List, cc (Dr?) Jesse
1. I recommend others look into the cite below, where there is a most
extensive (459 footnotes in 69 pages) discussion of much more than the little
bit below on military aspects of CE.
2. Re "(Dr?)": His site (below) says his PhD is expected this month,
so "Congratulations". This article shows a lot of apparently excellent work.
3. Jesse's notes did not include this cite that helps understand his
response about military usage of weather/climate modification:
81. See Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques, art. III.2, Dec. 10, 1976, 1108 U.N.T.S.
151
[hereinafter ENMOD] ("The State parties to this Convention undertake to
facilitate, and
have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific
and technological
information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful
purposes.");
see also Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
para. 7,
June 16, 1972, 11 I.L.M. 1416 [hereinafter Stockholm Declaration] ("Man has the
fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an
environment of
a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn
responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.").
4. As this is way out of my area of interest (about a dozen uses of
"CDR" - mostly on ocean fertilization and a smaller number of usages of
"ethic"; no mention of biochar), I do not expect to read this tome. But I
skimmed the conclusions section and think this summarizes his view on where
large scale implementation of climate engineering stands:
"It is important to emphasize that this favorable setting does not
necessarily extend to the deployment of large-scale climate engineering
projects."
5. I will respond separately to Andrew/List on the conversation
between Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein, to which Jesse is adding the comments
below. I would guess that those two would not argue with Jesse; the military
aspect of weather modification seemed to be an aside to show negative results
are possible.
Ron
On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, J.L. Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adding, contra her assertion, international treaties do not prohibit weather
> modification. The ENMOD treaty does prohibit hostile use of environmental
> modification (which includes both weather and climate modification) which has
> widespread, long lasting, or severe effects which cross international
> borders. This only applies when both the source state and the harmed state
> are parties to the treaty (which most of the industrialized world is). It
> does not apply when the effects are within the source state, are in a
> non-participating state, or in areas beyond national jurisdiction (e.g. the
> high seas, Antarctica). It explicitly protects and even encourages peaceful
> environmental modification. Some text from my article is below.
>
> Although the definition of "environmental modification techniques" includes
> many forms of climate engineering,[1] ENMOD prohibits only "engag[ing] in
> military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques
> having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of
> destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party."[2] ENMOD does not
> prohibit the research and development of potentially hostile environmental
> modification techniques, and it explicitly states that it "shall not hinder
> the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes."[3]
> Moreover, ENMOD recognizes and encourages peaceful environmental
> modification: "[Parties] [r]ealiz[e] that the use of environmental
> modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the
> interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and
> improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future
> generations . . . ."[4] Parties are to exchange scientific information
> regarding peaceful environmental modification, and those with the financial
> means "shall contribute . . . to international economic and scientific
> co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the
> environment . . . ."[5] If "the preservation, improvement and peaceful
> utilization of the environment" were to include reducing climate change
> risks, the passage could even be interpreted as an obligation for
> industrialized Parties to "contribute" to climate engineering research.
> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/3
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Jesse L. Reynolds
> European and International Public Law
> Tilburg Sustainability Center
> Tilburg University, The Netherlands
> Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
> email: [email protected]
> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/
> http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
> Sent: 19 September 2014 01:22
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Democracy now, Naomi Klein interview (CE extract)
>
> Poster's note : irksome interview which falls into lazy intellectual traps
> (solar power vs geoengineering, monsoon disruption risk). Maybe a lesson for
> scientists, in that "idealised experiments" clearly have the potential to
> enter folklore as policy-relevant ideas, even among leading environmental
> thinkers.
>
> http://m.democracynow.org/web_exclusives/2256
>
> JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You also talk about others who have other ideas of how to deal
> with the problem--geoengineering--
>
> NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.
>
> JUAN GONZÁLEZ: --and one conference that you attended during your research on
> geoengineering. Could you talk about that?
>
> NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, well, look, the point is, is that we have been emitting
> now for so long. We have been going in the wrong direction now for so long
> that, as Michael Mann says, the Penn State climate scientist who wrote The
> Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, there's a procrastination penalty. So,
> we're now in a situation where, you know, if we had started in 1990 or 1992,
> we maybe could have done this gradually. But now, we have to do it so
> radically that it requires things like what we've been talking
> about--contracting, deliberately contracting parts of our economies, these
> huge investments in the public sphere. And this is so unthinkable to our
> economic elites that we are now increasingly hearing, "Well, it's inevitable,
> and because it's inevitable, we need to start thinking about these
> technofixes, like geoengineering." So, I mean, to me, it's very telling that
> it is more thinkable to turn down the sun than it is to think about changing
> capitalism. And--
>
> AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, "turn down the sun"?
