[geo] Sea spray geoengineering experiments in GeoMIP: Experimental design and preliminary results. Kravitz, JGR Atmospheres
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50856/abstract Abstract [1] Marine cloud brightening through sea spray injection has been proposed as a method of temporarily alleviating some of the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, as part of a set of technologies called geoengineering. We outline here a proposal for three coordinated climate modeling experiments to test aspects of sea spray geoengineering, to be conducted under the auspices of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The first, highly idealized, experiment (G1ocean-albedo) involves a uniform increase in ocean albedo to offset an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2 concentrations from preindustrial levels. Results from a single climate model show an increased land-sea temperature contrast, Arctic warming, and large shifts in annual mean precipitation patterns. The second experiment (G4cdnc) involves increasing cloud droplet number concentration in all low-level marine clouds to offset some of the radiative forcing of an RCP4.5 scenario. This experiment will test the robustness of models in simulating geographically heterogeneous radiative flux changes and their effects on climate. The third experiment (G4sea-salt) involves injection of sea spray aerosols into the marine boundary layer between 30°S and 30°N to offset 2 W m-2 of the effective radiative forcing of an RCP4.5 scenario. A single model study shows that the induced effective radiative forcing is largely confined to the latitudes in which injection occurs. In this single model simulation, the forcing due to aerosol–radiation interactions is stronger than the forcing due to aerosol–cloud interactions. -- 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.
[geo] Time to rethink misguided policies that promote biofuels to protect climate
Poster's note : critique applicable to BECS and BECCS geoengineering techniques Paper at : http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0927-9P Discussion (below) at http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-rethink-misguided-policies-biofuels-climate.html Time to rethink misguided policies that promote biofuels to protect climate Policymakers need to rethink the idea of promoting biofuels to protect the climate because the methods used to justify such policies are inherently flawed, according to a University of Michigan energy researcher.In a new paper published online in the journal Climatic Change, John DeCicco takes on the widespread but scientifically simplistic perception that biofuels such as ethanol are inherently carbon neutral, meaning that the heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas emitted when the fuels are burned is fully balanced by the carbon dioxide uptake that occurs as the plants grow. That view is misguided because the plants used to make biofuels—including corn, soybeans and sugarcane—are already pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, said DeCicco, a research professor at the U-M Energy Institute and a professor of practice at the School of Natural Resources and Environment. DeCicco's paper is unique because it methodically deconstructs the life-cycle-analysis approach that forms a basis for current environmental policies promoting biofuels. Instead, he presents a rigorous carbon cycleanalysis based on biogeochemical fundamentals to identify conditions under which biofuels might have a climatic benefit. These conditions are much more limited than has been presumed. Plants used to make biofuels do not remove any additional carbon dioxide just because they are used to make fuel as opposed to, say, corn flakes, DeCicco said. DeCicco stressed that research and development are important to create better options for the future. RD is especially needed for bio-based or other technologies able to efficiently capture and use more carbon dioxide than is already being captured and stored by natural vegetation. But going beyond RD and into subsidies, mandates and other programs to prop up biofuels is unwarranted, he said. DeCicco's direct carbon accounting examines carbon sources and sinks (storage sites, such as forests or crop fields) separately, an approach that lends greater clarity about options for addressing carbon dioxide emissions from liquid fuels. Biofuels have no benefit at the tailpipe, DeCicco said. Per unit energy, the carbon dioxide emissions from burning ethanol are just 2 percent lower than those from gasoline. Biodiesel yields carbon dioxide emissions about 1 percent greater than those from petroleum diesel. If there is any climate benefit to biofuels, it occurs only if harvesting the source crops causes a greater net removal of carbon dioxide from the air than would otherwise have occurred, DeCicco said. His paper concludes that for now, it makes more sense to enable plants to soak up carbon dioxide through reforestation and to redouble efforts to protect forests, rather than producing and promoting biofuels. Corn ethanol production of 14 billion gallons supplied 4.4 percent of total U.S. transportation liquid fuel use in 2011. However, even that small share of liquid fuel supply required 45 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Biofuels are the presumed replacement for the petroleum-based transportation fuels, gasoline and diesel, that dominate liquid fuel use. In the United States, the federal Renewable Fuel Standard mandates a large increase in biofuels use, which has now reached 16 billion gallons a year, mainly ethanol. But DeCicco pointed out that a recent National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the Renewable Fuel Standard may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all, once global impacts are counted. -- 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] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 international borders * *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy. Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestatoin/reforestation, etc. -- 1. In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most cases I would not consider them geoengineering under this definition. I think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance issues. I like Ron's suggestion of removal of a material rather than reduction of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. The from the atmosphere may be considered limiting. I would be fine with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in excess of natural background concentrations.* 2. Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over greater than *de minimis* vs material. As a non-lawyer, I read material effect to be equivalent to greater than *de minimis* effect. