ENMOD “addresses” non-hostile CE in that it explicitly states that the treaty “shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes…. [Parties] [r]ealiz[e] that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man [sic] and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations...” But it says nothing about regulating non-hostile environmental modification. It simply bans the hostile or military applications which meet certain criteria of destructiveness, and rhetorically supports the peaceful, productive applications. Furthermore, it has no infrastructure, e.g. a regular meeting of Parties, a secretariat, expert committees, etc. This was typical of treaties of its time. So it would be difficult to “awaken” this “sleeping” treaty and to refine its approach to the new and emerging technologies of SRM.
-Jesse ----------------------------------------- Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Parker Sent: 05 February 2015 13:17 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Earth's chill pill? Responses to the recent Washington Post Op-Ed Some quick responses to Jim/in general: Oceans – a few people have emailed me to register a concern that the op-ed didn’t say that SRM deployment would result in ocean acidification. This is something that comes up regularly in SRM discussions and needs to be better understood, or at least unpacked, I think. As far as I understand it, SRM would not do anything about ocean acidification either way (bar a small effect Phil Williamson wrote a paper about a few years ago, where cooler oceans might soak up slightly more atmospheric CO2). As such SRM causes ocean acidification about as much as adaptation does. Of course I suspect that people are concerned that SRM deployment would produce a very high moral hazard response that would result in reduced action on mitigation. If so this needs to be stated, as it’s highly uncertain at this point and not an automatic effect of SAI use. Finally it strikes me that the ‘SRM --> ocean acidification’ charge is an example of a common and unhelpful argument over SRM. One group says ‘SRM might reduce overall climate risk’ and the other group says ‘SRM can’t solve our CO2 problems’. Both of these positions are reasonable interpretations of the current evidence, but the message a person chooses to emphasise depends on their beliefs, values and target audience. Of course both messages fit nicely together and should come as a pair. ENMOD – our piece stated that getting a consensus agreement between nearly 200 countries on an exact global temperature was implausible, not that getting any UN agreement was implausible. And lawyers can and should wade in here, but my understanding is that ENMOD is not appropriate for the regulation of geoengineering because it addresses only weather/climate modification with hostile intent. Complexity – not sure what you’re agreeing with here, Jim. But it reminds me of something I wanted to ask you about previously: your quote from von Neumann in the main thread on the Post op-ed implied to me that you think SRM will be exploited as a weapon. "Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others even more awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our present involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited." -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, 106–108. Is this what you think? And if so, are you saying that you think we will one day understand the climate system enough, and be able to control it with sufficient accuracy, to be able to use it for military purposes over specific territories without unacceptable side effects? How does this square with your concerns about complexity? I might be limited by understanding and imagination but I cannot see that weaponisation is a realistic possibility for SAI. On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 12:26:11 AM UTC+1, James Fleming wrote: Agreed on ENMOD, complexity, and oceans. See for example Fixing the Sky (2010), 183ff. James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Scholar, Columbia University Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, bit.ly/THQMcd<http://bit.ly/THQMcd> Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Alan Robock <[email protected]<javascript:>> wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/earths-chill-pill/2015/02/03/41f7e0f2-ab02-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html -- Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]<javascript:> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 -- 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]<javascript:>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>. 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
