Diana The 13 Ocean fertilization experiments since 1993 were undertaken after laboratory research and trials.
So now Ocean fertilization experiments cannot go back to laboratory experiments. The size, duration and scope of the similar experiments in future has to be increased not decreased. Especially since none of the 13 experiments resulted in any adverse outcomes. best regards Bhaskar On Dec 8, 7:07 am, Masahiro Sugiyama <s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp> wrote: > Dear Diana, > > Thank you very much for reviewing our paper thoroughly. > We really appreciate it. It is a working paper, and we > will make efforts to fully reflect on your points when > we revise it. > > I agree with you that some people are using the mantra > of "we need more research" as a marketing tool. This point > was probably not well represented in our paper. > > Again many thanks for your comments. > > Best, > Masa Sugiyama > > (2010/12/08 5:14), Diana Bronson wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217>. 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 > > ownmore > > detailed evaluation <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5236> 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 > > <mailto:geoengineering+nore...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> Today's Topic Summary > > >> Group:http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics > > >> * Paper on CBD COP10 decision <#group_thread_0> [1 Update] > > >> Topic: Paper on CBD COP10 decision > >> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/1f92f5f00e9973b4> > > >> Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>> Dec 01 01:41PM -0800 ^ > >> <#digest_top> > > >> 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com > >> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> <mailto: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.
