Ken, Jim, etal
The following more responding to Jim than Ken. Warning - the comments are
mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that group.
But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as well.
The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is ocean
acidification (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that distinction is
well enough covered by both definitions below
On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> 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.
[RWL1: I sense that the developers of this definition did not have the
concern that Ken has in his accompanying remarks - that the term
"geoengineering" has become almost synonymous with SRM. More below on the
reasons that Ken (and I) aren't comfortable with this very (too?) broad
definition.
I believe that only a small percentage of biochar projects are now being
undertaken for climate reasons - rather most are undertaken for food/soil
reasons. Jim and Ken and others: would that food/soil intention keep a
biochar from being defined as "geoengineering" by this above? How about for
Ken's next?
>
> 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.
[RWL2: I like the three-part definition. It would be very helpful to
have Jim also make a comment on this one. This fails in what way? More (much
more) on Jim's message below.
The words "de minimis" seem to mean (from quick googling) trivial or not
worth considering in a law suit. I believe this to be true for individual
biochar projects involving only one buyer and seller (or maybe self-produced),
but would claim a total opposite is possible collectively - certainly multiple
wedges have been proposed. I hope JIm (and others) can comment on where
biochar (as an example - could be afforestation, etc), can be well received at
the individual user level, but be harmful globally. Biochar proponents would
claim that the future impacts are going to be large (being multiple wedges) -
but the impact entirely or overwhelmingly positive. Ken's definition here
doesn't separate positive from negative impacts (which of course can be in the
eye of the beholder). I am not worrying too much about this now that Ken has
said biochar would be excluded from his 3-part definition. Jim has endorsed
(maybe authored?) articles opposing biochar; does he place biochar in or out
of the realm of geoengineering as defined by either of the above - or any
other? Or certain cases - Yes; others - No? I see only "No" cases. More
below on Jim's message also.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas <[email protected]> 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.
[RWL3: This was new. I thought the folks writing this above report
on a definition did a credible job and worked hard. However, I doubt they were
aware of the issues that Ken is addressing in his definitional notes of the
past few days. I agree with Jim's final sentence, though. This list should
say what was not covered in this CBD report. I would say the CBD experts were
not sufficiently conscious of the problems that happen as you try to lump two
topics as different as SRM and CDR into a single category (called
"geoengineering"). Ken has narrowed the Geo definition a lot and I feel his is
an appropriate narrowing.
>
> 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.
[RWL4: The key words here are "baldly" and "loopholes". But also
the last sentence starts with "place", but has "how" as well . I'd like to
hear more from Jim on all four of these key words. Ken is not addressing
"place" specifically, but "how" is simplified as the geo term is narrowed. I
don't see the word "bias" as being appropriate in the definition. I see Ken's
definition being a good resolution to the inaccurate way the "geoengineering"
term is mostly used (to be synonymous with SRM).
I ask JIm: which of the CDR approaches that Ken has carved out should not
be (for "de minims" or other reasons). Jim's thoughts on biochar would be of
most personal interest, but biochar is a fairly representative CDR approach.]
>
> 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.
> [RWL: A] 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
> [RWL: B] 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 [RWL: C] 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).
[RWL5: These are valid comments on three different specific examples
- call them A,B, C as inserted above. It would be helpful to know where Jim
would stand on these three examples. In my mind, the differences should be
based on ocean acidification impact (is CDR involved? - Ken's #3 criteria).
Fertilizing may or may not mean CDR, so I would not put all fertilization into
Ken's definition of geoengineering (nor would he I think). I think both Ken
and Jim would say the Canadian-Russian compact (#C) is geoengineering; I
would. So in summary, my first reaction:
A: Geo only if intent is SRM; one nation rationale over-ruled based on
fact Lakes Michigan and Baikal are large and effects could be international.
B: Never Geo; de minimis exclusion (if not agreed to by all
neighboring countries, take the issue to the UN).
C: Geo if SRM (as assumed; can't assume effects stay only local); not
Geo if it passes Ken's test #3.
>
> 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 by
> 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.
[RWL6: Agreed that all of these points need discussion. The HSRC
example is probably a good one, and I know too little about it. The claimed
main intent was food, but there was also a carbon credit aspect that I think
would get past all three of Ken's criteria, thereby putting it in the geo
category. My guess is that both Ken and Jim agree this is Geo, so I hope we
can hear from others who would say this final example is NOT geo. And what
definition justifies that non-geo choice?
Jim's issues of a "tiresome fight" and "political arbitration" seem
likely, but better to have dialog on that now rather than later. Legal and
governance issues are not addressed at all in the CBD'a definition. Ken
probably agrees that his was motivated by trying to speed governance and
implementation along. How would Jim himself solve these
governance/implementation issues through a definition? Or is that simple -
that none should ever be permitted?
Ron
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
<snip about 90%, but nothing critical, I think>
--
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.
