*Wil Burns:* "3. I do applaud the bill's proposal to establish a mechanism for public deliberation on the merits of climate geoengineering, something woefully lacking in both the major NAS reports released a few weeks ago."
Wil, The report specifically calls for a 'serious deliberative process' involving civil society. While we called for the deliberative process to be framed around governance of research, it was assumed that any discussion of governance would explicitly consider the broader merits of proposed activities. Furthermore, if you look at the scope of what we were charged to do ( https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49540), establishment of public deliberation mechanisms was not part of our scope. We felt that by calling for a 'serious deliberative process', we were opening opportunities for others to try to establish such a mechanism. Best, Ken http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth *Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends the initiation of a serious deliberative process to examine: (a) what types of research governance, beyond those that already exist, may be needed for albedo modification research, and (b) the types of research that would require such governance, potentially based on the magnitude of their expected impact on radiative forcing, their potential for detrimental direct and indirect effects, and other considerations. * * If a new governance structure is determined to be needed based on deliberations among governance experts and civil society representatives, the development of the governance structure should consider the importance of being transparent and having input from a broad set of stakeholders to ensure trust among the stakeholders and appropriate consideration of all dimensions. * *Such a governance structure should consider setting clear and quantitative guidelines for experimentation and be responsive to domestic and international laws and treaties. * *The deliberative process should consider focusing on research activities that involve injecting material into the atmosphere, for example aerosol producing substances injected into the upper atmosphere or cloud-brightening substances injected near the surface. * *If a program of research in albedo modification includes controlled-emission experiments, it should provide for a sufficiently specific governance regime to at least define the scale of experiments at which oversight begins. * *The approach to governance should consider the need for increasing supervision as the scope and scale of the research and its potential implications increase, including the amount of material emitted, the area affected, and the length of time over which emission continues. * *The goal of the governance should be to maximize the benefits of research while minimizing risks. * *The United States should help lead the development of best practices or specific norms that could serve as a model for researchers and funding agencies in other countries and could lower the risks associated with albedo modification research. * _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/ blog: http://kencaldeira.org @KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected]>, with access to incoming emails. Postdoc positions available in my group: https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/dge/ On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't have any insights into the genesis of this bill, but I suspect > it's not the last one we'll see of this nature. Just as climate > policy/energy policy (think things e.g. state regulation of fracking or > RGGI or AB32) has been effectuated at the sub-national level, so may > climate geoengineering policy. It is possible, however, should climate > geoengineering become a serious policy option in the United States, that > Congress may seek to upend state regulation of this nature. I think it > would have clear authority to do so under the Preemption Clause of the US > Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). > > As for the bill itself, a couple of things jump out: > > 1. Given the potential threats outlined in the Findings of Fact portion of > the bill, it's really unclear why it seeks to regulate carbon dioxide > removal research at all. I think one could make an argument that there are > some areas of concern in this context that might be of concern, but they > are not set forth in the bill. In fact, 23-23.8-3(3) notes that > geoengineering would merely mask the potential impacts of climate change > and not address ocean acidification. That's assuredly not the case in terms > of CDR approaches, so the bill's drafters appear to be a bit confused, and > perhaps a bit overinclusive, in terms of the scope of potential regulation; > > 2. I can't see how CDR experiments, or even deployment within state > boundaries, could be deemed to be a violation of Chapter 23 of Title 23 of > the Air Pollution Episode Control Act of the state, which would also make > enforcement problematic; > > 3. I do applaud the bill's proposal to establish a mechanism for public > deliberation on the merits of climate geoengineering, something woefully > lacking in both the major NAS reports released a few weeks ago. However, > the mechanism to effectuate this, public hearings, doesn't appear to be the > optimal approach to accomplish this, in that it's likely that such venues > won't be representative of public sentiment, nor is there a reflexive > process that would help to engage scientists, citizens and policymakers in > a dialogue about the technical, ethical and political implications of > geoengineering. The state could become a leader in this context by > developing a process, as some states have done in the past in the context > of nanotechnology and GMOs (e.g. North Carolina State University's National > Citizens' Technology Forum), to facilitate this. This could include the > development of consensus forums, citizen juries and deliberative mapping > exercises. It would behoove our community to reach out to the drafters to > discuss some of these issues. > > On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 4:37:11 PM UTC-7, Hester, Tracy wrote: >> >> >> We now have possibly the first state proposed legislation in the United >> States to control climate engineering efforts. A bill (H-5480) was >> recently introduced in the Rhode Island legislature that would require any >> climate engineering efforts to undergo an approval process and two (at >> least) public hearings. The bill would impose fines and up to 90 days >> imprisonment for each day that the unapproved climate engineering >> continues. The bill also gives Rhode Island's environmental agency the >> ability to enjoin and halt an unapproved project. >> >> >> If you'd like to get more details, you can review the bill itself at >> http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText15/ >> HouseText15/H5480.pdf >> >> >> >> These local initiatives might pop up in other state legislatures if >> climate engineering research gains momentum (especially after the NAS >> reports last month). If so, the prospect of overlapping or conflicting >> regulations from multiple states will often spur the federal government to >> impose its own consolidated regulatory scheme to preempt the state efforts. >> >> >> >> >> Professor Tracy Hester >> University of Houston Law Center >> 100 Law Center >> Houston, Texas 77204 >> 713-743-1152 >> [email protected] >> Web bio: www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester >> >> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
