Greg et.al.,
Your points are, as usual, highly supportable from a number of different
angles. The recent coordination of the IMO and the CBD responses to OIF
does appear to be the beginning of an intergovernmental governance matrix
focused upon the use of the marine environment for global warming
mitigation. We have seen in the past that groups like ETC have tried to
overwhelm the CBD with questionable ploys and the end product was
scientifically supportable. If one were to start from scratch to build an
international governance board for large scale marine based mitigation, the
IMO/CBD and the International Seafloor Administration (ISA) (as the third
leg) would be a good mixture to model the new organization upon. However,
those existing organizations will be in the governance position anyway and
so working with them, per project, may be the best. Beyond those three
established groups, the inclusion of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
would seem worth consideration.
Based upon the full spectrum of current marine sciences understanding of
the productive potential of the marine environment; the sophistication of
current marine engineering; the emerging understanding that AGW is a truly
international responsibility and the high global demand for the wide
spectrum of strategically important commodities that Marine BECCS can
deliver, Marine BECCS can be both an environmental and economic powerhouse.
What ever international climate change mitigation governance regime
emerges, the financial factors will not allow themselves to be ignored and
thus a financial forth leg should be among the initial climate change
mitigation 'counsel'.
The question of governance is something of a paradox in that any form of
governance needs effective tools available to govern (whatever it is that
needs governance) and thus governance has a strong influence on tool
design. On the other hand, the design of the tool(s), many times, opens up
governance possibilities which the policy makers are simply clueless about.
Thus, all four legs of the governance regime should be brought along during
the tool design process. As most of the supporting staff of the respective
'parties' are highly trained scientist, this should not be an overwhelming
chore. It appears that this is currently the norm.
*In my most humble opinion*, the best way to stress test the governance
ability of a coordinated compilation of international governance bodies is
to strongly propose specific projects with significant details offered for
critique. It is also my humble opinion that Marine BECCS can withstand
vigorous scrutiny by both the four legged court of the IMO/CBD/ISA/IMF and
that of public opinion (what the policy makers truly seek).
Best regards,
Michael
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:27:15 PM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote:
>
> Fred,
> The first discussion of ocean CDR was by Marchetti in 1977, spawning the
> term "geoengineering" (which unfortunately has morphed into oh so much
> more). There have been more than a few subsequent marine based ideas and
> papers, representatives listed in the attached. The capacity of the ocean
> to consume and store carbon dwarfs anything land has to offer, and the
> ocean will be the final repository for the majority of the carbon we end up
> emitting to the atmosphere if left to Nature's own CDR. Thus, how such a
> vast potential for CO2 mitigation was swept under the rug by IPCC (and
> others) is something I find truly breathtaking, especially considering the
> planet's very dire situation and the ongoing failure of other
> (land-centric) technologies and policies. This is not the time to
> prematurely constrain or ignore our options without very good reasons, and
> those do not appear to be forthcoming from IPCC. If IPCC's charter and
> competence is climate, then it's time to form a new international entity
> dedicated to CO2/GHG management and policy, and staffed accordingly (and
> without a purely terrestrial slant).
>
> Greg
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Fred Zimmerman <geoengin...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> *To:* Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>; geoengineering <
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] WG III (mitigation) report
>
> Greg, I have not read much about sea based CDR -- the first concern that
> comes to mind is one of scale. How much of the ocean needs to be affected
> to achieve CO2 reductions of climatological scale?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> Final report here:
> http://mitigation2014.org/report/final-draft/
>
> Technical (not policymaker) summary here:
>
> http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_technical-summary.pdf
>
> In this summary I note that the terms "ocean" and "marine" appear a grand
> total of 3 times, whereas "land" and "terrestrial" appear 96 times.
> Chapter 11's appendix, offering a major review of bioenergy, dismisses
> ocean biomass (50% of global NPP) in 3 sentences: "There are
> alternatives to land‐based bioenergy. Microalgae, for example, offer a
> high‐end technical potential. However, it might be compromised by water
> supply, if produced in arid land, or by impacts on ocean ecosystems." All
> true if one ignores algae-friendly seawater and saline groundwater (>97% of
> the hydrosphere), and one assumes that impacts to terrestrial (including
> human) ecosystems via land plant bioenergy exploitation will be a relative
> walk in the park. Enhancing abiotic marine/geochemical processes for CO2
> mitigation, proven globally effective though so far only on geologic time
> scales, is nowhere to be found. Guess the game plan is to assume that 100%
> of the global CO2 problem will be solved/mitigated using less than 30% of
> the Earth's surface. How/why the Climate/"Earth" Science community managed
> to ignore 70% of the planet in this critical technical/policy review of
> global CO2 mitigation would be worthy of a report itself, if not a book.
>
> On the plus side, CDR is on the table. Guess it's our job for AR6 to show
> (as if we haven't already) that this technology goes way beyond DAC, BECCS
> or OIF, assuming by then that it's not too late for any strategy to make a
> difference. Then there's always "resilience and adaptation". Anyone for
> some real Plan C geoengineering - seawall construction - pending approval
> from the ethicists?
>
> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
>
--
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/d/optout.