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of across international borders. Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international governance. Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of worms around defining what large scale means, which is a prominent term in many other proposed definitions of geoengineering. 3. To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on concentrations, not on emissions. In any case, the current definition avoids use of both concentrations and emissions. --- Thanks everybody for these comments. I think we are pretty close to a definition that I would like to see broadly accepted. Things like biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestation/reforestation do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush that tars injection of sulfur into the stratosphere. Most of these approaches bear more in common with mitigation approaches than they do with sunlight reflection methods. We are doing a disservice to potentially valuable technologies if we, by our imprecision of language, give the impression that these potentially valuable methods bear large and unprecedented kinds of risks. Best, Ken ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.netwrote: Ken cc List: 1. I like your starting point. Thanks for providing it. Re de minimis, I prefer it over material. 2. My concern is that you have two (separate, distinctly different) criteria in a relatively long sentence, where some readers may think the two are coupled or dependent. How about this rephrasing (changes all underlined): Geoengineering refers to activities*:* * a)* intended to modify climate that have greater than *de minimis* effect on an international commons or across international borders*, and* *b) operate* through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. I toyed with the idea of replacing reduction with removal (or adding the latter) - so as to better tie back into the term CDR. But you are including a lot on sulfur here that has nothing to do with CDR. So I am content, because you have the word excess. 4. You have below made statements about all the main CDR approaches save biochar. Is biochar in any way different from BECCS
[geo] Some whats, whys and worries of geoengineering - Online First - Springer
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0862-9 Abstract In this paper I discuss the nature of geoengineering, some of its attractions, and some reasons for concern. I claim that there is confusion in the use of the term ‘geoengineering’ that is related to larger concerns about the language in which responses to climate change are discussed. I conclude that despite some reasonable grounds for suspicion, research in areas that involve carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management should go on as part of the general portfolio of climate-related research, competing with the full panoply of other possible responses to climate change. -- 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] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 to avoid. FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: 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 international borders * *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy. Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestatoin/reforestation, etc. -- 1. In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most cases I would not consider them geoengineering under this definition. I think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance issues. I like Ron's suggestion of removal of a material rather than reduction of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. The from the atmosphere may be considered limiting. I would be fine with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in excess of natural background concentrations.* 2. Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over greater than *de minimis* vs material. As a non-lawyer, I read material effect to be equivalent to greater than *de minimis* effect. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of across international borders. Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international governance. Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of worms around defining what large scale means, which is a prominent term in many other proposed definitions of geoengineering. 3. To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on concentrations, not on emissions. In any case, the current definition avoids use of both concentrations and emissions. --- Thanks everybody for these comments. I think we are pretty close to a definition that I would like to see broadly accepted. Things like biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestation/reforestation do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush that tars injection of sulfur into the stratosphere. Most of these approaches bear more in common with mitigation approaches than they do with sunlight reflection methods. We are doing a disservice to potentially valuable technologies if we, by our imprecision of language, give the impression that these potentially valuable methods bear large and unprecedented kinds of risks. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.netjavascript: wrote: Ken cc List: 1. I like your starting point. Thanks for providing it. Re de minimis, I prefer it over material. 2. My concern is that you have two (separate, distinctly different) criteria in a relatively long sentence, where some readers may think the two are coupled or dependent. How about this rephrasing (changes all underlined): Geoengineering
[geo] World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report - environment - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkLSzyO3PFo World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report 11:40 25 September 2013 by Fred Pearce Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere's chemistry. This stark warning comes from the draft summary of the latest climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Delegates from national governments are discussing the draft this week, prior to its release on Friday morning.According to one of its lead authors, and the latest draft seen by New Scientist, the report will say: CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.In other words, even if all the world ran on carbon-free energy and deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures would be to devise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.Much of this week's report, the fifth assessment of the IPCC working group on the physical science of climate change, will