Having just last week submitted my doctoral thesis, I now have some space to focus on other things.
This proposed amendment raises all manner of difficulties associated with trying to regulate an ill-defined activity in an ill-defined context for ill-defined purposes. There are problems of legitimacy, credibility and practicality. A number of these difficulties have already been identified by other respondents. Most of these arise from attempts to extend the London Convention and Protocol (LCP) into territory they were never intended to cover. The LCP was designed to stop dumping of physical wastes at sea. It frames the marine environment as distinct and largely disconnected from other environments (e.g. land or atmosphere). Activities conceived as responses to global warming will always have impacts across multiple environments and therefore attempts to compartmentalise them by regulating activities in one without consideration for secondary and tertiary effects in others, are bound to give rise to anomalies. These anomalies will inevitably risk bringing the regulation process into disrepute, and probably undermine the prospects of carrying out the research needed to establish whether any form of marine based geoengineering has real (as opposed to theoretical) potential as part of a suite of responses to global warming. I suggest further work is necessary on this document. Consider the following questions: What precisely is meant by normative terms such as *widespread*, *potential harm*, *long-lasting*, *practicable*, *natural processes*, *severe*, *reduced to a minimum*, *legitimate scientific research*? Given the scope for disagreement when converting such expressions into action, how do those seeking to interpret these provisions ensure that their decisions will be respected. The general reference to ‘marine geo-engineering’ appears redundant and therefore a source of potential confusion. The substance of this proposal is limited to ocean fertilisation as defined in Annex 4.1.1. If further regulation is proposed, as suggested in the Introduction para. 1, it should be subject to full consultation and not arise from any less demanding process enabling the extension of this proposal as contemplated in the Introduction para. 9. As drafted, Annex 4 requires that all proposed activity receive prior approval. Are those responsible for discharging the LCP’s ‘established assessment and permit mechanisms’ competent to opine on geoengineering activities whose nature and purpose is far removed from what has conventionally been understood by dumping at sea and whose implications extend beyond the mere protection of the marine environment, important though that is? How can they be prevented from undermining legitimate research by procedural means which introduce undue delay, cost or excessive bureaucracy? Annex 4 also provides for permits to be issued only for ‘legitimate scientific research’. This implies the need for further treaty changes if the research shows that there is good reason to move to large-scale deployment. Is that a reasonable constraint given that it could defer for many years the move from research to deployment, effectively empowering the LCP to take control of important climate change policy decisions whose benefits extend far beyond its remit? The argument here is not about whether ocean fertilisation becomes adopted as a deployable activity in combating climate change, but whether the LCP is the proper place for such a decision to reside. What is the legitimacy for extending the ambit of the LCP from its original purpose of controlling marine pollution from the dumping of wastes at sea, to encompass all ‘new challenges to the marine environment’ (Introduction para. 20)? If the LCP’s primary objective is to preserve the marine environment, why should its deliberations about research permits for ocean fertilisation depend upon the LCP’s assessment of the ‘potential impacts on human health and the environment’ from the research? Is the implication that they might assess the potential impacts of Experiment A on human health to outweigh the potential harm to the marine environment, and therefore allow it; while Experiment B, might be rejected not because of any significant harm it might have on the marine environment but rather because the LCP considers it not to have adequate potential benefit for human health? That appears to be a ,long way from where the LCP started. This is not a reason for the LCP not to assume such responsibilities but if it does, it should not be done by stealth. On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:23:03 PM UTC+1, Wil Burns wrote: > > > FYI, Australian move to ban OIF under the London Convention: > http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/australia-seeks-to-limit-ocean-geoengineering-20130515-2jmkn.html > -- > Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director > Master of Science - Energy Policy & Climate Program > Johns Hopkins University > 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW > Room 104J > Washington, DC 20036 > 202.663.5976 (Office phone) > 650.281.9126 (Mobile) > [email protected] <javascript:> > > http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html > > SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 > > > Skype ID: Wil.Burns > > Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy Blog: > http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
