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.net>wrote: > 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 at the planetary level. > Also, I petition the jury to acquit the defendants on the lesser charge, of > wrongful GE experimentation/investigation, as the CBD does allow for such > actions and the *'best known scientific and engineering practices*' in > this field were followed. > > > The moot court would now hear the oppositions' opening statement. > > > * > * > In pursuit of a refinement of the word 'Geoengineering', and thus the > bedrock of the scientific/engineering/philosophical/legal disciplines which > are evolving around this concept, any new definition should be tested > through this type of open moot court challenge. I believe it may be useful > in limiting the subjective pitfalls inherent in this debate. > > > > Best, > > > > Michael > * > * > * > * > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson < > rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> 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 category (called "geoengineering"). Ken has narrowed the >> Geo definition a lot and I feel his is an appropriate narrowing.* >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> *[RWL4: The key words here are "baldly" and "loopholes". But >> also the last sentence starts with "place", but has "how" as well . I'd >> like to hear more from Jim on all four of these key words. Ken is not >> addressing "place" specifically, but "how" is simplified as the geo term is >> narrowed. I don't see the word "bias" as being appropriate in the >> definition. I see Ken's definition being a good resolution to the >> inaccurate way the "geoengineering" term is mostly used (to be synonymous >> with SRM).* >> * I ask JIm: which of the CDR approaches that Ken has carved out >> should not be (for "de minims" or other reasons). Jim's thoughts on >> biochar would be of most personal interest, but biochar is a fairly >> representative CDR approach.]* >> >> >>> 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. *[RWL: A] *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 [RWL: B]* 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 *[RWL: C] *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). >> >> *[RWL5: These are valid comments on three different specific >> examples - call them A,B, C as inserted above. It would be helpful to know >> where Jim would stand on these three examples. In my mind, the differences >> should be based on ocean acidification impact (is CDR involved? - Ken's >> #3 criteria). Fertilizing may or may not mean CDR, so I would not put all >> fertilization into Ken's definition of geoengineering (nor would he >> I think). I think both Ken and Jim would say the Canadian-Russian compact >> (#C) is geoengineering; I would. So in summary, my first reaction:* >> * A: Geo only if intent is SRM; one nation rationale over-ruled >> based on fact Lakes Michigan and Baikal are large and effects could be >> international. * >> * B: Never Geo; de minimis exclusion (if not agreed to by all >> neighboring countries, take the issue to the UN).* >> * C: Geo if SRM (as assumed; can't assume effects stay only >> local); not Geo if it passes Ken's test #3. >> * >> >> >>> 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 by >>> claiming to have only a 'de minimis' effect. De minimis from whose >>> viewpoint? a claimed 10,000 sq km fertilized patch was argued to be small >>> (de minimus?) by HSRC in the context of the entire Pacific Ocean but it was >>> viewed as large and consequential from the context of some BC fishers and >>> shellfish harvesters who are concerned that the red tides closing their >>> shellfish beds all winter may have been as result of the fertilization >>> (which can't be proven either way - what standard of proof would 'de >>> minimis' require?). Whether something is de minimis in terms of impacts >>> then becomes a tiresome fight between different sets of understandings, >>> requiring political arbitration. It complexifies and polarizes governance >>> rather than simplifies it. >>> >> *[RWL6: Agreed that all of these points need discussion. >> The HSRC example is probably a good one, and I know too little about it. >> The claimed main intent was food, but there was also a carbon credit >> aspect that I think would get past all three of Ken's criteria, thereby >> putting it in the geo category. My guess is that both Ken and Jim agree >> this is Geo, so I hope we can hear from others who would say this final >> example is NOT geo. And what definition justifies that non-geo choice?* >> * Jim's issues of a "tiresome fight" and "political arbitration" >> seem likely, but better to have dialog on that now rather than later. >> Legal and governance issues are not addressed at all in the CBD'a >> definition. Ken probably agrees that his was motivated by trying to speed >> governance and implementation along. How would Jim himself solve these >> governance/implementation issues through a definition? Or is that simple - >> that none should ever be permitted?* >> * >> * >> * Ron >> * >> >> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: >>> >>> <snip about 90%, but nothing critical, I think> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/YLaZ-5rVQkg/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. >> > > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.voglerlake.com > > > > -- 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.