reaffirm the findings of the previous four assessments, published regularly since 1990.It will point out that to limit global warming to 2 °C will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all human sources since the start of the industrial revolution to be kept below about a trillion tonnes of carbon. So far, we have emitted about half this. Current emissions are around 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon annually, and rising. Since the last assessment, published in 2007, the IPCC has almost doubled its estimate of the maximum sea-level rise likely in the coming century to about 1 metre. They also conclude that it is now virtually certain that sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries, even if warming ceases, due to the delayed effects of thermal expansion of warming oceans and melting ice sheets.The draft report says the available evidence now suggests that above a certain threshold of warming, the Greenland ice sheet will almost disappear within approximately 1000 years, which will result in 7 metres of global sea-level rise. It estimates that the threshold may lie between 1 °C and 4 °C of warming, but is not confident of this figure. -- 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] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 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 to avoid. FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: 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 international borders * *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy. Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestatoin/reforestation, etc. -- 1. In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most cases I would not consider them geoengineering under this definition. I think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance issues. I like Ron's suggestion of removal of a material rather than reduction of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. The from the atmosphere may be considered limiting. I would be fine with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in excess of natural background concentrations.* 2. Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over greater than *de minimis* vs material. As a non-lawyer, I read material effect to be equivalent to greater than *de minimis*effect. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of across international borders. Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international governance. Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of worms around defining what large scale means, which is a prominent term in many other proposed definitions of geoengineering. 3. To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on concentrations, not on emissions. In any case, the current definition avoids use of both concentrations and emissions. --- Thanks everybody for these comments. I think we are pretty close to a definition that I would like to see broadly accepted. Things like biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestation/reforestation do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush that tars injection of sulfur into the stratosphere. Most of these approaches bear more in common with mitigation approaches than they do with sunlight reflection methods. We are doing a disservice to potentially valuable technologies if we, by our imprecision of language, give the impression that these potentially valuable methods bear large and unprecedented kinds of risks. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.netwrote: Ken cc List: 1. I like your starting point. Thanks for providing it. Re de minimis, I prefer it
Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 decisions by the CBD. If we want to help proposed technologies that bear no novel or trans-boundary or international commons risks, and have the potential, at least in theory, to diminish climate damage, then we need to get them out from under this pejorative umbrella. Defining geoengineering in the way you do, I fear, will harm the development of biochar, biomass energy with CCS, direct air capture, afforestation/reforestation, etc. I believe it was an error for the CBD ever to use this term (on this, more at a later date). Now that they have used it, maybe we can at least define it in a way that does the least harm. ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 to avoid. FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: 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 international borders * *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy. Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestatoin/reforestation, etc. -- 1. In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most cases I would not consider them geoengineering under this definition. I think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance issues. I like Ron's suggestion of removal of a material rather than reduction of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. The from the atmosphere may be considered limiting. I would be fine with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in excess of natural background concentrations.* 2. Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over greater than *de minimis* vs material. As a non-lawyer, I read material effect to be equivalent to greater than *de minimis*effect. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of across international borders. Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international governance. Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of worms around defining what large scale means, which is a prominent term in many other proposed definitions of geoengineering. 3. To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on concentrations, not
[geo] Re: World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report - environment - New Scientist
