And Oxford Geoengineering (http://www.oxfordgeoengineering.org/) published the first edition of *The Geoengineering Quarterly* on March 20.
Tapani Tapani Vaahtoranta Programme Director, PhD Dar es Salaam Institute for Sustainable Development Sasatel House, Plot 251, Toure Drive P.O. Box 107535, Msasani Peninsula Dar es Salaam, Tanzania +255 774 496 330 [email protected] On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Wil Burns <[email protected]>wrote: > 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* > > *[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.
