And a take on the recent Asilomar geoengineering conference. wil
Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 1702 Arlington Blvd. El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA Ph: 650.281.9126 Fax: 510.779.5361 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Journal home page: <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp> http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp SSRN site (selected publications): <http://ssrn.com/author=240348> http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 11:28 AM To: Wil Burns Subject: Hacking the planet - to bits Dear BIOPLANNERS, I have been posting for a while now on the slippery slope we are sliding down towards making geo-engineering "respectable" - articles in the academic literature, a report by the Royal Society (UK), and now what better than ....a conference, which no doubt will soon become a "landmark conference". The ASILOMAR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGIES was held from March 22-26, 2009, see http://climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=81 and the postings below. As you read the postings, I suggest that you walk slowly, in ever-decreasing circles, with both arms held horizontally in front of you, making zzzzzz-like sounds - this will make the whole thing seem much more realistic. Best wishes David Duthie -- David Duthie UNEP-GEF Geneva Switzerland Email: david.duthie(at)unep.ch ******************************* Science & Technology Geoengineering We all want to change the world Dealing with climate change might mean tinkering with the oceans and the atmosphere. Those who could do so would like the regulations to be clear Mar 31st 2010 | ASILOMAR | http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814427 IN 1975 scientists expert in a new and potentially world-changing technology, genetic engineering, gathered at Asilomar, on the Monterey peninsula in California, to ponder the ethics and safety of the course they were embarking on. The year before, they had imposed on themselves a voluntary moratorium on experiments which involved the transfer of genes from one species to another, amid concerns about the risk to human health and to the environment which such “transgenic” creations might pose. That decision gave the wider world confidence that the emerging field of biotechnology was taking its responsibilities seriously, which meant that the Asilomar conference was able to help shape a safety regime that allowed the moratorium to be lifted. That, in turn, paved the way for the subsequent boom in molecular biology and biotechnology. Another bunch of researchers, accompanied by policy experts, social scientists and journalists, gathered in Asilomar between March 22nd and 26th, hoped for a similar outcome to their deliberations. This time the topic under discussion was not genetic engineering but geoengineering—deliberately rather than accidentally changing the world’s environment. Geoengineering is an umbrella term for large-scale actions intended to combat the climate-changing effects of greenhouse-gas emissions without actually curbing those emissions. Like genetic engineering was in the 1970s, the very idea of geoengineering is controversial. Most of those who fear climate change would prefer to stop it by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Geoengineers argue that this may prove insufficient and that ways of tinkering directly with the atmosphere and the oceans need to be studied. Some would like to carry out preliminary experiments, and wish to do so in a clear regulatory framework so that they know what is allowed and what is not. Ruled in or ruled out? Like the biotechnology of the 1970s, geoengineering cannot be treated just as science-as-usual. There are, however, important differences between the subjects. One is that in the 1970s it was clear that the ability to move genes between creatures was going to bring about a huge change in the practice of science itself, and biologists were eager for that to happen. Modern climate scientists, by contrast, usually see geoengineering research as niche, if not fringe, stuff. Many wish it would go away completely. Another difference is that in the 1970s there was a worry that DNA experiments could in themselves present dangers. With geoengineering the dangers are more likely to be caused by large-scale deployment than by any individual scientific experiment. There are two broad approaches to geoengineering. One is to reduce the amount of incoming sunlight that the planet absorbs. The other is to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and put it somewhere else. The second of these approaches is not particularly in need of new regulation. Whether the carbon dioxide is captured by real trees, as some would like, or by artificial devices, environmental problems caused by the process would be local ones at the site of the sucking. Underground storage of the captured carbon would be regulated in the same way that carbon dioxide sequestered from power stations might be—again, for the most part, a local matter. Even the most potentially disturbing suggestion, which involves fertilising the oceans with iron in order to promote the growth of planktonic algae (in the hope that they would sink to the seabed, taking their carbon with them), can be covered by the London Convention on marine pollution, which regulates dumping at sea, and has already addressed itself to research in the area. Reducing incoming sunlight, by contrast, is fraught with danger. While it is possible to imagine doing so in a way that cancels out