt at 'ocean fertilisation' was intended to revive salmon fisheries. Satellite images suggested that the result was a 10,000 square kilometre plankton bloom. However, the experiment may have violated at least two international agreements. The project was proposed and carried out by Russ George, an American businessman whose previous abortive attempts at ocean fertilisation off the Galapagos and Canary islands had led to the formal extension of the London Convention and Protocol on marine dumping and the Convention on Biological Diversity to cover such activities. Parties to the London Convention and Protocol condemned the project in a formal statement in November. Why geoengineering? Ocean fertilisation is just one of a wide range of remedies involving geoengineering that have been proposed to arrest the continuing rise in global temperatures. The United Nations Environment Programme's 2012 Emissions Report concluded that even if all countries met their full reduction commitments, in 2020 global emissions would still be 8–13 gigatonnes equivalent of carbon dioxide above the level likely to prevent global warming from climbing higher than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. (A rise of more than this amount is considered dangerous.) This 'emissions gap' is larger than that reported in the 2011 report, principally due to a greater than expected rise in emissions as a result of economic growth. It looks increasingly unlikely that the gap can be bridged. And if this is the case, global warming is likely to exceed 3°C and perhaps as much as 5°C by the end of the century – a rise that is widely seen as having severe consequences. With mitigation efforts apparently failing to deliver, and the costs of adapting to climate change growing disproportionately as global temperatures rise, 'remediation' in the form of geoengineering is increasingly being considered as a back-up plan. In Geoengineering the Climate, a seminal report published by Britain's leading scientific body, the Royal Society, in 2009, geoengineering is defined as 'deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts'. Scientists have long imagined engineering the climate on a planetary scale, although mostly in highly speculative contexts such as altering other planets – Mars or Venus – to make them more like Earth. In 1877 an American scientist suggested re-routing the warm Pacific Ocean Kuroshio current through the Bering Strait to warm the Arctic by over 15°C, and in 1912 a bill was introduced in the US Senate to study a proposal to divert the Gulf Stream by means of a 200-mile jetty to change the climate of America's eastern seaboard. Thus geoengineering as a concept is not restricted to diminishing climate change, and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), for example, defines it simply as 'deliberately manipulating physical, chemical or biological aspects of the Earth system', without specifying the ultimate goal of such manipulation. Unlike the Royal Society, the AMS definition does not specify that any intervention should be 'large-scale'. This can be an important distinction, both legally and in terms of policy approaches. Intent, too, is important; some proposed geoengineering approaches overlap with local or regional weather-modification techniques, such as cloud seeding to increase rainfall, which have been in use for decades. The intent of the British Columbian project was specifically to enhance salmon fisheries rather than to develop a better understanding of climate modification. Possible approaches Proposals for climate-change-focused geoengineering fall into two broad categories: reducing levels of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere; and managing solar radiation to induce cooling by reflecting sunlight. Possible techniques include large-scale land-use changes; sequestration of carbon in the form of biomass; ocean fertilisation; altering ocean circulation patterns; direct capture of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the ambient air; enhanced weathering of rocks (which removes carbon dioxide from the air); spreading or dispersing minerals in soil or oceans; brightening buildings and painting roofs white to reflect sunlight; promoting cloud formation; injecting particulates into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight; and space-based lenses or mirrors for the same purpose. The first field experiments in ocean fertilisation were performed in 1993, but few field trials of other proposed techniques have been undertaken. Even the ocean-fertilisation studies were not specifically designed to gather data or demonstrate proof of concept for altering the climate. Rather, they represented basic scientific research into ocean ecosystems. With geoengineering for climate change still almost entirely at the speculative and theoretical stage, its potential effects – whether harmful or beneficial – are still largely unknown. The AMS noted that 'geoengineering must be viewed with caution because manipulating the Earth system has considerable potential to trigger adverse and unpredictable consequences' – as indeed has been demonstrated by man-made climate change. But setting aside any potential negative consequences, the Royal Society generally assesses using stratospheric aerosols to scatter sunlight back to space as the most promising technology in terms of cost, effectiveness and timing. Other leading prospects are increasing forest cover, as well as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at source. Both reforestation and afforestation – the conversion of previously open land into forest – are being actively promoted through the UN process intended to mitigate climate change. CCS is considered by many to be a mitigation rather than a remediation technique, and is explicitly excluded from the list of geoengineering methods under a definition adopted by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Though perhaps the most advanced in terms of research, ocean fertilisation is thought not to be particularly promising and to carry a high risk of negative consequences such as disrupting marine ecosystems and creating 'dead zones'. The most promising geoengineering approach is stratospheric aerosol injection, but it is also potentially the most dangerous, especially with regard to ozone depletion and acid rain. Stratospheric particle injection It has long been known that large volcanic eruptions can have a temporary global cooling effect. