On what basis is one suggesting that the side effects could be
"potentially devastating"? Even with there possibly being unusual or
negative consequences along with, for most regions, the return toward
conditions that are more like, for example, late 20th century
conditions, the comparison needs to be to what the consequences are
projected to be without climate intervention, and those are tremendous,
and one might suggest, the ones that should be referred to as
"devastating." There may well be strong reasons not to intervene to
alter the climate, but I don't think that suggesting that the
consequences will be worse than those without climate intervention is
anywhere near the top reason and coming into the analysis with that bias
seems to me quite unjustified.
Mike MacCracken
On 3/31/17 5:10 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
http://cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/former-un-climate-advisor-leads-initiative-to-regulate-geo-engineering
Former UN climate advisor leads initiative to regulate geo-engineering
KLIMA <http://cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima> - Et magasin om
klimaforskning fra CICERO
Key scientists
Christian BjørnæsCOMMUNICATION DIRECTOR
<http://cicero.uio.no/no/employee/8/christian-bjornaes>
Publisert 23.03.2017
Geo-engineering can be a cheap way of instantly lowering the
Earth’s temperature - with potentially devastating side effects.
The technology is here but international regulation is lacking.
The desire to control the weather is as old as humanity but only over
the last decade have we started to develop technologies to alter the
climate. A few are already developed, some exists only as models, and
most are still at the level of academic research.
On 16 February the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International
Affairs launched the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance
Initiative <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/index.html>,
a four year initiative to advance the governance of geo-engineering.
The project is bankrolled by the Carnegie Foundation and lead by Janos
Pasztor. Most recently, Pasztor was the United Nations assistant
secretary-general for climate change under Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
“There is very little, practically no discussion about geo-engineering
at the policy level. Our job is to move the debate from academia into
intergovernmental policy space and to develop governance”, said
Pasztor when KLIMA met him at COP22 in Marrakech.
Climate geoengineering is deliberate, intentional planetary-scale
interventions in the Earth system to counteract climate change
The long-term objective of the C2G2 Initiative is to encourage policy
dialogues on and to contribute to the development of governance
frameworks for climate geoengineering, which is defined as deliberate,
intentional planetary-scale interventions in the Earth system to
counteract climate change.
Two main technologies
Geo-engineering technologies can be divided in two categories. The
technologies that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere are called carbon
dioxide removal. Those that reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches
the earth’s surface are called solar radiation management.
Solar radiation management, where for instance particles are spewed
into the stratosphere to block sunlight from reaching the earth’s
surface, can work fast and are relatively cheap.
The low cost of some of these technologies could tempt countries and
even some large companies to deploy solar radiation management to
protect their interests.
“The problem with solar radiation management is that it doesn’t solve
the problem. Unless you simultaneously reduce emissions, you must
manage the incoming solar radiation for hundreds of years.
“Carbon dioxide removal on the other hand is relatively expensive and
it takes time, but it also solves the problem. You have two completely
different techniques and many researchers believe that we are most
likely to use them in combination”, said Pasztor.
Bio energy with CCS
Bio energy with carbon capture and storage, known as BECCS, is a
carbon dioxide removal technology. It is often referred to as negative
emissions and built into most of the IPCCs 2C scenarios. Although
considered mostly harmless, widespread use of BECCS to compensate for
high emissions will have side effects too.
“It has huge impact on land use, on water use, it affects
precipitation and therefore can threaten food security”, said Pasztor.
The Initiative will neither promote nor be necessarily against the
potential use of climate geoengineering, but will advocate for the
development of governance frameworks necessary for expanded research
on such techniques, including their environmental, social, and
economic impacts, as well as for their potential deployment.
“There is a plausible scenario in the next five, ten, fifteen years
that some governments may turn to geo-engineering. The IPCCs latest
assessment report makes it very clear that to keep warming below 2C,
we need to deploy a lot of negative emissions. Many people believe it
is simply not possible to reach those goals without some combination
of geo-engineering.”
Widespread use of BECCS to compensate for high emissions will have
side effects too.
Despite this, geo-engineering is not a hot topic in the international
climate diplomacy.
“In the negotiation process, this topic is almost a taboo. There are
no discussions on it. Geo-engineering does not exist in the UNFCCC
vocabulary. You find references to negative emissions which is part of
geo-engineering. And certainly, no reference to solar radiation
management.”
The reason could be that many policy makers are afraid geo-engineering
will steal attention from mitigation. Pasztor likens it to the debate
around adaptation 15 years ago.
“Those of us who promoted adaptation said it doesn’t matter how much
we mitigate, we still have to do some adaptation. Today, adaptation
and mitigation are looked at almost equally”
Towards government action?
The Initiative is engaging relevant stakeholders in intergovernmental
and international nongovernmental organizations, the research
community, think tanks, the private sector, as well as government
officials to raise awareness about the issues; to encourage policy
dialogues; to develop elements of the necessary governance frameworks;
and ultimately to catalyze intergovernmental action.
“We will reach out to governments both systematically and informally.
After a few years, we hope to have a network of organizations and
institutions both inside and outside government that is discussing
these issues and hopefully we will see some government action.
“In addition, we will work with treaties and existing conventions such
as the climate convention, the bio diversity convention and the London
anti-dumping convention. We will also be exploring some new
alternative legal arrangements that don’t exist yet”, said Pasztor.
--
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.
--
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.