the change in average temperature caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, such a reduction would not simply restore the status quo. Local temperatures would still change in some places, as would ocean currents, rainfall patterns, soil moisture and photosynthesis. Sunshine reduction, then, clearly needs to be regulated. (It also needs to be renamed: these techniques are currently referred to as “Solar Radiation Management”, a term invented half in jest that has somehow stuck.) One set of small-scale sunshine-reduction experiments discussed in Asilomar would send plumes of various sulphurous fluids in the stratosphere to find out which would best produce a haze of small particles similar to those that cool the planet after a large volcanic eruption. Another would attempt to whiten clouds over the oceans by wafting tiny salt particles up into them. Thus enriched, the clouds would, in theory, tend to have more, smaller droplets in them. More droplets mean more reflection and less sunshine down below. A team of scientists and engineers that calls itself Silver Lining is working on this idea, with some of its research paid for with money from Bill Gates. In both cases, the experiments would be tiny compared with what people are already doing. In the week of the Asilomar meeting Science published evidence that more pollutants than previously appreciated, including oxides of sulphur, are getting into the lower stratosphere. Exhaust gases from shipping already brighten clouds over various bits of the ocean, and in so doing are thought to cool the Earth appreciably. As new regulations clean up shipping fuels in order to improve air quality in coastal regions, that brightening effect will be reduced, adding to the world’s warming in a sort of inadvertent reverse geoengineering. Researchers in the field fear, though, that despite being much smaller than existing, inadvertent changes, their experiments will nevertheless become a focus for strident opposition unless there is a clear and respectable system of regulation. Without that, each experiment, however harmless, would be forced to serve as a proxy for the whole approach—a recipe for strangulation by protest and bureaucracy. In retrospect, the Asilomar meeting may come to be seen as a step towards that respectable system, but probably only a small one. The participants did not produce clear recommendations, but they generally endorsed a set of five overarching principles for the regulation of the field that were presented recently to the British Parliament by Steve Rayner, a professor at the Saïd Business School, in Oxford. (downloadable at:http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/insis/news/Pages/geoengineering-regulation.aspx) The “Oxford principles”, as they are known, hold that geoengineering should be regulated as a public good, in that, since people cannot opt out, the whole proceeding has to be in a well-defined public interest; that decisions defining the extent of that interest should be made with public participation; that all attempts at geoengineering research should be made public and their results disseminated openly; that there should be an independent assessment of the impacts of any geoengineering research proposal; and that governing arrangements be made clear prior to any actual use of the technologies. The conference’s organising committee is now working on a further statement of principles, to be released later. Meanwhile Britain’s main scientific academy, the Royal Society, and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, which has members from around 90 countries, are planning further discussions that will culminate at a meeting to be held this November. Producing plausible policies and ways for the public to have a say on them will be hard—harder, perhaps, than the practical problem of coming up with ways to suck up a bit of carbon or reduce incoming sunshine. As Andrew Mathews, an anthropologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, puts it, it is not just a matter of constructing a switch, it is a matter of constructing a hand you trust to flip it. ******************************** To hack the planet, first win trust * 30 March 2010 * New Scientist Magazine issue 2754 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627543.300-to-hack-the-planet-first-win-trust.html SCIENCE sometimes produces world-threatening technologies. Thirty-five years ago, genetic engineering was in its infancy, but dangers such as the creation of new viruses were clearly visible. So the field's top scientists headed to Asilomar in California to discuss how to regulate their work. They recognised the need to pause and think before plunging into action. The meeting has gone down in history as setting the stage for a golden era of biological research. Last week, Asilomar hosted another meeting with epoch-marking potential. Leading researchers in geoengineering gathered to debate how best to organise a mission to save the planet from dangerous climate change (see "Hacking the planet: who decides?"). The notion that we should fight global warming by firing particles into the stratosphere or placing mirrors in orbit was once seen as a distraction from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the pace of political action has been so slow, and the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so relentless, that many scientists and environmentalists now concede it makes sense to at least begin planning for a world geoengineering project. That, however, is a daunting task. Geoengineering is by definition a global project