https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05877-5
CORRESPONDENCE 08 AUGUST 2018 Glacier geoengineering needs lawyers too Brendan Gogarty - <https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Glacier+geoengineering+needs+lawyers+too&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-018-05877-5> - <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-018-05877-5> - <?subject=Glacier%20geoengineering%20needs%20lawyers%20too&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-018-05877-5> PDF version <https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05877-5/d41586-018-05877-5.pdf> Proposals such as those of John Moore and colleagues (*Nature *555, 303–305; 2018 <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03036-4>) for Antarctic glacier geoengineering understate the legal challenges presented by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). This system is crucial to Antarctic governance, but faces considerable geopolitical pressure (*Nature* 558, 161; 2018 <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05368-7>). It is essential that any activities affecting the Antarctic ecosystem properly engage with the ATS from the outset. Antarctic geoengineering proposals would not “require global consent” as Moore *et al*. state, but instead would need the approval of the 29 consultative parties to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is an important independent contributor to the ATS. However, it is actually the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), created by the 1991 Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty, that formally advises the consultative parties about proposals affecting the Antarctic environment. The Madrid Protocol bans mining and declares Antarctica a natural reserve. We think that the CEP is likely to advise that the “major disturbances to local ecosystems” arising from Moore and colleagues’ proposals — particularly quarrying of local rock and dredging — would infringe Madrid Protocol protections. Geoengineering that affects marine ecosystems might also require separate permission under the 1982 ATS Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Any discussion of geoengineering in Antarctica needs to preserve and strengthen Antarctic governance, not weaken it. This is a task for international lawyers and policymakers as well as scientists. Nature 560, 167 (2018) doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05877-5 Latest on: Climate sciences Engineering Law Eradicate illicit production of ozone-depleting emissions CORRESPONDENCE08 AUG 18 <http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05879-3>[image: Human errors are behind most oil-tanker spills]Human errors are behind most oil-tanker spills COMMENT06 AUG 18 <http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05852-0>[image: Fury at US environmental agency’s effort to weaken fuel standards]Fury at US environmental agency’s effort to weaken fuel standards NEWS02 AUG 18 <http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05832-4> Nature Briefing Sign up for the daily Nature Briefingemail newsletter Stay up to date with what matters in science and why, handpicked from Nature and other publications worldwide. SIGN UP <https://www.nature.com/briefing/signup/> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 1. Supplementary list of co-signatories <https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05877-5/supplementary-list-of-co-signatories> SUBJECTS - Climate sciences <https://www.nature.com/subjects/climate-sciences> - - Engineering <https://www.nature.com/subjects/engineering> - - Law <https://www.nature.com/subjects/law> -- 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.
