Ken, cc Greg, list
1. I agree this particular CRS sentence you picked out (shown in context
below) was objectionable. I thank you for pointing it out. But there is
plenty in this report on CDR - which is often totally missing in reports on
geoengineering. I have met the principal author, Kelsi Bracmort, and believe
that she well knows the subject matter and this one sentence is caused by the
need for brevity. Here the emphasis is on governance (presumably requested by
some Committee - or maybe CRS is just getting ready). I think there is
adequate recognition in this report that CDR and SRM need be handled
differently. I recommend CRS and this report - as the sentence is not
representative.
2. To prove my point, here is one excerpt from p 22, showing that they do
know how to separate the two parts of geoengineering (bolding is mine):
"Different technologies may require different methods for oversight. To the
extent that CDR
technologies are similar to known and existing ones, their development and
implementation may
be adequately governed at the domestic level by existing U.S. laws. Air capture
technologies are
similar to those of carbon capture and sequestration for power generation.
Biochar and biomass
sequestration face similar life cycle analyses and regulatory issues to
biofuels.
……<snip five+ similar CDR lines, because my computer balked at copying
them>…...
In addition, the scope, dispersions, and interventions of most SRM technologies
are very likely to
cause significant effects across national boundaries. While land surface albedo
modification could
potentially be managed under national regulatory frameworks, other technologies
may trigger
transboundary issues. While some existing treaties address atmosphere and
space, their
enforcement has rarely been tested."
(I believe they have above in underlining correctly spotted the two
principal regulatory issues for biochar - and few such broad policy papers do.)
3. The report’s emphasis on governance (and not the CDR/SRM technology
differences) shows up in the conclusion:
Conclusion (pp 29-30 - three paragraphs on the last two pages (after 126
footnotes) - showing they are not always so good at separating CDR and SRM.
Ken’s sentence (highlighted) is not alone in this final section; there is no
separation into CDR and SRM anywhere in these three paragraphs. But it is
present in most other parts of the 32 pages. The highlighting is by myself.)
"Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific
innovation, requires careful
deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of
international
agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many
geoengineering technologies are
at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing
global temperatures has
yet to be proven. Very few studies have been published documenting the cost,
environmental
effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering.
Nevertheless, if
geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the
potential to cause
significant transboundary effects.
Some foreign governments and private entities have expressed an interest in
pursuing
geoengineering projects, largely out of concern over the slow progress of
greenhouse gas
reductions under the international climate change agreements, the possible
existence of climate
“tipping points,” and the apparent political or economic obstacles to pursuing
aggressive
domestic greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. However, in the United States,
there is limited
federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. Consequently, to the
extent that some
federal agencies and U.S. states have begun addressing geoengineering projects,
they are doing so
in a largely piecemeal fashion.
If the U.S. government opts to address geoengineering at the federal level,
there are several
approaches that are immediately apparent. First, it may continue to leave
geoengineering policy
development in the hands of federal agencies and states. Second, it might
impose a temporary or
permanent moratorium on geoengineering, or on particular geoengineering
technologies, out of
concern that its risks outweigh its benefits. Third, it might develop a
national policy on
geoengineering by authoring or amending laws. Fourth, it could work with the
international
community to craft an international approach to geoengineering by writing or
amending
international agreements. That the government can play a substantial role in
the development of
new technologies has been manifested in such areas as nanotechnology, nuclear
science, and
genetic engineering. "
4. My preference is for the first and fourth approaches, but all of these
obviously are going to be pushed by different elected officials. My experience
(I once worked for Congress) is that the CRS staff are very careful in
preparing papers like this, as they have to remain non-partisan and objective.
I think (except for agreeing with Ken on a few sentences) that this is a report
we should pay heed to. They did not create the problem that Ken is
(thankfully) pointing out again. I personally am afraid we have lost this
language battle - but hope I am wrong. Geoengineering does have two distinct
parts with hugely different characteristics. We just have to keep correcting
those who ignore CDR.
5. The CRS authors' email addresses are at the end. I shall independently
send this note to them - basically thanking them for tackling a tough problem -
but asking for continued diligence in avoiding sentences like that Ken has
pointed out. Like Ken, I wish we could somehow start over with the
terminology now covered (relatively badly) by the term “geoengineering”. I
don’t think we can.
Ron
On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
> I note that the CRS falls into the same nomenclature trap as everyone else.
>
> By defining geoengineering to cover even things things that pose no novel
> risks, but seeking to make sweeping statements, they say things like:
>
> "Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are
> expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects."
>
> Thus, as usual, reforestation, biochar, and point source removal of CO2 with
> geologic storage are tarred with the same brush that stratospheric aerosols
> are tarred with.
>
> Isn't it time we sharpened up our language? Since "geoengineering" is in
> effect a pejorative term, isn't it time that we refine its scope so that it
> refers only to activities that pose novel risks?
>
>
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apologies if this link has already been discussed:
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf
>
> Greg
>
> --
> 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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> 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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
