Hi Ken—It bothers me a bit that both definitions seem to limit geoengineering to affecting climate, when there are other ways that intervention might occur, such as to modify ocean acidity. Might it be that the definition should say “counteract human influences such as those on the climate and environment”? I realize that this might greatly expand what is encompassed by the term geoengineering, and this would lead me to suggest having these definitions by for the term “climate engineering” or “climate geoengineering”.
An additional concern with the CBD definition is that is seems to limit geoengineering to approaches that are trying to counteract everything—both the change and the impacts. One could imagine, for example, just going after some of the impacts. All a bit subtle, but would an effort to limit the intensification of hurricanes count as it is not really going to be affecting the climate, just an impact (at least in terms of how the public might interpret the words). On your definition you seem to focus as just being on “climate” and so would not count responses focusing just on impacts (though both of these comments have to do with what the definition of climate is). And you also don’t say anthropogenic influences on climate—leaving it open that one might choose to counteract natural aspects of the climate (so your definition would work in the 1960s for the types of proposals to “improve” the climate). Related to this, I generally like the word “counteract” than “modify”--though basically having your definition include all the GHG emissions we are doing, and would include the release of SO2 as we do now, etc. And on the “other hand” wording, I am not sure how to clear it up, but I do think the phrasing needs improvement. Mike On 9/25/13 3:28 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote: > Jim, > > We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to > aid comparison, here are both definitions: > > CBD: > > "Geoengineering" is > > A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale > intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. > > Alternate candidate definition: > > "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. > > > I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily > applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies such > as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that present no > special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, etc. > > 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 Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas <j...@etcgroup.org> wrote: >> Ken and all, >> >> 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the >> expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their >> method and rationale for their preferred definition >> (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en. >> pdf) that was discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at >> COP11. I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this >> multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting >> point. >> >> 2. While issues of geography, of the commons and cross-borderness, are highly >> important in geoengineering governance i don't see why they rationally have >> any place in framing a definition of geoengineering itself (except as a >> baldly political move to maneuver loopholes into a governance system). The >> appropriate place to raise those issues is in the specifics of how a >> political decision is made about a geoengineering technology, not in trying >> to bias an initial definition. >> >> In practical terms defining whether something is geoengineering or not by >> whether the activity crosses a set of lines on a map is to muddle physical >> reality with historical accident and will give quite perverse decisions. >> Under your proposed definition below the United States could choose to >> artificially fertilize all of Lake Michigan or Russia to fertilize all of >> Lake Baikal with clear ecological impacts and yet it would not be considered >> geoengineering since it didn't cross international borders. Yet if a small >> patch of Lake Malawi was fertilized that would be considered geoengineering >> in your definition since there happens to be an international border in that >> lake. In physical terms that difference is non-sensical. I wonder if Canada >> or Russia decided to put much of their entire landmass under an SRM scheme >> that somehow didn't move out of their territory (lets say create whitened low >> level cloud cover in someway) whether that would also fall outside of this >> definition (since its a standard of X AND Y AND Z that need to be met to meet >> the definition). >> >> 3. You say 'de minimis' has a well established standard which i'd be >> interested to see.. but naively it strikes me as a cover for argumentation >> by a proponent of any scheme that they fall outside of the definition b y >> claiming to have only a 'de minimis' effect. De minimis from whose viewpoint? >> a claimed 10,000 sq km fertilized patch was argued to be small (de minimus?) >> by HSRC in the context of the entire Pacific Ocean but it was viewed as large >> and consequential from the context of some BC fishers and shellfish >> harvesters who are concerned that the red tides closing their shellfish beds >> all winter may have been as result of the fertilization (which can't be >> proven either way - what standard of proof would 'de minimis' require?). >> Whether something is de minimis in terms of impacts then becomes a tiresome >> fight between different sets of understandings, requiring political >> arbitration. It complexifies and polarizes governance rather than simplifies >> it. >> >> Jim >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: >> >>> 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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ken Caldeira >>> <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> 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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> >>>> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu >>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton <omeconom...@gmail.com> 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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> >>>>>>> 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 <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 <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.
