Andrew: Thanks for spotting this message about ETC and HOME. From my readings,
they are as big a problem for biochar (and presumably all geo technologies) as
exist.
Decision X/33, para 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** 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;”
** (footnote to decision X/33 para 8 (w): 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.
Takes note of the report on the impacts of climate related geoengineering on
biological diversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28), the study on the regulatory
framework for climate-related geoengineering relevant to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/29) and the overview of the views
and experiences of indigenous and local communities and stakeholders
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/30);
>From #29 on regulation (p13)
Climate-related Geoengineering: a deliberate intervention in the planetary
environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate
change and/or its impacts through, inter alia, solar radiation management or
removing
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
9. The group considered that the above definitions would include both solar
radiation
management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques. It should be
noted,
however, that opinions differ on the inclusion or exclusion of large scale
mitigation activities
such as afforestation, reforestation and biochar.
p14
11. ........ Activities such as
afforestation, reforestation or terrestrial biomass production , on the other
hand, may be
governed primarily through domestic institutions .
google for "UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28" (a 2012 report of 83 pp)
>From p
Here, techniques are considered as CDR geoengineering if carried out for the
purpose of carbon
removal and storage, and deployed (collectively) at sufficient scale to achieve
a significant climatic
effect.
Biomass production on previously degraded areas, if wellmanaged,
may deliver biodiversity benefits; however, even here, greater benefits in
terms of both
biodiversity and net greenhouse gas reductions may be achieved through
restoration of natural
habitats on these lands 343.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]>
To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:58:15 PM
Subject: [geo] Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E.
(Opinion Article) | Geoengineering Our Climate?
http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/05/07/opposition-to-geoengineering-theres-no-place-like-h-o-m-e-opinion-article/
Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E.
In April 2010, the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights
of Mother Earth, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, brought together more than 25,000
campesinos, teachers, students, engineers, activists, diplomats, elders and
ordinary folk to discuss how best to minimize the impacts of global warming and
to respond to the failure of negotiations at the UN Framework Climate on
Climate Change to bring about reductions in global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Seventeen working groups contributed to a Peoples Agreement, which
explicitly rejected geoengineering as a “false solution” to climate change.[1]
From Cochabamba, the “Hands Off Mother Earth” (HOME) campaign to oppose
geoengineering experiments was launched.[2] Since Cochabamba, a small but
influential group of researchers has increased calls for governments to support
geoengineering experiments as part of developing a “Plan B” or “insurance
policy” in the event of a “climate emergency”[3] – despite the adoption of a
decision to restrict geoengineering activities by the UN’s Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2010. The CBD is an international legal
instrument whose aim is the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity. 193 countries are Parties to the Convention (only the Holy See,
Andorra, South Sudan and the United States are not). At its Conference of the
Parties held in Nagoya, Japan in 2010, the CBD extended a decision that
restricts one specific geoengineering technique agreed upon in 2008 (on ocean
fertilization) to apply to all geoengineering activities, while allowing
small-scale scientific research studies that meet certain criteria.[4]For many
states, the CBD meeting provided the first opportunity to discuss the kinds of
geoengineering technologies under development and to consider their risks. The
push for Decision X/33 at the CBD, which we, and others, consider a de facto
moratorium on geoengineering, came largely from governments of the global South
– including the African Group and ALBA countries as well as coastal countries
such as Philippines and Tuvalu, the majority of whose peoples rely on oceans
for their livelihoods.[5] Sunlight-reflecting stratospheric sulfate injections
are expected to alter precipitation patterns, particularly in the tropics, and
ocean fertilization techniques deliberately alter ocean chemistry in an attempt
to increase absorption of carbon dioxide. Some hailed the CBD’s decision as a
prudent and necessary measure until international regulations can be developed
and impacts can be properly assessed, while others questioned the decision’s
relevancy or enforceability.[6] The Economist saw the UN’s attention to
geoengineering as the first chapter in its “coming of age” story.[7] HOME
campaigners interpreted it as a stop-gap until a global ban on any unilateral
attempt to engineer the climate can be negotiated. In any case, the CBD
decision signaled the first baby steps toward inter-governmental regulations –
something that has been opposed by advocates of geoengineering research such as
those attending the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention,
who expressed their preference for a voluntary system of self-governance.[8]
From some perspectives, geoengineering as “Plan B” or “insurance policy” in the
event of a “climate emergency” may seem prudent, practical and even
precautionary. But geoengineering’s prudence will not be universally obvious.
If you are the G-8 member that launched the Industrial Revolution causing
climate change and your GHG emissions keep going up instead of down – it may be
easier to appreciate the attraction of a “techno fix”. As it is likely that
only the world’s richest countries will be able to develop the hardware and
software necessary to reset the global thermostat, it will be the governments
that are responsible for almost all historic GHG emissions and have either
denied or ignored climate change for decades, which will also have de facto
control over the deployment of geoengineering experiments. Those same
governments have failed to provide even minimal funds for climate change
mitigation or adaptation. It defies reason to suggest, as some have, that
geoengineering will not divert funding and intellectual resources from
mitigation and adaptation; it already has – the UK’s Royal Society, the
American Academies, the IPCC, to name a few, have all spent money and time
bringing experts together to consider geoengineering’s prospects. Further, to
have an impact on the earth’s climate, geoengineering projects will have to be
on a massive scale. Projects that alter the stratosphere or the oceans will not
only have unknown implications but also unequal impacts across the globe.[9] As
much as the unintentional “geoengineering” of the Industrial Revolution
disproportionately harms tropical and subtropical parts of the planet,
intentional geoengineering experiments could well do the same. Put bluntly,
many South governments lack a blind faith in technology to solve the problem of
climate change, and, in our view, a lack of trust in the governments,
industries or scientists of the North to protect all the world’s people is
justified. In the absence of demonstrable goodwill and humility from the
governments likely to conduct geoengineering, it would only be sensible for the
peoples and governments of the global South to be suspicious. A rejection of
geoengineering is not a denial that science has an important role to play in
dealing with climate change. It is urgent and important that the scientific
community work with national and even local governments to monitor and address
the climate threats ahead. This collaborative effort will require a lot of
money and focused energy. The practical responses to climate change must change
with the latitudes, altitudes and ecosystems. “Hands Off Mother Earth”
campaigners assert that not enough is known about the Earth’s systems to risk
geoengineering experiments in the real world. No one knows if these experiments
are going to be inexpensive, as is often assumed – especially if they don’t
work, forestall more constructive alternatives or cause adverse effects. We
don’t know how to recall a technology once it has been released. Beyond those
uncertainties and inadequacies, we must acknowledge the geopolitical realities
of climate change. Without that acknowledgement, geoengineering can only be
geopiracy[10] and it is a threat to the entire natural world, including each
one of us calling Earth HOME
--
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 .
--
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.
