Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering
information deficit discussed, but not in abstract.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213009466

Energy Procedures Volume 37, 2013, Pages 7590–7595GHGT-11Open Access

Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC

Tim Dixona, , , Dr Katherine Romanakb, Samantha Neadesa, Dr Andy Chadwickca

Abstract

This paper describes how providing scientific information to negotiators
assisted in achieving inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)
in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) during 2011. We provide specific examples of
how scientific information from IEAGHG Research Networks in the areas of
monitoring, modelling, environmental impacts and groundwater protection
were used to address the issues of concern listed in the Cancun Decision
(2010). Technical input was provided by members of IEAGHG Research Networks
via the UNFCCC's technical workshop on Modalities and Procedures for CCS
under the CDM, such that the negotiations in Durban (2011) were better
informed by an understanding of the most recent technical information. The
outcome was the agreement of CCS-specific modalities and procedures for
including CCS in the CDM.

Keywords

Regulation; Emissions Trading; International Policy; Clean Development
Mechanism; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; CCS

http://m.scidev.net/global/environment/news/scientific-advice-improved-outcome-of-un-climate-talks.html

Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks

Joel Winston

04/09/13

Some negotiators have no technical background and are underprepared

Expert advice on carbon capture and storage aided debates between UN talks
at Cancun and Durban

But it is hard to conclusively link the improved debate to the input of
experts

UN climate change policy negotiators need more access to expert advice on
new technologies such as carbon storage and geoengineering, according to an
expert whose study found that providing scientific information to
negotiators before debates resulted in more productive discussions. The
paper, published in Energy Procedia last month (5 August), says that the
annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) held in relation to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have limited and imperfect
routes for providing scientific information to negotiators. "Some
negotiators have no technical background. Many work from their country's
briefs and don't get a chance to get organised beforehand," says Tim Dixon,
one of the paper's authors and manager of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
and regulation at the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme (IEAGHG), an international research initiative that evaluates
technologies that can cut emissions from fossil fuel use."And for many
developing countries, there are so many issues in these meetings, they
struggle to keep up with everything they might want to comment on.
Negotiations can therefore involve a fairly low level of technical
knowledge and lead to misunderstandings," he tells SciDev.Net. The paper
discusses improving the dissemination of scientific advice to negotiators
in the context of CCS, the underground storage of carbon dioxide from
fossil fuel power stations. Developing nations that are currently
considering CCS projects to minimise their greenhouse gas emissions include
Botswana, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa, according to
Dixon. However, previous UNFCCC negotiations have raised concerns with the
technology, such as the potential accidental escape of carbon dioxide from
underground storage, and that it may encourage increased fossil fuel
use. To assist, IEAGHG provided experts to talk with negotiators at an
extra UNFCCC technical workshop in Abu Dhabi in September 2011. According
to the paper, the workshop enabled good, open discussion and helped to
successfully convey technical points about CCS to negotiators including
those on environmental impacts and monitoring solutions. "This meant that
most of the main negotiators went into the following COP in Durban far
better informed about the issues, and they also felt more confident in
themselves," says Dixon. According to the paper, the negotiators who
attended the Abu Dhabi workshop raised the quality of the 2011 Durban
negotiations on potential rules and procedures for governing CCS use. After
these debates, CCS was successfully included in the UNFCCC's Clean
Development Mechanism, the main policy tool for implementing low-carbon
projects in developing countries. The rules now define who is responsible
for underground carbon dioxide, which Dixon says provides environmental
protection and helps legitimise CCS in developing countries. He says that
technical workshops could become increasingly important for negotiations on
future climate change mitigation technologies. According to Dixon, although
emissions reductions should be the priority for tackling climate change,
the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate is another technology
that needs proper consideration. "Geoengineering will face even more
challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations," he tells SciDev.Net.
"And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even more
essential." David Reiner, senior lecturer in technology policy at the
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, says that, while various IEAGHG
mechanisms may have affected some detailed aspects of the outcome at
Durban, "it is inherently difficult to demonstrate a causal linkage between
activities and outcomes since there are a number of reasons for a
particular outcome of a negotiation".

-- 
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.

Reply via email to