Re: [geo] CRS on GE
Ken, cc Greg, list 1. I agree this particular CRS sentence you picked out (shown in context below) was objectionable. I thank you for pointing it out. But there is plenty in this report on CDR - which is often totally missing in reports on geoengineering. I have met the principal author, Kelsi Bracmort, and believe that she well knows the subject matter and this one sentence is caused by the need for brevity. Here the emphasis is on governance (presumably requested by some Committee - or maybe CRS is just getting ready). I think there is adequate recognition in this report that CDR and SRM need be handled differently. I recommend CRS and this report - as the sentence is not representative. 2. To prove my point, here is one excerpt from p 22, showing that they do know how to separate the two parts of geoengineering (bolding is mine): Different technologies may require different methods for oversight. To the extent that CDR technologies are similar to known and existing ones, their development and implementation may be adequately governed at the domestic level by existing U.S. laws. Air capture technologies are similar to those of carbon capture and sequestration for power generation. Biochar and biomass sequestration face similar life cycle analyses and regulatory issues to biofuels. ……snip five+ similar CDR lines, because my computer balked at copying them…... In addition, the scope, dispersions, and interventions of most SRM technologies are very likely to cause significant effects across national boundaries. While land surface albedo modification could potentially be managed under national regulatory frameworks, other technologies may trigger transboundary issues. While some existing treaties address atmosphere and space, their enforcement has rarely been tested. (I believe they have above in underlining correctly spotted the two principal regulatory issues for biochar - and few such broad policy papers do.) 3. The report’s emphasis on governance (and not the CDR/SRM technology differences) shows up in the conclusion: Conclusion (pp 29-30 - three paragraphs on the last two pages (after 126 footnotes) - showing they are not always so good at separating CDR and SRM. Ken’s sentence (highlighted) is not alone in this final section; there is no separation into CDR and SRM anywhere in these three paragraphs. But it is present in most other parts of the 32 pages. The highlighting is by myself.) Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific innovation, requires careful deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of international agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many geoengineering technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Very few studies have been published documenting the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. Some foreign governments and private entities have expressed an interest in pursuing geoengineering projects, largely out of concern over the slow progress of greenhouse gas reductions under the international climate change agreements, the possible existence of climate “tipping points,” and the apparent political or economic obstacles to pursuing aggressive domestic greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. However, in the United States, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. Consequently, to the extent that some federal agencies and U.S. states have begun addressing geoengineering projects, they are doing so in a largely piecemeal fashion. If the U.S. government opts to address geoengineering at the federal level, there are several approaches that are immediately apparent. First, it may continue to leave geoengineering policy development in the hands of federal agencies and states. Second, it might impose a temporary or permanent moratorium on geoengineering, or on particular geoengineering technologies, out of concern that its risks outweigh its benefits. Third, it might develop a national policy on geoengineering by authoring or amending laws. Fourth, it could work with the international community to craft an international approach to geoengineering by writing or amending international agreements. That the government can play a substantial role in the development of new technologies has been manifested in such areas as nanotechnology, nuclear science, and genetic engineering. 4. My preference is for the first and fourth approaches, but all of these obviously are going to be pushed by different elected officials. My experience (I once worked for Congress) is that
Re: [geo] CRS on GE
Ken etal I also did not mean to criticize. Thank you for all your efforts to gain precision. Repetition is the key (and still may be hopeless). Ron On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: I did not mean to criticize the authors. I meant to point out how the use of the word 'geoengineering' to refer to approaches that do not pose any novel risks or governance challenges leads even careful people to say imprecise things that they don't really mean. On Monday, December 9, 2013, Ronal W. Larson wrote: Ken, cc Greg, list 1. I agree this particular CRS sentence you picked out (shown in context below) was objectionable. I thank you for pointing it out. But there is plenty in this report on CDR - which is often totally missing in reports on geoengineering. I have met the principal author, Kelsi Bracmort, and believe that she well knows the subject matter and this one sentence is caused by the need for brevity. Here the emphasis is on governance (presumably requested by some Committee - or maybe CRS is just getting ready). I think there is adequate recognition in this report that CDR and SRM need be handled differently. I recommend CRS and this report - as the sentence is not representative. 2. To prove my point, here is one excerpt from p 22, showing that they do know how to separate the two parts of geoengineering (bolding is mine): Different technologies may require different methods for oversight. To the extent that CDR technologies are similar to known and existing ones, their development and implementation may be adequately governed at the domestic level by existing U.S. laws. Air capture technologies are similar to those of carbon capture and sequestration for power generation. Biochar and biomass sequestration face similar life cycle analyses and regulatory issues to biofuels. ……snip five+ similar CDR lines, because my computer balked at copying them…... In addition, the scope, dispersions, and interventions of most SRM technologies are very likely to cause significant effects across national boundaries. While land surface albedo modification could potentially be managed under national regulatory frameworks, other technologies may trigger transboundary issues. While some existing treaties address atmosphere and space, their enforcement has rarely been tested. (I believe they have above in underlining correctly spotted the two principal regulatory issues for biochar - and few such broad policy papers do.) 3. The report’s emphasis on governance (and not the CDR/SRM technology differences) shows up in the conclusion: Conclusion (pp 29-30 - three paragraphs on the last two pages (after 126 footnotes) - showing they are not always so good at separating CDR and SRM. Ken’s sentence (highlighted) is not alone in this final section; there is no separation into CDR and SRM anywhere in these three paragraphs. But it is present in most other parts of the 32 pages. The highlighting is by myself.) Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific innovation, requires careful deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of international agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many geoengineering technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Very few studies have been published documenting the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. Some foreign governments and private entities have expressed an interest in pursuing geoengineering projects, largely out of concern over the slow progress of greenhouse gas reductions under the international climate change agreements, the possible existence of climate “tipping points,” and the apparent political or economic obstacles to pursuing aggressive domestic greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. However, in the United States, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. Consequently, to the extent that some federal agencies and U.S. states have begun addressing geoengineering projects, they are doing so in a largely piecemeal fashion. If the U.S. government opts to address geoengineering at the federal level, there are several approaches that are immediately apparent. First, it may continue to leave geoengineering policy development in the hands of federal agencies and states. Second, it might impose a temporary or permanent moratorium on geoengineering, or on particular geoengineering technologies, out of concern that its risks
[geo] CRS on GE
Apologies if this link has already been discussed: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf Greg -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] CRS on GE
I note that the CRS falls into the same nomenclature trap as everyone else. By defining geoengineering to cover even things things that pose no novel risks, but seeking to make sweeping statements, they say things like: Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. Thus, as usual, reforestation, biochar, and point source removal of CO2 with geologic storage are tarred with the same brush that stratospheric aerosols are tarred with. Isn't it time we sharpened up our language? Since geoengineering is in effect a pejorative term, isn't it time that we refine its scope so that it refers only to activities that pose novel risks? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Apologies if this link has already been discussed: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf Greg -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
