The paper recently circulated by Sugiyama and Sugiyama of the Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry in Japan makes for
interesting reading but also warrants some points of clarification.
While ETC Group agrees with some points made the paper, and we welcome
independent assessments of the CBD COP 10 geoengineering decision, we
offer the following comments on assertions made in the paper that we
disagree with.
1. COP 10 delegates were not well informed about geoengineering and
negotiations were conducted in haste without proper scientific
consideration (p. 1).
Response: It is true that this is a new area of negotiation for
diplomats, mainly because it is the first time substantial attention
has been devoted to geoengineering in a UN inter-governmental body.
Geoengineering is a new topic for most people. However, the topic did
arise from the May 2010 meeting of the scientific subsidiary body
(SBSTTA) in Nairobi and given that the original language went to the
COP in bracketed from, states did have time (6 months) to prepare
their positions for the COP in Nagoya. In fact, Slovenia first raised
geoengineering as far back as the 2007 SBSTTA in Paris! The language
that was adopted at this COP was based on the debates and language on
ocean fertilization from 2008. So delegates certainly did have time to
prepare and ample warning that this was coming up.
The precautionary approach adopted by the COP on geoengineering is
indeed consistent with the need to reflect upon the topic in more
depth before any real-world experimentation (in uncontrolled settings)
with potential transboundary impacts or deployment can be
contemplated. More in-depth scientific consideration is surely needed
(and will be forthcoming). This decision simply ensures that
geoengineering is not seen as a uniquely scientific matter, but rather
emphasizes questions of governance and social, environmental and other
impacts and inputs that ought to be considered.
2. Definition and CCS issues (pp. 3, 8, 13 )
Response: It is odd that the authors assert that no definition of
geoengineering was agreed to at COP 10 and that geoengineering was
“treated as though [it was] a single monolithic technology” when
clearly a tentative definition was adopted, was extensively debated
and was agreed upon by the (193) countries present and indeed is
quoted on page 10. That definition in fact is largely based on the
Royal Society’s influentual conceptualization of geoengineering as
encompassing two broad categories: SRM and CDR technologies. The
compromise definition, adopted in the footnote (to 8 (w)), applies
only for this COP and may be revised subsequently.
The question of how to define geoengineering is a complex one, and is
clearly not yet settled practically, theoretically or legally. Some
of the complexities of this debate are highlighted in pages 4-7 of
Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering. Obviously many other
things have been written as well. Whether or not what we normally
understand as CCS is included in CDR is open for debate -- and clearly
concerned countries like Norway and Canada with substantial
investments in CCS. I think that it is understood by all sides in
this debate that geoengineering is an umbrella term for a large number
of very different technologies and of course there will be some
different governance considerations for different ones (as well as
some commonalities, like scale and intentionality for example).
Finally, the authors mischaracterize the position of Bolivia by
stating "Bolivia requested to clarify that excluding CCS cannot be
interpreted as an acceptance of geonegineering activities" (p. 8). In
fact, what Bolivia sought to clarify, was that “The exclusion of
carbon capture and storage from this definition is not to be
interpreted as an endorsement of carbon capture and storage
technologies under this Convention, pending a full consideration by
the Conference of the Parties of its impacts on biodiversity in
general.”
3. The paper states that environmental groups argue for ban including
research (p. 5)
Response: The authors argue that "some environmental groups... argue
for a blanket ban on geoengineering, including research". It is not
clear to whom the authors are referring as there is no footnote or
evidence cited. ETC Group has been very clear that our opposition is
to experimentation, not to laboratory or modelling research. Many
people on this list disagree with that stance but we have been clear,
repeatedly, that we do seek a ban on research in any way, shape or
form. This statement needs to be nuanced or supported with precise
references. It is, however, clear that the mantra that "we need more
research" is being used not only by portions of the scientific
community with rational concerns about run-away climate change but
also by commercial advocates as well as those of the Bjorn Lomborg
"Lets get on with it" “Cool it” persuasion. In other words, "more
research" is sometimes used a geoengineering marketing strategy.
4. There is a significant difference in the strength of LP and CBD
decisions on ocean fertilization in 2008, and that the COP 10 decision
on geoengineering is the weakest of all and does not in fact
constitute a de facto moratorium.
Response: The strength of an international decision cannot be assessed
by looking at wording alone. The CBD has been ratified by 193
countries whereas the London Convention and Protocol have respectively
86 and 35 Parties. It was the German chair of the 2008 CBD COP who
called the ocean fertilization wording a "de facto moratorium" and ETC
Group simply agreed with that formulation. The 2008 CBD wording is
very similar to the COP 10 wording on geoengineering although the
breadth of the latter is much greater (requests Parties and urges
other governments to ensure that OIF activities VS Invites parties and
other governments to consider the following guidance....ensure that no
climate-related geoengineering activities....). Indeed the 2010
decision is explicitly IN LINE AND CONSISTENT WITH the 2008 decision.
The decision is more politically binding than legally binding, a point
which is made in our own evaluation of what the moratorium means. ETC
Group is certainly not the only organization to call this decision a
moratorium – Reuters, the Washington Post and several people who
disagree with almost everything we say, also reported it as such.
It is unfortunate that the authors did not contact ETC Group for our
views about the process or the outcome before circulating the paper,
or consult our own more detailed evaluation of what it means. We hope
that our comments can be considered in any subsequent evaluation
alongside the “anonymous” sources that appear to have been misleading
in several respects.
There will be much more discussion about the meaning of the CBD
moratorium in the months and years to come and ETC Group welcomes this
discussion. As we have pointed out elsewhere, the CBD moratorium does
not resolve the issue -- but it does put it firmly on the UN agenda
and issues a clear instruction to all governments, directly bound or
not by the Convention, against proceeding unilaterally down this path.
Sincerely,
Diana Bronson
ETC Group
On 2-Dec-10, at 5:10 AM, geoengineering+nore...@googlegroups.com wrote:
Today's Topic Summary
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics
Paper on CBD COP10 decision [1 Update]
Topic: Paper on CBD COP10 decision
Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> Dec 01 01:41PM -0800 ^
Good discussion of the Decision. You note that "The most precarious
part of the negotiation was that parties were not well informed of the
science of geoengineering" (p. 13). Agreed, the ignorance on display
was remarkable, although not all that surprising given the continuing
influence of climate deniers. The Royal Society was on hand, but
misleading and ridiculous claims by opponents of geoengineering
received the most attention. However, I think ETC Group and others
have experienced some blowback since the meeting.
Josh Horton
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
