Hi All
As well as iron fertilization, Discovery Channel did an experiment on
marine cloud brightening off Laaiplek in South Africa. It could have
been better controlled and they used flares rather than salt and
produced only about two minutes output of a spray vessel but the result
was far more than we expected.
Stephen
On 13/02/2016 08:02, Andrew Lockley wrote:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/139131423003/the-legality-of-climate-geoengineering-and-the#.Vr4mFs7VsTE.twitter
Q&A with William Burns
Is geoengineering a futuristic topic, or has it been attempted before?
WB: We’re at a very early stage for virtually all climate manipulation
technologies. We have one geoengineering approach that has actually
been tested - ocean iron fertilization. Proponents of the ocean iron
fertilization approach propose that we seed certain ocean areas
(primarily the Southern Ocean) with iron filings to stimulate
phytoplankton production. Phytoplankton take up carbon dioxide to use
in photosynthetic processes, and when they die, a portion of that
sequestered phytoplankton will remain stored deep in the oceans,
potentially reducing atmospheric concentrations.
There have been 14 small-scale field experiments to date. However, in
the case of other climate geoengineering options, all research has
been restricted to laboratories and theoretical conceptualizing. The
drums are getting much louder, however, for giving climate
geoengineering options a hard look. In the past five years there have
been more scientific papers written on geoengineering than in the last
hundred and fifty years. The US National Academy of Sciences has
recently called for a national research program. Research programs
have been established in the European Union, and China. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent
assessment report extensively discussed climate geoengineering approaches.
The Paris Agreement, signed at the 21st Conference of the Parties to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, provides
that countries should seek to limit temperature increases to no more
than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and perhaps 1.5° Celsius.
Proponents of climate geoengineering contend the only way to meet that
objective may be to commit to a sizeable geoengineering component,
necessitating a research program to assess options. I think this
argument is starting to resonate.
Can you explain what you think is lacking in current efforts to bring
geoengineering to the public’s attention?
WB: If you look at the National Academy of Science’s studies that were
published in February of last year, which I focus on in my article,
there are two things that strike me as lacking. The Academy contends
that “stakeholders” should be involved in discussions of climate
geoengineering options, but this term is not defined in the study.
However, it appears that the NAS views non-governmental organizations
as a kind of proxy for the public to represent their interest in this
process.
However, public perceptions of geoengineering and their concerns don’t
necessarily coincide with the agenda of non-governmental
organizations, especially larger ones that are most likely to be
involved in this process. Thus, the NAS is not really calling for
public deliberation; they’re calling for stakeholder deliberation,
which might never include the public or mirror their concerns about
climate geoengineering.
The NAS reports also appear to to be calling for public input only
after climate geoengineering research programs have begun. The real
danger here is that the public will be asked its opinions on climate
geoengineering only after such programs, supported by vested interests
that may develop in the interim, have become a virtual fait accompli.
If “pubic involvement” means merely to survey the public and say “hey,
what do you think about these issues,” I argue that that’s not
sufficient. A very early stage deliberative process is what we need,
which means giving the public the ability to receive and synthesize
information, and then engage with other members of the public and
experts in an ongoing reflexive learning process that ultimately
improves everybody’s understanding of their respective, and our common
interests.
What is the legality of geoengineering - who has the authority to
address this issue?
WB: Many of us who work on geoengineering issues are wrestling with
the issue of governance; it is one of the focus of our research
programs at FCEA. What institution(s) should be involved in overseeing
research and development? Is it a private institution, such as the
NAS? Is it a combination of private and government entities? Is it an
international institution? Is it a coalition of States agreeing to
some kind of regional accord?
It’s unclear at this point, but I guess the good news is that there’s
a lot of discussion of such issues, and a recognition that such
discussion must proceed in parallel with the consideration of
potential research agendas.
One of the fears that we have is that one or more countries might
ultimately proceed unilaterally, which is a possibility.
Geoengineering, in some ways, is a mirror image of what happens in the
context of climate policy-making. With climate policy-making, unless
you have the top ten or twelve emitters all agree to substantially
reduce their emissions, you’re not likely to effectively address
climate change. By contrast, the vast majority of countries in the
world would have the financial and technological resources to develop
their own geoengineering program that could alter climatic trends. In
some ways, that’s the good news.
On the other hand, that’s also the bad news, i.e. that one country
could unilaterally dictate climate policy for the entire world. It
could be argued from an international law perspective that if they
created transboundary harm, or negatively impacted the global commons,
they would be liable for such damages. There are international legal
principles that say you can’t cause damage across boundaries, such as
the “no-harm principle,” but that language is vague, and it assumes
there is judicial forum with jurisdiction to hold a country liable.
You need an international tribunal, like the International Court of
Justice, and the problem with that is it’s a voluntary system. You
have to consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, or else it can’t hear the case.
Could you briefly overview some of the options for public deliberative
processes?
WB: One possible approach is citizen juries, which usually involve a
number of sessions, frequent interaction with experts, and detailed
findings at the end. One of the problems with the citizen jury
approach is that it’s hard to be representative if you’re trying to
“ascertain public sentiment” when you’re only talking about a couple
hundred people at the most. Is it truly representative of what the
public thinks in these issues? Of course, one might argue that what
we’re seeking is to highlight some of the issues that the public might
find germane, and to stimulate further, more widespread, public
discussion.
Another approach is deliberative mapping, which involves efforts to
distill and hone positions by looking at different scenarios. A
broader approach are “World Wide Views” forums, which can bring
together thousands of participants to discuss such issues, and then
facilitate comparison of perspectives across cultures. These are all
efforts to some degree to engage in deliberation, to acknowledge the
fact that opinions may change as more knowledge is attained, but to
also try to tease out the full range of public concerns about all the
possible risks and benefits that might exist in the context of climate
geoengineering. This will provide policymakers with a clearer view of
how the public feels about an issue, so that the policy-making process
is more democratic than it might otherwise be.
Do you think there are any parallels between getting public
involvement in geoengineering research and other research that affects
large groups?
WB: I think there absolutely is. Given our technological prowess these
days, humans have the ability to control the Earth’s future to some
degree, leading many scientists to argue that we’ve entered a new era
called “The Anthropocene.” Public deliberations in this context may
help guide us in how to ensure robust public deliberation about other
momentous issues of this nature
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs,
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