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, for example, injected nearly 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, creating sulphates that led to a 0.5°C drop in global temperatures from 1991 to 1993, despite the overall warming trend. Stratospheric particle injection seeks to emulate this phenomenon, whereby some chemical compounds, notably sulphates, block or reflect solar radiation when injected into the stratosphere and thus have a global cooling effect. But since such compounds have a limited lifespan, they would need to be continuously injected at volumes equivalent to one Pinatubo eruption every four years to counteract projected warming up to 2050. Several possible injection mechanisms have been mooted, including aircraft such as the F-15C fighter or KC-135 or KC-10 tankers; modified artillery; or tethered high-altitude balloons. A three-and-a-half-year feasibility study of a system of balloons was funded by the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in 2010. The $2.6 million Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project is a collaboration between researchers at the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford, and a private company, Marshall Aerospace. The system would involve keeping balloons the size of football stadiums permanently tethered at an altitude of 20km, supplied by hosepipes that would provide sulphate particles or precursors from the ground. The project includes computer modelling, laboratory work to determine the best compounds, and a test of the delivery system by pumping 150 litres of water to a balloon at an altitude of 1km and injecting it into the atmosphere. The field test was originally set for mid-October 2011, but was delayed after a campaign by environmental groups. The delay was not due to any specific environmental concerns, but rather because the consultation process was deemed inadequate. However, the rescheduled test was cancelled in May 2012, mainly due to a controversy over intellectual-property ownership and a conflict of interest that triggered an investigation by the funding body. The principal investigator, Matthew Watson, told Nature that the lack of an agreed legal or regulatory architecture governing geoengineering experiments was also a factor. The theoretical and laboratory components of the project are continuing. The cancelled experiment was to have been a test of the technology for using balloons, not of modifying the climate system, as only about a bathtub's worth of water was to be injected, at low altitude. As Watson commented, 'it is hard to imagine a more environmentally benign experiment'. It cannot, thus, really be classified as a field test of geoengineering per se. Rule of law A report by the US Congressional Research Service notes that there are no international treaties or institutions with a sufficient mandate to regulate the full spectrum of geoengineering approaches. National, regional and international mechanisms that may apply have yet to be tested in the geoengineering context. The 1978 Environmental Modification Convention, for example, only prohibits the military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques. Customary international law imposes a duty not to cause significant harm to another country and to control marine pollution, and both these duties are mirrored in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and other treaties. The most important such treaties are the three Rio Conventions that came out of the 1992 Earth Summit: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention to Combat Desertification. Collectively, these treaties also impose a duty to cooperate in mitigating cross-border risks through notification, consultation, negotiation and impact assessment. The London Convention and Protocol apply to ocean-fertilisation experiments and activities. Enforcement, however, is a national responsibility, and existing regulations and mechanisms that were not designed to cover geoengineering challenges may not be up to the task. Several agencies and departments of the Canadian government, for example, were apparently aware of the British Columbia ocean-fertilisation project in advance, but there was confusion over jurisdiction and authority. The United States Government Accountability Office has identified significant gaps in US laws and regulations. It was this sort of ambiguity in UK law that may have contributed to the cancellation of the SPICE test. In the face of such ambiguity, there has been a strong push-back from civil society. While public opinion, interest groups and civil-society organisations are deeply divided over the necessity and scope of efforts to mitigate climate change, a different dynamic is at play with respect to possible remediation techniques. Those who deny the threat of climate change entirely oppose research into both mitigation and remediation as pointless and wasteful, while those who oppose mitigation on cost grounds may support research into remediation as a hedging strategy. Conversely, those who most strongly support climate-change mitigation tend to oppose geoengineering proposals – and even preliminary research – on two grounds: the moral hazard that such research may lessen pressure to pursue mitigation efforts, and the potential negative environmental consequences of remediation efforts. For its part, the scientific community is developing a set of guidelines and principles for the self-governance of geoengineering research. Explicitly recalling the 1975 Asilomar Conference that laid down the guidelines for recombinant DNA technology that still shape biological research today, around 175 scientists and scholars convened at the Asilomar Conference Center in California in 2010. Five broad principles on the purpose, conduct and governance of geoengineering research emerged from their discussions, including the need for a clarification of responsibilities and new mechanisms for the oversight of research, and for public participation, consultation and consent. No easy solution While remediation holds some potential, it will by no means be a panacea for climate problems. The AMS, the GAO and Royal Society all concur that research to date on technology, effectiveness, cost and potential consequences is insufficiently mature to make geoengineering a realistic option for addressing climate change at the present time. As the Royal Society puts it, 'the safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution.' However, if international diplomatic inertia leads to a failure to reduce emissions sufficiently to head off dangerous global warming, geoengineering may be the only way of avoiding long-term catastrophe. But a formal international regime to oversee geoengineering would involve greater interference in national sovereignty even than that required for enforcing binding emissions targets. Moreover, it may be just as hard to mobilise research and resources for large-scale geoengineering as it is to limit or reduce emissions. Geoengineering could have uneven consequences for individual countries, and this could make agreement on any approach difficult. Compensation for damage could affect cost-benefit calculations. Nevertheless, with the possibility that rogue states or even individuals may attempt regional climate-modification experiments or projects, a more robust international legal regime to govern geoengineering may be warranted. Geoengineering is likely to be only a small part of any solution to the problem of climate change. But if climate change were to threaten catastrophic effects, it could still be an important part. Research may therefore be seen as essential – but this can only be done safely and effectively with an appropriate and transparent international legal and regulatory regime, beyond that embodied in the London Convention and Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity. -- 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. -- 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.
