Ken cc List: 1. I like your starting point. Thanks for providing it. Re "de minimis", I prefer it over "material".
2. My concern is that you have two (separate, distinctly different) criteria in a relatively long sentence, where some readers may think the two are coupled or dependent. How about this rephrasing (changes all underlined): > "Geoengineering" refers to activities: > a) intended to modify climate that have greater than de minimis effect on an > international commons or across international borders, and b) operate through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. I toyed with the idea of replacing "reduction" with "removal" (or adding the latter) - so as to better tie back into the term CDR. But you are including a lot on sulfur here that has nothing to do with CDR. So I am content, because you have the word "excess". 4. You have below made statements about all the main CDR approaches save biochar. Is biochar in any way different from BECCS and DAC? (Biochar being the only one with a) add-on (non-direct) benefits, b) a long time horizon of both CDR and financial benefits, and c) now being extensively tested.) Ron On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > Here is my attempt at what I think would be a useful definition of > "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context, > intended as a starting point for discussion. > ----------------------------- > "Geoengineering" refers to activities intended to modify climate that have > greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across > international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an intended > reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations. > > -------------------------- > The idea is to get proposals that bear no novel risks and great similarity to > mitigation efforts out of the definition of "geoengineering". Under such a > definition, stratospheric aerosol injections and ocean fertilization would be > geoengineering. Under most circumstances, things like afforestation, biomass > energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC) > would not be considered geoengineering. > Note that specific afforestation activities could be considered > geoengineering under this definition if, for example, increased > evapotranspiration from the forest decreased river flow and took water away > from downstream nations, but afforestation that did not have such properties > would not be considered geoengineering. > Under some definitions, neither biomass energy nor CCS alone would > constitute "geoengineering", nor would a biomass energy plant releasing CO2 > to the atmosphere situated next to a coal plant employing CCS. Under such > definitions, if the pipes were switched, and the CO2 went from the biomass > energy plant to the CCS facility and the coal CO2 released to the atmosphere, > this would constitute "geoengineering". > If someone were to invent a machine to remove power-plant sulfate aerosols > from the troposphere, and this machine has no transborder effect that does > not derive from this intended activity, that it would not be "geoengineering" > under this proposed definition. Such activities would be considered to be > similar to reducing sulfur emissions from power plants. However, if this > machine also emitted something that would have a more-than-de-minimis > unintended environmental effects on other nations or on an international > commons, then it would consitute geoengineering. > ---- > Ocean fertilization and ocean alkanization would be included, but BECCS and > DAC using industrial methods would not be included unless they create greater > than de minimis environmental effects on an international commons or across > international border through mechanisms other than their intended effect of > reducing excess anthropgenic CO2 concentrations. > ---- > I add the qualifier “environmental” to "environmental mechanism" to eliminate > consideration of, for example, economic effects on other countries that would > be a consequence of, for example, the effect of carbon removal on carbon > prices under a cap and trade system. > The importance of "excess anthropogenic ... concentrations" is that to be > excess in must be greater than natural background, so cases are included > where people might want to reduce CO2 or aerosols lower than natural levels. > Use of BECCS or DAC to reduce concentrations beyond natural levels would be > considered “geoengineering” > Note that "modify climate" includes cases where the intent is to produce a > novel climate and not just “restore” climate to earlier conditions. > This definition also addresses issues associated with urban heat islands. If > the effects (beyond de minimis) are purely national, then efforts to address > urban heat island issues by eliminating dark and dry heat absorbing surfaces > would not be considered geoengineering, even if they had some regional > effect. For example, efforts to reduce heat island effects in the northeast > US could conceivable have regional climate effect, but would we want to > prevent cities from taking these actions because it could be considered > "geoengineering"? > Note also by defining "geoengineering" in terms of intent and greater than de > minimis environmental effect to an international commons or across > international borders, we implicitly cover new proposals not included in the > CDR / SRM dichotomy (e.g., cooling Earth's surface climate by pumping up cold > water from the deep ocean). > ---- > Note that there is a substantial community that says, more-or-less, "Let's > just say 'no' to geoengineering." > If a definition puts BECCS in the same category as injecting sulfate aerosols > into the atmosphere, it effectively communicating that BECCS has more in > common with injection of aerosols into the stratosphere than it does with > biomass energy or CCS. > Opponents of research into BECCS will then be able to say things like: "No > geoengineering [climate engineering] development should go on until there is > an international treaty governing its research and use." Thus, there is a > reasonable expectation that such an interpretation of "geoengineering" will > inadvertently hamper development of potentially valuable technologies that > present no special governance or trans-border or global commons issues. > I am concerned that inclusion of BECCS or DAC in the definition of > "geoengineering" will damage the development of technologies that present no > novel risks. > Best, > Ken > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