Let me point out that the source quoted in this article only said, CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period. So where does the term geoengineering come in? It appears to be the New Scientist writer's paraphrase of that quote, and only aggravates the presumption that drastic action has to result from failure to control tailpipes and smokestacks. Meanwhile some of the geoengineering thinkers on this group are seeking to limit the term geoengineering to those interventions that most require international governance. Who is speaking up for the natural systems that have always controlled CO2 levels and could play a part in massive draw-down on a global scale? If mitigation is plan A, I would want a robust plan B to give full play to such processes as photosynthesis and restorative agriculture, then *if we need* geoengineering (in the well-governed sense) it is plan C. Brian On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkLSzyO3PFo World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report 11:40 25 September 2013 by Fred Pearce snipped article quotation -- 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] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 greater than de minimis *effect on an international commons or across international borders *(3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* * * ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: 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 decisions by the CBD. If we want to help proposed technologies that bear no novel or trans-boundary or international commons risks, and have the potential, at least in theory, to diminish climate damage, then we need to get them out from under this pejorative umbrella. Defining geoengineering in the way you do, I fear, will harm the development of biochar, biomass energy with CCS, direct air capture, afforestation/reforestation, etc. I believe it was an error for the CBD ever to use this term (on this, more at a later date). Now that they have used it, maybe we can at least define it in a way that does the least harm. ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 to avoid. FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: 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 international borders * *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.* Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy. Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestatoin/reforestation, etc. -- 1. In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most cases I would not consider them geoengineering under this definition. I think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance issues. I like Ron's suggestion of removal of a material rather than reduction of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase. The from the atmosphere may be considered limiting. I would be fine with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by
Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 environment”? I realize that this might greatly expand what is encompassed by the term geoengineering, and this would lead me to suggest having these definitions by for the term “climate engineering” or “climate geoengineering”. An additional concern with the CBD definition is that is seems to limit geoengineering to approaches that are trying to counteract everything—both the change and the impacts. One could imagine, for example, just going after some of the impacts. All a bit subtle, but would an effort to limit the intensification of hurricanes count as it is not really going to be affecting the climate, just an impact (at least in terms of how the public might interpret the words). On your definition you seem to focus as just being on “climate” and so would not count responses focusing just on impacts (though both of these comments have to do with what the definition of climate is). And you also don’t say anthropogenic influences on climate—leaving it open that one might choose to counteract natural aspects of the climate (so your definition would work in the 1960s for the types of proposals to “improve” the climate). Related to this, I generally like the word “counteract” than “modify”--though basically having your definition include all the GHG emissions we are doing, and would include the release of SO2 as we do now, etc. And on the “other hand” wording, I am not sure how to clear it up, but I do think the phrasing needs improvement. Mike On 9/25/13 3:28 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Jim, We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to aid comparison, here are both definitions: CBD: Geoengineering is A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Alternate candidate definition: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies such as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that present no special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, etc. Best, Ken ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas j...@etcgroup.org wrote: Ken and all, 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their method and rationale for their preferred definition (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en. pdf) that was discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at COP11. I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting point. 2. While issues of geography, of the commons and cross-borderness, are highly important in geoengineering governance i don't see why they rationally have any place in framing a definition of geoengineering itself (except as a baldly political move to maneuver loopholes into a governance system). The appropriate place to raise those issues is in the specifics of how a political decision is made about a geoengineering technology, not in trying to bias an initial definition. In practical terms defining whether something is geoengineering or not by whether the activity crosses a set of lines on a map is to muddle physical reality with historical accident and will give quite perverse decisions. Under your proposed definition below the United States could choose to artificially fertilize all of Lake Michigan or Russia to fertilize all of Lake Baikal with clear ecological impacts and yet it would not be considered geoengineering since it didn't cross international borders. Yet if a small patch of Lake Malawi was fertilized that would be considered geoengineering in your definition since there happens to be an international border in that lake. In physical terms that difference is non-sensical. I wonder if Canada
