Andrew etal: 1. Apologies. Not sure how the last message got out prematurely. Scratch that in favor of this one. Apologies also for this message length, but it is mostly about at least 4 new CBD documents and the important damper that the CBD has placed on geoengineering R&D not about ETC and HOME.
2. Andrew: Thanks for your message yesterday about ETC and HOME. From my readings, these groups are as big a problem for biochar (and presumably all geo technologies) as exist. The material you reprinted below (now snipped) from the URL you gave is incomplete - missing the notes and citations, so some may benefit, as I did, from going to the full text at the cite given below. The second footnote in the original from ETC has a sentence on definitions that is a little helpful (because there is a "but"...."can be" escape clause) for some on this list (Emphasis added): "'Accordingly, we consider techniques such as “solar radiation management” to be geoengineering, but biochar and other carbon sequestration techniques can be as well, depending on the scale and nature of their application." I think ETC has given an important allowance here for the many biochar experiments that are now ongoing. I had thought they might be arguing against this escape clause (as done in their earlier documents on geoengineering, illogically), so this little bit was surprising. 3. I also viewed there, the 4 minute video of Jeff Tollefson (Reporter for Nature; asked four reasonable questions) interviewing ETC's Jim Thomas earlier this month. There was essentially no discussion of the 2010 CBD printed material you have quoted. The fourth and last question at the 2 minute mark was on CDR, with Thomas also mentioning biochar, but not as favorably as above. I guess Thomas is thinking that biomass will leave the South with treeless regions left behind. I agree with his emphasis on the South, but see it happening differently, with money from the North being supplied mostly to produce liquid fuels for worldwide consumption, but certainly some liquids staying behind, but (for cost miniimization reasons) putting biochar in the ground to the South's great soil-improvement benefit. Thomas correctly points out that the CDR decision should be entirely in the hands of the South. Thomas was not as strong as the above ETC footnote 2 on biochar, but the term "scale" was still present in his rersponse. 4. As many list members know, the important material on geoengineering coming from the 2010 CBD COP-10 is in its Article 33 to be found by googling for UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33. On page 5, in section 8w (and ts footnote 2) are the definitions for SRM and CDR. I now conclude from these that biochar can be both tested and utilized almost anywhere without violating this UN endorsed prohibition. This is because of a. the scale issue b. biochar CBD impacts stays local, c. the main reason for most applications today is for soil improvement, not for a climate reason. d. many tests are scientific (which are explicitly allowed) and science needs more regular field applications. e. biodiversity impacts will occur; but on balance these have been and will be positive. I am not certain that this same "freedom" now applies to any other CDR approach except BECCS and afforestation (which may not be considered CDR - see below). I used the term "almost" above. I can agree that there should be an international framework for biochar well before the annual sequestration by biochar reaches about a tenth of a wedge (or about 100 million tons C/year). This is at least 10 or 15 years away. Do any list members disagree with this personal conclusion about how biochar users should interpret the present Article 33 international limitations on geoengineering? 5. Last October there was a COP11 update and reaffirmation of the 2010 COP10 decisions, that I don't recall this list talking about. These can be found by googling for UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/20. What I found most interesting was reference to a new 83 page UNEP SBSTTA report on all the geoengineering approaches. (google for UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28) . For biochar there were 14 citations (#'s 348-361). Unfortunately only one was as recent as 2011, and the language was less positive than I feel appropriate, but is an improvement over previous such CBD reports. BECCs had 2 citations. "Artificial trees" had 25 6. There were another two similar parallel UNEP SBSTTA documents on regulatory and indigenous people topics- found by googlng for UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/29 and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/30. The one on regulation had this surprising but welcome sentence on p 13 relating biochar to mitigation and afforestation: "It should be noted, however, that opinions differ on the inclusion or exclusion of large scale mitigation activities such as afforestation, reforestation and biochar." 7. I apologize for concentrating on biochar. I bring up most of the above in the belief that all these above ETC and CBD texts have something of relevance to almost everyone on the list. I have snipped most of Andrew's yesterday message as being better seen in the original, which is identified both below and above Ron ----- 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. <snipped> -- 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.
