Just got a note from some international legal experts saying that "de minimis" was an established standard but "material effect" is not well grounded in international law, so I now suggest this form:
* * *"Geoengineering" refers to activities * *(1) intended to modify climate* *(2) and that has a greater than de minimis *effect on an international commons or across international borders *(3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* * * _______________ 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 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected] > wrote: > The problem is that in practice people use the word "geoengineering" to > refer to things they don't like, don't want to see deployed, don't want to > fund, seek to impede research on, etc. > > "Geoengineering" in practice is a pejorative term that has already been > brought into legal parlance as a result of decisions by the CBD. > > If we want to help proposed technologies that bear no novel or > trans-boundary or international commons risks, and have the potential, at > least in theory, to diminish climate damage, then we need to get them out > from under this pejorative umbrella. > > Defining "geoengineering" in the way you do, I fear, will harm the > development of biochar, biomass energy with CCS, direct air capture, > afforestation/reforestation, etc. > > I believe it was an error for the CBD ever to use this term (on this, > more at a later date). Now that they have used it, maybe we can at least > define it in a way that does the least harm. > > > _______________ > 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 > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> >>>> @kencaldeira >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] >>>> > 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 <[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 kcal...@carnegiescience.**edu >>>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<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 [email protected]. >>>>> Visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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. >> > > -- 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.
