Ooops. I did what I was compaining about. "Aimed at" is as bad as "intended".
What i should have said: large-scale technological interventions that act to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:56:06 UTC+1, O Morton wrote: > > I think there's a problem with "intentended". It defines the act in terms > of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective scrutiny, > This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which are > geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're > trying to avoid. > > FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: > large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate > outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. > > > > On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: >> >> 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 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson >> <rongre...@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 <kcal...@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 kcal...@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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@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.