and one that will affect every one of us. It is also a huge gamble, with the "law of unintended consequences" looming large. Scientists' instincts will be to plunge into developing the technology. That would be a mistake. If experiments begin without consultation and debate, protesters will argue that the technology is being foisted upon us. To be a workable plan B, geoengineering will first have to gain public acceptance. That will be a tough sell. Faced with new technologies, people invariably ask: is it safe? Who will govern it? Who will benefit? With a technology powerful enough to alter the climate, those questions are likely to be asked more loudly than ever. It is easy to envisage debates about the necessity of such a scheme, worries about its consequences or rumours that it is a front for scientists or businesses to cash in on the global warming "hoax". Faced with new technologies, the public invariably asks: is it safe? Who will govern it? Who benefits? These possibilities must be taken seriously. As the resistance to genetically modified crops in Europe has shown, public objections have the power to halt a technology in its tracks, however irrational those concerns may appear. If that were to happen with geoengineering, our escape route would turn into a roadblock. How can the public be wooed? Consultation is obviously part of the answer. If people feel they have had their say and have been listened to, they are more likely to accept and trust geoengineering. There are signs that scientific organisations are aware of this. The UK's Royal Society is developing a set of guidelines for research into "solar radiation management" - the suite of technologies that can be used to reflect sunlight back into space. The society has broadened the reach of the exercise by partnering with the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, based in Trieste, Italy. It is also asking all interested parties to attend a meeting this year. It's a good start, but a much broader process of consultation will be needed if people worldwide, particularly environmental groups and those representing citizens in the developing world, are to have their say. This consultation needs to be high-profile so that geoengineering, a concept that few people have currently heard of, becomes part of mainstream debate. And it must start soon. Some environmental groups are already on board. When geoengineering began to attract attention, environmentalists hated the idea. But most of the green groups at Asilomar were not there to protest, but to participate. That is a positive development. Legitimacy is also an issue. Geoengineering needs to be regulated by a global body with the United Nations behind it - something like the World Health Organization or, recent troubles notwithstanding, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Asilomar 1975 was important. Asilomar 2010 was even more so. Geoengineering could help us dodge catastrophe, yet must only be implemented by democratic, global consent. That's why a long period of consultation is required. If citizens don't have their say, they may turn against a technology that could otherwise prove to be our saviour. **************************** Hacking the planet: who decides? * 29 March 2010 by Jim Giles, Asilomar, California * New Scientist Magazine issue 2754 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18713-hacking-the-planet-who-decides.html Plans are taking shape for the day when a global coalition may have to "hack the planet" in a bid to reverse the ravages of global warming. Proposals to cool the Earth by deploying sunshades or sucking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere were considered fanciful just a few years ago, but are now being considered by politicians in the US and UK. At a gathering of key scientists and policy experts held in Asilomar, California, last week, detailed debates began over who should control the development of a planetary rescue plan. The sense at the meeting was that drastic emissions cuts are the best way to limit the catastrophic droughts and sea-level rises that global warming is expected to cause. But the failure of December's summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the relentless rise in global CO2 emissions have persuaded many to reluctantly consider geoengineering solutions. Artificial trees Few argue against "artificial trees" that could suck CO2 directly from the atmosphere (see "Artificial trees on the way" in the box below). But more controversial proposals – to bounce solar energy back out into space, for instance – split the conference, with policy experts warning climate scientists that there would be a public backlash. Oliver Wingenter at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro presented details of an ambitious plan to shift westerly winds. Temperature and pressure changes over the Southern Ocean are thought to have pushed these westerlies 3 to 4 degrees south over the last 50 years. This shift strengthens the ocean currents that bring warm, salty water to the surface, where it accelerates the melting of Antarctic ice. Wingenter proposes seeding the Southern Ocean with particles of iron to boost phytoplankton growth. Plankton release a chemical called dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere which helps cloud droplets form. More droplets mean whiter clouds that bounce more solar energy away from Earth. Wingenter calculates that it would be possible to cool regional temperatures by 0.5 ˚C, which could push the westerlies back towards their original position. Side effects