Ken etal:
Since we are still offering modifications today, let me try an alternative
approach, defining exclusions rather than inclusions. This removes a
comparative and the word "not". This still keeps I think your intent and much
of your language (although I returned to "removal" rather than "reduction").
Following the recommendation from Jim Thomas, this starts off with the CBD
definition (which I like - and solves the UN problem Jim points out). The new
CBD start is a longer version of your point #1, which (below: "intended to
affect climate") could replace it
“Geoengineering" is 1) a deliberate intervention in the planetary
environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate
change and its impacts,
but
2) excluding those interventions that are a direct consequence of the
removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gas concentrations.,
if
3) they have a de minimis effect on an international commons or across
international borders.
The new "if" between 2) and 3) [which are re-ordered] is intended to keep as a
geoengineering approach any CDR approach that has a potentially large impact
outside of a single country. I think "if" was your intent. I couldn't make
"and" or "or" (instead of "if") cover weird cases. So some CDR cases are
still geoengineering. A large positive effect in the commons or boundary is
covered by the words "intended to counteract".
Ron
On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:
> Self-correction.
>
> Dave Hawkins was right.
>
> Modify climate must be understood as a counter-factual. The intent might be
> to prevent climate from changing in the face of rising greenhouse gas
> concentrations, so "(1) intent to modify climate" must be understood as
> relative to what it would have been in the absence of the geoengineering
> activity, i.e., a geoengineering activity could conceivably prevent climate
> from changing relative to a factual baseline but still be a climate
> modification relative to what would have happened absent the activity.
>
> So, a mitigation activity that reduces GHG emissions would then need to be
> interpreted as excluded under (3) which then would also need to be
> interpreted as what would have happened absent the action.
>
> Is there any problem with changing (1) to "intended to affect climate" or us
> it clearer to leave its as "intended to modify climate" where that is
> understood relative to a counterfactual baseline? [RWL: I am not answering
> this - as I think the existing CBD (maybe only UN) definition covers this
> question.]
>
>> "Geoengineering" refers to activities
>>
>> (1) intended to affect climate
>>
>> (2) and that have 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 that are not a direct consequence of any resulting
>> reduction in anthropogenic aerosol and/or greenhouse gas concentrations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> <snip>
--
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.
