Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition now reads:
*"Geoengineering" refers to activities * *(1) intended to modify climate* *(2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or across international borders * *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy. Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestatoin/reforestation, etc. -------------- 1. In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most cases I would not consider them "geoengineering" under this definition. I think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance issues. I like Ron's suggestion of "removal" of a material rather than "reduction" of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. The "from the atmosphere" may be considered limiting. I would be fine with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in excess of natural background concentrations.* 2. Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over "greater than *de minimis*" vs "material". As a non-lawyer, I read "material effect" to be equivalent to "greater than *de minimis* effect". Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of "across international borders". Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international governance. Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of worms around defining what "large scale" means, which is a prominent term in many other proposed definitions of "geoengineering". 3. To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on concentrations, not on emissions. In any case, the current definition avoids use of both "concentrations" and "emissions". --- Thanks everybody for these comments. I think we are pretty close to a definition that I would like to see broadly accepted. Things like biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestation/reforestation do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush that tars injection of sulfur into the stratosphere. Most of these approaches bear more in common with mitigation approaches than they do with sunlight reflection methods. We are doing a disservice to potentially valuable technologies if we, by our imprecision of language, give the impression that these potentially valuable methods bear large and unprecedented kinds of risks. Best, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>wrote: > 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 <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> > 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 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