Little is known about the side effects, however. Cooling a small region by 0.5 ˚C could dramatically change rain patterns. The impact of plankton blooms on ocean life is also poorly understood. Computer models can go some way to filling in these blanks, and Wingenter foresees at least 10 years of computer studies before field tests could kick off. Other solutions could be field-tested sooner, raising the delicate question of whether such experiments should be allowed in the first place, and what forms they could take. Modelling has already shown that stratospheric clouds of sulphate particles could rapidly cool the planet. David Keith of the University of Calgary, Canada, has submitted a paper to Nature in which he outlines a proposal to release about a tonne of sulphate particles from a NASA plane at an altitude of 20 kilometres. The results would help researchers refine their models, and the number of particles released would be far short of the number required to produce a significant cooling effect. Silver Lining, a non-profit organisation founded by Kelly Wanser, an entrepreneur based in San Francisco, California, has a team of 35 scientists working on a cooling process in which a flotilla of boats fire particles of sea-salt into the atmosphere, where they would whiten clouds. Salt solution The group is seeking funds for pilot research involving 10 ships and 10,000 square kilometres of ocean. Kelly Wanser says it could take place in three to four years. This study would not use enough particles to create a noticeable cooling effect. Many climate scientists in Asilomar thought regulations that govern other oceanographic experiments would probably provide sufficient oversight of this project. Wanser also argued extra regulation would create potentially dangerous delays, as governments might later be forced to deploy a technology that had not been properly tested. That view split delegates at Asilomar. Social scientists and policy experts took issue with the view that trials did not need further oversight. They warned of a popular backlash unless would-be geoengineers consult with the public before running such studies. Just running tests sends a signal that scientists are interested in a future for geoengineering, says Shobita Parthasarathy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "The intention is to expand the process. The path will have been set." Global perspective If experiments progress to a larger scale, a second problem arises: which nations should decide whether a proposal has proved safe enough to implement? Most agreed that as some solutions could have a global impact, they could only be deployed after global talks, led by the United Nations, for instance. Talks would have to include plans to compensate people whose livelihoods could be damaged by side effects. Others argued that global negotiations could become impossible to manage, and cited UN-led climate talks as an example of how all-inclusive efforts can fail to solve problems requiring decisive action. Richard Benedick, president of the US National Council for Science and the Environment and a former US government negotiator, circulated a document in which he argued that the principles governing geoengineering research should be developed by a group of 14 nations, including the US, several European nations, India and China. His proposal garnered some interest, but at least one person New Scientist spoke to was disapproving. "I cannot imagine a few countries making a decision for everybody," says Pablo Suarez, who studies climate and humanitarian disasters at Boston University. "Participation is difficult, but that is not an excuse for not doing it." A lack of consultation could fuel campaigns against geoengineering similar to those that have derailed the use of genetically modified crops in Europe, Parthasarathy warns. Such protests seem to be taking off already. While delegates were talking in Asilomar, a body of over 70 environmental, health and social groups published an open letter attacking the meeting. "Such a discussion cannot happen without the participation of the full membership of the United Nations," it reads. "Determining guidelines for geoengineering research and testing in the absence of that debate is premature and irresponsible." Artificial trees on the way There is one geoengineering solution that almost everyone would like to see work. If carbon dioxide can be removed from the air and stored safely underground, we might be able to stave off the worse effects of climate change. The big problem is that sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere is expensive: many estimates put the cost at close to $1000 for each tonne captured. It might, however, turn out to be a lot cheaper than that. In October 2009, David Keith, a climate and energy researcher, founded Carbon Engineering in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The firm aims to build a device to captureCO2 at economically viable prices. He claims his device will draw down a tonne for US$100 to $250. He did not release details of the device at the Asilomar conference, but said that it involves scaling up existing processes for capturing CO2, which involve passing the gas over a substance such as sodium hydroxide. The gas combines with the chemical and can then be removed and stored underground. Keith says Bill Gates has invested in Carbon Engineering, which plans to spend $3 million over the next five years building a prototype device. From issue 2754 of New Scientist magazine, page 6-7. -- To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
