My quick reactions: 0) A good definition overall.
1) I observe that discussions in this group and in political advocacy about geoengineering are spending a great deal of energy defining certain things "in" and "out" of geoengineering. I think it is something of a time sink. In the end the labels will be assigned by a mix of formal and informal processes. We can attempt to control the formal processes by promulgating improved definitions, but in the end our efforts will be less than fully dispositive. To be sure, we should make sure that there are good definitions available to the diplomats, but the amount of time spent on definitions now should be limited by the knowledge that the ultimate language chosen in governance instruments will be strongly affected by political horse-trading and Brownian motion. 2) Instead of "greater than de minimis" I suggest the equally lawyerly "material". 3) I am uncomfortable with limiting the scope to crossboundary activities. There are several continental-scale countries that could do things that have a great deal of impact. it seems wrongheaded to give those countries more maneuvering room than everyone else. 4) I am curious whether you plan to adopt this definition in future "Science of Geoengineering" surveys? Fred On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > wrote: > Folks, > > Here is my attempt at what I think would be a useful definition of > "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context, > intended as a starting point for discussion. > > ----------------------------- > > "Geoengineering" refers to activities intended to modify climate that have > greater than *de minimis* effect on an international commons or across > international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an > intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas > concentrations. > > -------------------------- > > The idea is to get proposals that bear no novel risks and great similarity > to mitigation efforts out of the definition of "geoengineering". Under > such a definition, stratospheric aerosol injections and ocean fertilization > would be geoengineering. Under most circumstances, things like > afforestation, biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and > direct air capture (DAC) would not be considered geoengineering. > > Note that specific afforestation activities could be considered > geoengineering under this definition if, for example, increased > evapotranspiration from the forest decreased river flow and took water away > from downstream nations, but afforestation that did not have such > properties would not be considered geoengineering. > > Under some definitions, neither biomass energy nor CCS alone would > constitute "geoengineering", nor would a biomass energy plant releasing CO2 > to the atmosphere situated next to a coal plant employing CCS. Under such > definitions, if the pipes were switched, and the CO2 went from the biomass > energy plant to the CCS facility and the coal CO2 released to the > atmosphere, this would constitute "geoengineering". > > If someone were to invent a machine to remove power-plant sulfate aerosols > from the troposphere, and this machine has no transborder effect that does > not derive from this intended activity, that it would not be > "geoengineering" under this proposed definition. Such activities would be > considered to be similar to reducing sulfur emissions from power plants. > However, if this machine also emitted something that would have a more-than- > *de-minimis* unintended environmental effects on other nations or on an > international commons, then it would consitute geoengineering. > > ---- > > Ocean fertilization and ocean alkanization would be included, but BECCS > and DAC using industrial methods would not be included unless they create > greater than *de minimis* environmental effects on an international > commons or across international border through mechanisms other than their > intended effect of reducing excess anthropgenic CO2 concentrations. > > ---- > > I add the qualifier “environmental” to "environmental mechanism" to > eliminate consideration of, for example, economic effects on other > countries that would be a consequence of, for example, the effect of carbon > removal on carbon prices under a cap and trade system. > > The importance of "excess anthropogenic ... concentrations" is that to be > excess in must be greater than natural background, so cases are included > where people might want to reduce CO2 or aerosols lower than natural > levels. Use of BECCS or DAC to reduce concentrations beyond natural levels > would be considered “geoengineering” > > Note that "modify climate" includes cases where the intent is to produce a > novel climate and not just “restore” climate to earlier conditions. > > This definition also addresses issues associated with urban heat islands. > If the effects (beyond *de minimis*) are purely national, then efforts to > address urban heat island issues by eliminating dark and dry heat absorbing > surfaces would not be considered geoengineering, even if they had some > regional effect. For example, efforts to reduce heat island effects in the > northeast US could conceivable have regional climate effect, but would we > want to prevent cities from taking these actions because it could be > considered "geoengineering"? > > Note also by defining "geoengineering" in terms of intent and greater than > *de minimis* environmental effect to an international commons or across > international borders, we implicitly cover new proposals not included in > the CDR / SRM dichotomy (e.g., cooling Earth's surface climate by pumping > up cold water from the deep ocean). > > ---- > > Note that there is a substantial community that says, more-or-less, "Let's > just say 'no' to geoengineering." > > If a definition puts BECCS in the same category as injecting sulfate > aerosols into the atmosphere, it effectively communicating that BECCS has > more in common with injection of aerosols into the stratosphere than it > does with biomass energy or CCS. > > Opponents of research into BECCS will then be able to say things like: "No > geoengineering [climate engineering] development should go on until there > is an international treaty governing its research and use." Thus, there is > a reasonable expectation that such an interpretation of "geoengineering" > will inadvertently hamper development of potentially valuable technologies > that present no special governance or trans-border or global commons issues. > > I am concerned that inclusion of BECCS or DAC in the definition of > "geoengineering" will damage the development of technologies that present > no novel 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 > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
