Just a quick note on process - please make sure you use the official template available at the address below to submit your comments - this is the only way to ensure they will reach the CBD Secretariat.
http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/ Josh On Feb 1, 3:33 am, Chris <chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk> wrote: > Wit reference to the text on climate change threats to species > extinction: > > *Climate change poses an increasingly severe range of threats to > biodiversity and ecosystem services, with ~10% of species estimated to > be > at risk of extinction for every 1⁰C rise in global mean temperature.* > > This text in the main part of the report is referenced to a CBD > Technical Report 'Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change: > Mitigation and Adaptation' Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical > Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, CBD Technical Series > report No. 41. However, when you look into that report you find that > the text derives from IPCC AR4! The text in the CBD report reads: > > *Information in Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental > Panel on Climate Change > (IPCC AR4) suggests that approximately 10% of species assessed so far > will be at an increasingly > high risk of extinction for every 1°C rise in global mean temperature, > within the range of future > scenarios modelled in impacts assessments (typically <5°C global > temperature rise).* > > Chris Vivian > chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk > > On Jan 27, 5:38 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote: > > > > > On a quick read, it seems mostly sensible. A few points (which I should > > make formally): > > > *Climate change poses an increasingly severe range of threats to > > biodiversity and ecosystem services, with ~10% of species estimated to be > > at risk of extinction for every 1⁰C rise in global mean temperature.* > > > My guess is that this statement is hard to support empirically. The > > argument would need to be about rates of change and not amounts of change. > > For example, we did not see 30 to 50% of species going extinct as a result > > of the 3 to 5 C warming coming out of the last glacial. This statement > > might be more supportable if it were phrased in terms of rates of change > > (e.g., "for every 1 C per century increase in the rate of warming") which > > was probably implicit in the minds of the writers. > > > *Enhanced weathering would involve large-scale mining and transportation of > > carbonate and silicate rocks, and the spreading of solid or liquid > > materials on land or sea with major impacts on terrestrial and coastal > > ecosystems and, in some techniques, locally excessive alkalinity in marine > > systems.* > > > I do not know of any evidence that spreading carbonate or silicate minerals > > in the land or sea would have major impacts on terrestrial and coastal > > ecosystems. Those of us who have considered using such approaches to > > ameliorate effects of ocean acidification on coastal communities have been > > somewhat dismayed at the difficulty of obtaining significant impact on > > coastal ecosystems -- impacts, by the way, that are anticipated to be > > beneficial to these ecosystems. The authors could echo the language from > > the afforestation bullet -- i.e., "impacts (postitive and negative) would > > depend on the method and scale of implementation." > > > *Ocean storage of biomass (e.g. crop residues) would likely have negative > > impacts on biodiversity.* > > > I do not know of any evidence to support this contention. While it could be > > true, I would guess that adoption of this approach would make the seafloor > > a more heterogeneous place and bring food to the seafloor. Both of these > > things could increase biodiversity. That said, we should not fall into the > > trap of thinking that more biodiversity is necessarily good. Introduced > > species often increase local biodiversity. The issue is helping natural > > ecosystems to persist, not increasing biodiversity. > > > *The very fact that the international community is presented with > > geo-engineering as a potential option to be further explored is a major > > social and cultural issue*.* * > > > Is this intended to be an empirically testable statement? If so, how do I > > determine what is a major social and cultural issue? War, poverty, justice, > > freedom, geoengineering? > > > *Climate change could be addressed by a rapid and significant reduction in > > greenhouse gas emissions through a transition to a low-carbon economy with > > overall positive impacts on biodiversity. Measures to achieve such a > > transition would avoid the adverse impacts of climate change on biodiversity > > *. > > > Even with a hypothetical rapid transition, much more climate change is in > > the pipeline. Should read: "Measures to achieve such a transition would > > REDUCE adverse impacts of climate change on biodiversity. " > > > *The deployment of geo-engineering techniques, if feasible and effective, > > could reduce some aspects of climate change and its impacts on > > biodiversity. At the same time, geo-engineering techniques are associated > > with their own negative impacts on biodiversity*. *The net effect will vary > > among techniques and is difficult to predict. > > * > > Again, these negative effects have not been demonstrated for all possible > > deployments. At the very least , "At the same time, DEPLOYMENTS OF > > geo-engineering techniques COULD BE associated with their own negative > > impacts on biodiversity." > > > _______________ > > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 > > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > *YouTube:* > > Crop yields in a geoengineered > > climate<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> > > Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3 > > budget<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo> > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Andrew Lockley > > <and...@andrewlockley.com>wrote: > > > > The CBD report on geoengineering is open for a second and final round of > > > review comments:http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/ > > > > Pls comment, esp on the exec summary > > > > A > > > > -- > > > 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. > > > 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.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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. 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.
