Why do people think that the term 'geoengineering', a term that necessitates determination of intention, is a useful term when it comes to discussing governance of the marine environment?
Do the marine organisms understand our intentions? Do they care why something is being done? If the concern is scale up of physically describable activities, why not govern those physically describable activities? Or is it that people want to prevent the generation of knowledge they see as dangerous? Is the real goal the suppression of the generation of knowledge, or the protection of the marine environment? cf. Caldeira and Ricke, Nature Climate Change 2013 (attached). _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/ blog: http://kencaldeira.org @KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu>, with access to incoming emails. Postdoc positions: https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/postdoc-opportunity-the-global-cycle-of-atmospheric-kinetic-energy/ On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > Key Points > • There have been growing concerns within the international scientific and > political communities about marine geoengineering occurring at untested > scales and without appropriate oversight. In 2007, several private > companies planned to introduce large quantities of iron into the ocean to > stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which would pull CO2 from the > atmosphere and help mitigate climate change impacts, a process known as > ocean iron fertilization (OIF). > • The negative publicity that OIF garnered forced the parties of the > London Convention and the London Protocol (LC-LP) to rethink governance of > marine geoengineering, resulting in the Assessment Framework for Scientific > Research Involving Ocean Fertilization. > • However, gaps in the governance still remain: the framework has not been > integrated on a national level by the International Maritime Organization > (IMO), there is a void of transparency mechanisms in place and there > currently exist no independent assessments of the impacts of OIF. > • To remedy these issues, this brief recommends that the IMO and parties > to the LC-LP develop memorandums of understanding (MoUs) to delineate > framework implementation plans, adopt legally binding governance > transparency mechanisms to ensure linkages between national and > international governance institutions, and create independent assessment > panels (IAPs). > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Caldeira-Ricke_NatureCC2013_prudence-on-solar-climate-engineering.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
