Hi All
Shame that they do not feel the same way about exterminating fish
stocks, flaring off gas, throwing plastic bags into the sea and
releasing excess fertilizer into rivers. The only difference is the
intention. Ignorance, carelessness or a greed for profit makes lots of
bad things OK.
It is possible to imagine people taking legal action or starting wars
for NOT doing things that ought to have been done.
Stephen
On 05/07/2013 11:31, Andrew Lockley wrote:
http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/the-governonsense-of-climate-engineering/
At the environmental policy forum “The International Governance of
Climate Engineering”, held by The Institute for European Studies in
Brussels on June 28, opinions differed on how European policymakers
should react to the emerging field of climate engineering. Climate
engineering refers to the deliberate intervention in the climate
system to counter the effects of climate change (e.g. through
blocking/reducing solar radiation in the upper atmosphere or enhancing
the uptake of carbon dioxide through ocean ‘fertilization’).Ralph
Bodle, Senior Fellow at the Ecologic Institute of Berlin first
presented his report, which suggested that the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) might serve as a overarching but not
supervisory central institution for all climate engineering matters.
Jacob Werksman, the Principal Advisor of the European Commission’s DG
Climate Action disagreed, stating that the CBD was dominated by NGOs
and developing countries but not respected by countries that are not
part of the CBD, such as the US. He suggested the UNFCCC because of a
more global membership and it’s great ability to create new
institutions. The argument against introducing this discussing in the
UNFCCC is the risk of a moral hazard where there will always be some
countries trying to use the opportunity of geo-engineering to do less
mitigation. The same can be expected for the public opinion: why
invest in climate mitigation of some technological fix saves us from
all the effort?Jacob Werksman was keen to stress that for those
reasons the EC did not have an explicit position on climate
engineering. It did not want to undermine the already difficult
negotiations in the UNFCCC and it did want to underline the multiple
co-benefits of a climate mitigation policy – on work and health for
example. But none of the speakers were talking about an international
ban on climate engineering. While Jacob Werksman talked about a de
facto ban with exceptions for research, Ralph Bodle said that
deployment is an inevitable part of that research. Both stated that
any exception to the rule of not doing climate engineering should be
considered “with great care”.However, there was agreement in the room
on the high political risk of any climate engineering experiment,
especially if it has trans-boundary effects. When we asked if there
was any research on conflicts or tensions related to climate
engineering, Ralph Bodle said it was too early for that because there
had been few geo-engineering experiments so far. When we remembered
him of Iran’s unfounded claim that Europe had ‘manipulated clouds’ and
thus created a drought in Iran he did remember the case and added
examples from Israël, China and the Indian subcontinent – where
tensions rose either because of an unfounded claim or a real
experiment that did not even have a proven impact (China). Other
conflicts can be found when more research is done starting from
the map of 300 geoengineering experiments drafted by the ETC
group.Another risk was explained: what if a state unilaterally decided
to go for climate engineering? For example: a small island state
desperate to survive. Sebastian Oberthür, the Academic Director of the
Institute for European Studies that moderated the debate, said it only
costs 18 million dollar to hire a plane from the US to start spraying
sulfur in the air. The point he made is that anyone could start doing
it and that an international legal framework is missing. Clive
Hamilton, author of the book ‘Earthmasters’ doesn’t share that fear.
“18 million $ might be enough to hire a plane, but you would need a
fleet of them operating continuously to affect the Earth’s albedo.
That would be more like billions of dollars” Clive also added that “no
experiment in sulphate aerosol spraying can change the climate.”But
even when it’s not cheap to start work on climate engineering, it’s
easy to envisage political trouble way beyond the actual measurable
effects of even a small experiment. Ralph Bodle expressed the general
fear of his research team that in the case of experiments and an
eventual weather problem or disaster in a neighboring country, it will
not matter if one is linked to the other. The assumption of a link
will be disastrous in itself. Example: just try to imagine that the
Pakistan floods of 2010 that displaced millions came after a rain
manipulation experiment in India. Note that the monsoon always comes
over India first, before arriving in Pakistan. And that the two
countries have nuclear bombs. At that point, we might discover that
the governance of climate engineering is actually better described as
governonsense.Despite such risks, one participant in the debate
thought it was likely for a state such as the US to start climate
engineering experiments. If at a certain point in time where
politician recommit to their 2°C target and climate scientists say
that in order to keep that 2°C promise you will have to look at
climate engineering, then it will be hard to resist. According to
Sebastian Oberthür, the Atlantic divide in thinking about climate
engineering is there, with US scientists increasingly calling for a
framework to do more research. Which guarantees a struggle by civil
society for years to come
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