>
> NAOMI KLEIN: Well, so, one of the geoengineering methods that gets taken most
> seriously is called "solar radiation management." Solar radiation management,
> managing the sun. So, what you--so the idea is that you would spray sulfur
> aerosols into the stratosphere, then they would reflect some of the sun's
> rays back to space and dim the sun and cool the Earth. So, climate change is
> caused by pollution in the lower atmosphere, and so they're saying that the
> solution to that pollution is pollution in the stratosphere.
>
> And, you know, it's really frightening when you look at some of the modeling
> that is being done about what the possible downsides of this could be. And
> this is sometimes called the Pinatubo Option, because it would simulate the
> effects of a very powerful volcano. And we know that after these eruptions,
> these very powerful volcanoes, that send sulfur into the stratosphere, we do
> see cooler winters. And Mount Pinatubo is an example of that. But we also see
> interference with rainfall, interference with monsoons in Africa, in Asia. So
> we're talking about potentially playing with the water source, which in turn
> plays with the food source, for billions of people. And there's no way to
> test it. So, some models show this is very dangerous. Other models show that
> it can be managed. But the point is, you can't test something like this
> without deploying it. You know, you can test how--you could talk about nozzle
> test: You can make sure you can actually spray it. But the point is, we would
> not know how this would interact with an incredibly complex climate system
> until it was actually deployed. So you'd have to essentially use all of the
> world's population as guinea pigs.
>
> And I think what's--you know, this is why I say this changes everything.
> There are no nonradical options left. And this is why I think climate change
> is particularly hard for centrist serious liberals to wrap their minds
> around, because they're always looking for those nonradical solutions, you
> know, splitting the difference and something that will seem reasonable and
> politically sellable. The problem is, we've got climate change which will
> radically change our physical world, or geoengineering, which is, you know, a
> deliberate attempt to radically change our physical world with absolutely
> unknown consequences and untestable consequences. Or we, rather than try to
> change the laws of nature, try to change what we actually can, which is the
> laws of economics.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: I mean, you have the Heartland Institute describing
> geoengineering as, quote, "much less expensive than seeking to stem
> temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions";
> Cato Institute arguing "geo-engineering is more cost-effective than emissions
> controls altogether"; Hudson Institute saying that geoengineering, quote,
> "could obviate the majority of the need for carbon cuts and enable us to
> avoid lifestyle changes." The very point you're making.
>
> NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, so, I mean, some of the scientists who are at the heart of
> this research--you know, people like David Keith or Ken Caldeira--they would
> say, "We absolutely do not see this as an alternative to emission reduction.
> We see this as potentially a stopgap measure." And you can understand why
> many climate scientists, who have been sounding the alarm now for decades,
> saying, you know, "We are in huge trouble. We need to cut emissions," seeing
> no action--in fact, seeing us going in the wrong direction--would be
> desperate enough to start trying to propose these technofixes.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: What's wrong with seating the clouds over drought areas?
>
> NAOMI KLEIN: Look, all of this is a huge gamble. But what you're talking
> about is--you know, you're talking about a regional response. And actually,
> that's not entirely new. There have been these attempts to do regional
> weather modification. Actually, it's banned in international treaties,
> because it was the first--the sort of first wave of discussion around this
> was not about responding to drought, it was using climate engineering as a
> weapon of war. And this was actually attempted during the Vietnam War, to try
> to flood deliberately the Ho Chi Minh Trail. So, there's a whole Cold War
> history around weather modification. So this is a new incarnation of an old
> story and the idea that this could be done at a global scale as a climate
> fix. But, of course, once you unleash these technologies, you don't--it's not
> well-meaning climate scientists who decide how it's going to be deployed.
> It's governments who decide how it's going to be deployed. And you can easily
> see a scenario where, you know, say, the U.S. and Europe do a sort of
> emergency geoengineering response that has a negative effect on China and
> India, and they then retaliate with their own.
>
> You know, the point is, I don't think this is around the corner, but I do
> think it underscores just how radical a situation we find ourselves in, that
> serious people are seriously discussing this as if it's sane. It's not. And
> that should prompt us, I think, to talk about much saner solutions, like,
> hey, we can switch to 100 percent renewable energy. We have examples like
> Germany. They're heading for 60 percent renewable energy in a decade. You
> know, why don't we do that instead, because it's a lot lower risk? It does
> require us to challenge the--it does require that we have this ideological
> war, that we take on corporate power, which is why it is so important that
> we're having actions like Flood Wall Street and that we have a new generation
> of climate activists that understand who the actual barriers to climate
> action is, because I think most people would rather put a solar panel on
> their roof than turn down the sun
>
> --
> 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 [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.
>
> [1]. See ENMOD, supra note 81, art. II ("[T]he term
> 'environmental modification techniques' refers to any technique for
> changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the
> dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota,
> lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.").
> [2]. Id. art. I.1.
> [3]. Id. art. III.1.
> [4]. Id. pmbl.
> [5]. Id. art. III.2.
>
> --
> 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 [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.
--
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.
