The CBD website has little quality info on AGW effect on extinctions. However, AR4 states :
"There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe." So pretty much comparable to a large asteroid, when you throw in all the other extinctions happening due to deforestation, pollution, overfishing, bushmeat, traditional 'medicine' etc. I'm unclear how to represent such views to the CBD. My guess is that they'll ignore all individual responses, and only take account of August institutions speaking with a unified voice. Does anyone on the list have experience of influencing the CBD? A On Nov 26, 2013 5:02 PM, "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger that, John. So what's CBD's view of the IPCC now that the latter has > opened the door to the possibility of CDR? Also, keep in mind that you > don't have to remove CO2 from the air if you can keep some of what's > already been captured in plants, soils and ocean from returning to the > atmosphere, e.g. CROPS, biochar, carbonate/base addition to upwelling > regions, etc. Let's start some tests and see what the effects of these > treatments are on biological diversity at some very small scale relative to > experiments where the CO2 (and temp) is cranked up to BAU 2100 levels. Or > would that be too sciencey and informative? > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Nissen <[email protected]> > *To:* Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Cc:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>; John > Nissen <[email protected]>; P. Wadhams <[email protected]>; Peter R Carter > <[email protected]>; Oliver Tickell <[email protected]>; > Reese Halter <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:00 AM > *Subject:* Re: [geo] CBD Secretariat Invites Parties¹ Submissions on > Geo-Engineering-Related Measures - Climate Change Policy & Practice > > Hi Greg, > > You are right that CBD should consider the consequences of > *not*geoengineering. CDR techniques to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere > are now mandatory, because there is already an intolerable amount of CO2 in > the atmosphere - both for ocean acidification and global warming reasons. > Ocean acidification may be an even greater threat to biodiversity than > global warming, and so we need to get the atmospheric CO2 level below about > 350 ppm within two or three decades. > > And what about the implications of not considering geoengineering to cool > the Arctic? We have abrupt climate change happening in front of our eyes > in the Arctic. The Arctic meltdown in prospect will lead to the loss of an > entire ecosystem. It is clear that, in the face of rapid sea ice retreat, > the only way to protect the Arctic and preserve its biodiversity is to cool > it quickly enough to save the sea ice. This will necessarily involve the > deployment of geoengineering techniques, albeit targetted to produce a > regional cooling effect. > > This should be a clear message to the CBD. CBD should be taking a lead in > promoting geoengineering to save biodiversity, if that is the true mission > of the organisation. > > But I'm afraid that CBD do not work on the basis of scientific evidence - > but on gut feelings that geoengineering is a "bad thing". Let's face it, > mankind has been effectively geoengineering for many years by putting so > much CO2 in the atmosphere as to alter the Earth System. Now we have > employ restorative geoengineering of one kind to remove CO2 and of another > kind to cool the Arctic. > > Cheers, John > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agree. What are the consequences/risks to biodiversity of not > evaluating/considering GE in the face of rising CO2? > Greg > > On 11/20/13 9:01 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi All > > > >Should they also ask for a list of inactivities such as NOT doing a form > >geoengineering which could have helped biodiversity. I am thinking > >things such as not reducing sea surface temperatures to the east of the > >Philippines. > > > >Stephen > > > >- > >Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering > >University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland > >[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 > >WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > > >On 20/11/2013 16:44, Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> > >> > >> > http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/cbd-secretariat-invites-parties-submission > >>s-on-geo-engineering-related-measures/ > >> > >> CBD Secretariat Invites Parties¹ Submissions on > >> Geo-Engineering-Related Measures > >> > >> 12 November 2013: The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological > >> Diversity (CBD) has invited parties to submit information on any > >> measures they have undertaken to ensure that no climate-related > >> geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, > >> and to address the exception for small-scale scientific research > >> studies contained in CBD Decision X/33, subparagraph 8(w) on > >> geo-engineering. > >> > >> Information on measures to ensure that no climate-related > >> geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place > >> until there is an adequate scientific basis to justify such activities > >> and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the > >> environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and > >> cultural impacts, as well as on measures that address the exception > >> for small-scale scientific research studies, is to be submitted by 15 > >> February 2014. > >> > >> The notification provides additional information related to agreed > >> language on geo-engineering in the contribution of Working Group I to > >> the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > >> Change, as well as an amendment to the London Protocol of the London > >> Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes > >> and Other Matter, agreed on 18 October 2013. > >> > >> The amendment is structured to allow other marine geo-engineering > >> activities to be considered and listed in a new annex in the future, > >> if they fall within the scope of the London Protocol and have the > >> potential to harm the marine environment. It will enter into force 60 > >> days after two-thirds of the Parties to the London Protocol accept it. > >> > >> > >> > http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/cbd-secretariat-invites-parties-submission > >>s-on-geo-engineering-related-measures/ > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > > > > >- > > > >-- > >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > >Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > >-- > >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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
