Andrew, list (Adding Tim Kruger as the designated recipient of proposed
amendments)
There are 6 paragraphs in the poor copy (found at:
http://i.imgur.com/o44piVU.jpg) that was linked in the quoted article. I
recognize that some are not happy with this draft. But the effort has been
developed by knowledgeable scientists who are trying to move forward.
My concern is that this latest only deals with SRM, while the Oxford
and Asilomar Principles dealt also with CDR (both are summarized below). There
has been considerable discussion on this list on how to separate SRM and CDR.
That problem hasn't gone away. So I propose an amendment via a final sentence
in the 3rd paragraph:
"Carbon dioxide removal and negative emission technologies (CDRs/NETs),
although possibly quite different in character from SRM, also being climate
geoengineering technologies, should follow the same procedures to the maximum
extent possible.
RWL comment: I add the last ("maximum extent possible") clause
because so much is already happening with some CDRs/NETs without any
governmental action. We can't turn back the clock on Oxford principles 1 and
5 (Asilomar 1 and 2). Maybe that wishy-washy final clause will cause some to
realize that governance can both prevent harm and "promote collective benefit";
that governance sometimes needs to catch up with positive happenings by
helping those positives to accelerate even faster.
Oxford Principles
(http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Geo-politics/Oxford%20principles.pdf)
2013, based on 2009 draft
1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
Asilomar 1: Promoting collective benefit
2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making.
Asilomar 5: Public involvement and consent
3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results.
Asilomar 3: Open and cooperative research
4: Independent assessment of impacts.
Asilomar 4: Iterative evaluation and assessment
5: Governance before deployment.
Asilomar 2: Establishing responsibility and liability
Asilomar Principles (http://www.climate.org/PDF/AsilomarConferenceReport.pdf)
Nov. 2010
1. Promoting collective benefit
Oxford 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
2. Establishing responsibility and liability
Oxford 5: Governance before deployment
3. Open and cooperative research
Oxford 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of
results.
4. Iterative evaluation and assessment
Oxford 4: Independent assessment of impacts.
5. Public involvement and consent
Oxford 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making.
Ron
On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:30 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Poster's note : it's a shame that the so-called 'Berlin declaration' has
> already been reported worldwide. I haven't spoken to anyone in Berlin who is
> openly supportive of the text, or most particularly the process. It's not
> come from the conference process, it's not been voted on, it's not been the
> subject of formal debate. I'm not even clear what links, if any, it has to
> the Royal Society. And yet it is now being quoted in international media.
>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-royal-society-of-london-proposes-framework-for-geoengineering-climate-engineering
>
>
> <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 [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/d/optout.
