Ron et al.,
You asked for feedback on the HSRC in defense of the NOT GE (* I hope we
can hear from others who would say this final example is NOT geo)* argument.
And, I believe the HSRC event would make a good moot court exercise on this
overall issue.
One possible moot court opening statement
Ken etal:
Since we are still offering modifications today, let me try an alternative
approach, defining exclusions rather than inclusions. This removes a
comparative and the word not. This still keeps I think your intent and much
of your language (although I returned to removal rather
Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made
separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition
now reads:
*Geoengineering refers to activities *
*(1) intended to modify climate*
*(2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or across
I think there's a problem with intentended. It defines the act in terms
of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective scrutiny,
This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which are
geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're
trying
Ooops. I did what I was compaining about. Aimed at is as bad as
intended.
What i should have said: large-scale technological interventions that act
to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions.
On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:56:06 UTC+1, O Morton wrote:
I think
The problem is that in practice people use the word geoengineering to
refer to things they don't like, don't want to see deployed, don't want to
fund, seek to impede research on, etc.
Geoengineering in practice is a pejorative term that has already been
brought into legal parlance as a result of
Just got a note from some international legal experts saying that de
minimis was an established standard but material effect is not well
grounded in international law, so I now suggest this form:
*
*
*Geoengineering refers to activities *
*(1) intended to modify climate*
*(2) and that has a
Hi Ken—It bothers me a bit that both definitions seem to limit
geoengineering to affecting climate, when there are other ways that
intervention might occur, such as to modify ocean acidity. Might it be that
the definition should say “counteract human influences such as those on the
climate and
Ken,
Another problem with your definition is that it would cover large scale efforts
to prevent GHG emissions (since those would be taken with an intent to modify
the climate from what it would be in the absence of the action).
If your primary purpose in crafting a definition is to exclude
Ken,
Not to quibble, but when applied to preventing release of GHGs, reduction in
GHG concentrations is also relative to a counterfactual.
From: kcalde...@gmail.com [kcalde...@gmail.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira
[kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Wednesday,
Ken, Jim, etal
The following more responding to Jim than Ken. Warning - the comments are
mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that group.
But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as well.
The critical geo issue I don't see
I am open to refinement, but I think Dave Hawkins comments point out the
merit of this approach. This approach is based on facts and not on
counterfactuals. Avoiding emissions is not modifying climate. It is an
avoidance of a modification to climate. A reduction in greenhouse gas
concentrations
12 matches
Mail list logo