RE: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 atmospheric GHG removal activities, you would be better off with a base definition coupled with specific categorical exclusions. And I think it would be wise to not exclude ocean fertilization (and perhaps even some types of massive terrestrial fertilization). By the way, on a related matter, I think solar radiation management is a misnomer; more accurately it is solar radiation interference (admittedly, that doesn't cover albedo enhancement schemes). David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:28 PM To: jim thomas Cc: Oliver Morton; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013) Jim, We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to aid comparison, here are both definitions: CBD: Geoengineering is A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Alternate candidate definition: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies such as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that present no special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, etc. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas j...@etcgroup.orgmailto:j...@etcgroup.org wrote: Ken and all, 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their method and rationale for their preferred definition (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en.pdf) that was discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at COP11. I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting point. 2. While issues of geography, of the commons and cross-borderness, are highly important in geoengineering governance i don't see why they rationally have any place in framing a definition of geoengineering itself (except as a baldly political move to maneuver loopholes into a governance system). The appropriate place to raise those issues is in the specifics of how a political decision is made about a geoengineering technology, not in trying to bias an initial definition. In practical terms defining whether something is geoengineering or not by whether the activity crosses a set of lines on a map is to muddle physical reality with historical accident and will give quite perverse decisions. Under your proposed definition below the United States could choose to artificially fertilize all of Lake Michigan or Russia to fertilize all of Lake Baikal with clear ecological impacts and yet it would not be considered geoengineering since it didn't cross international borders. Yet if a small patch of Lake Malawi was fertilized that would be considered geoengineering in your definition since there happens to be an international border in that lake. In physical terms that difference is non-sensical. I wonder if Canada or Russia decided to put much of their entire landmass under an SRM scheme that somehow didn't move out of their territory (lets say create whitened low level cloud cover in someway) whether that would also fall outside of this definition (since its a standard of X AND Y AND Z that need to be met to meet the definition). 3. You say 'de minimis' has a well established standard which i'd be interested to see.. but naively it strikes me as a cover for argumentation by a proponent of any scheme that they fall outside of the definition b y claiming to have only a 'de minimis' effect. De minimis from whose viewpoint? a claimed 10,000 sq km fertilized patch was argued to
RE: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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, September 25, 2013 6:10 PM To: Hawkins, Dave Cc: jim thomas; Oliver Morton; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013) Dave Hawkins: I think you have a misreading. You state 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). The proposed definition is (slightly amended): Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that have a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental processes that are not direct consequences of the reduction in anthropogenic aerosol and/or greenhouse gas concentrations. Preventing GHG emissions are (1) not intended to modify climate, but to avoid a climate modification. I think it is simple to say that this should be interpreted as modifying relative to factuals and not relative to counterfactuals. Also, prevengint GHG emissions affects others through the reduction in anthropogenic GHG concentrations, which is explicitly excluded in clause (3). - Mike MacCracken: I am fine with broadening it, but it is a political calculation. I think if the international legal community adopted this definitional approach, they could negotiate and decide how broad they want to make it. They could also change scope later. I considered broadening it to include CO2 removal from the ocean, but if you make everything too abstract and general then it all becomes convoluted and nobody understands what the central idea is. I can see that at this level it is already difficult to get people (cf. Dave Hawkins) to understand what I am trying to communicate. I agree there must be better wording than the other than clause, but I can't think of it. It would be nice to get some international legal scholars more intimately involved. The only reason intention is there is to not include regular old CO2 emissions that we produce every day I would be happy to completely eliminate clause (1) but then countries would not allow such a definition be the basis for negotiation. I would be fine with replacing (1) with (1) intended to modify Earth's natural systems or something like that. However, for example, over-fishing would then be considered a form of geoengineering. I would be fine with such a usage, but I am not sure you are going to get the rest of the world to go along. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.orgmailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: 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 atmospheric GHG removal activities, you would be better off with a base definition coupled with specific categorical exclusions. And I think it would be wise to not exclude ocean fertilization (and perhaps even some types of massive terrestrial fertilization). By the way, on a related matter, I think solar radiation management is a misnomer; more accurately it is solar radiation interference (admittedly, that doesn't cover albedo enhancement schemes). David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:28 PM To: jim thomas Cc: Oliver Morton; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013) Jim, We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to aid comparison, here are both definitions: CBD: Geoengineering is A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Alternate candidate definition: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended
Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 mentioned in most of this is ocean acidification (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that distinction is well enough covered by both definitions below On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Jim, We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to aid comparison, here are both definitions: CBD: Geoengineering is A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. [RWL1: I sense that the developers of this definition did not have the concern that Ken has in his accompanying remarks - that the term geoengineering has become almost synonymous with SRM. More below on the reasons that Ken (and I) aren't comfortable with this very (too?) broad definition. I believe that only a small percentage of biochar projects are now being undertaken for climate reasons - rather most are undertaken for food/soil reasons. Jim and Ken and others: would that food/soil intention keep a biochar from being defined as geoengineering by this above? How about for Ken's next? Alternate candidate definition: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies such as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that present no special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, etc. [RWL2: I like the three-part definition. It would be very helpful to have Jim also make a comment on this one. This fails in what way? More (much more) on Jim's message below. The words de minimis seem to mean (from quick googling) trivial or not worth considering in a law suit. I believe this to be true for individual biochar projects involving only one buyer and seller (or maybe self-produced), but would claim a total opposite is possible collectively - certainly multiple wedges have been proposed. I hope JIm (and others) can comment on where biochar (as an example - could be afforestation, etc), can be well received at the individual user level, but be harmful globally. Biochar proponents would claim that the future impacts are going to be large (being multiple wedges) - but the impact entirely or overwhelmingly positive. Ken's definition here doesn't separate positive from negative impacts (which of course can be in the eye of the beholder). I am not worrying too much about this now that Ken has said biochar would be excluded from his 3-part definition. Jim has endorsed (maybe authored?) articles opposing biochar; does he place biochar in or out of the realm of geoengineering as defined by either of the above - or any other? Or certain cases - Yes; others - No? I see only No cases.More below on Jim's message also. Best, Ken ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas j...@etcgroup.org wrote: Ken and all, 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their method and rationale for their preferred definition (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en.pdf) that was discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at COP11. I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting point. [RWL3: This was new. I thought the folks writing this above report on a definition did a credible job and worked hard. However, I doubt they were aware of the issues that Ken is addressing in his definitional notes of the past few days. I agree with Jim's final sentence, though. This list should say what was not covered in this CBD report. I would say the CBD experts were not sufficiently conscious of the problems that happen as you try to lump two topics as different as SRM and CDR into a single
Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
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 is no more a counterfactual than a reduction of temperature of a glass of water is a counterfactual. --- I am not intending this discussion to lead to an end point. I am trying to provide a better starting point for a legally useful definition that can be used as a basis for international discussions among states. I am hoping that others will adopt this basic approach and refine it. --- A rewording to try to make point (3) clearer: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that have a greater than *de minimis *effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that greater than *de minimis* effect occurs through environmental mechanisms that are not a direct consequence of any resulting reduction in anthropogenic aerosol and/or greenhouse gas concentrations. Again, my intent is to allow useful technologies to be developed that present no special novel risks, including biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and many other possible approaches, some of which we may not have thought of already and so cannot be put on a list of exclusions. ___ 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 @kencaldeira On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.netwrote: Professor Hayes (with ccs) Your moot court idea for the recent HSRC situation is wonderful. You made a good case for the defense, but I would really also like to hear a real (or classroom) dialog after some serious scholarly studies of the case. The key I suppose is who and how many judges are in charge of the courtroom.I want at least nine as this is a matter of Supreme importance. I think we can expect a split decision, based on what I remember in the press. I can think of some other (fictitious now) cases as well - and Jim Thomas offered some. But we shouldn't wait for any law professors or students listening in to report back. I am anxious to hear right now from lawyers who might be retained by the other side (actually both sides) in this case you nobly defend. Ron ps I believe principles below could be principals (which also appears).. On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: 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 in defense of the HSRC event may read as such: In my most humble opinion, the *primary 'intent'* of the HSRC principles was to mitigate local declining salmon stock, the decline being due to multiple anthropogenic causes, by those in rightful ownership of the area known as the salmon pasture. Yet, the project also offered, and used, a *secondary 'intent' *as an opportunity to gain valuable scientific and practical knowledge at a scale which is well within the opinion of the leading scientific authority on this issue, The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), as it does explicitly accepts small scale GE experimentation/investigation. Thus, the *primary 'intent'* was not of GE significance and the *secondary 'intent'* was well within the proper scope and scale of GE related scientific field investigations accepted by the leading global authority on this issue; The Center for Biological Diversity. In the best opinion of the CBD, it offers the phrase *Scale and intent are of central importance.*. *True*. That logic is obvious to all investigators seriously concerned with the GE issue. Was the *'scale'* of the *primary 'intent' *(i.e.mitigating local wild salmon stock decline due to a well recognized human induced decline in the stock) *significantly large enough* to impact the planetary environment? *No*. Was the *secondary 'intent'* (i.e. collect GE related data and gain practical field investigational experience) carried out to the degree that the planetary environmental matrix was change in any significant way? *No.* *The standard of GE 'scale' has not been met and the standard of GE'intent'was well within the scope of the best 'opinion' of the leading global scientific authority.* * * * * Thus, I would petition the jury to acquit the HSRC principals of the primary charge of wrongful GE as the actions simply did not exceed a *reasonably scientifically knowable* degree of harm or good
