Hi everyone, For what it's worth, my quick two cents on all this:
- I tend to agree with Anna-Maria and others that this decision is not so much an endorsement of geoengineering research as it is a recognition of the need for more of it, in the context of a general reaffirmation of the previous CBD position on geoengineering. - I disagree with Jim's characterization of this position as a "de facto moratorium" on research -- no serious legal reading of these texts leads to that conclusion. - In the scheme of things, I don't regard this latest decision as terribly significant one way or the other. It is a fairly routine non-binding decision adopted by parties to a convention that, while well-intentioned, exercises virtually no influence on international climate policy. Josh Joshua Horton, Ph.D. Research Director, Geoengineering Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 12 Oxford Street, Link Rm. 276 Cambridge, MA 02138 On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:18:00 AM UTC-5, p.williamson wrote: > > > Ron - and others > > > In response: > > > 1. My 'small part' related to the CBD decision text. I did not draft > that, but had the opportunity to comment on it at the 2015 CBD SBSTTA. I > should have been more careful in distinguishing three levels of "CBD > text": i) CBD decisions, the agreed position determined by the Conference > of Parties (COP) of signatories to the Convention, i.e. national > governments (although excluding the US, who has not ratified the > Convention, and is now very unlikely to do so); ii) documentation prepared > by the CBD Secretariat for consideration by parties at CBD SBSTTA and COP > meetings; and iii) externally-prepared information papers and reports, such > as mine, that have their final editing by the Secretariat, but are not > necessarily "accepted" by parties (I think Technical Series 84 was "noted" > by the 2015 CBD SBSTTA, but I haven't checked that). Thus, strictly > speaking, only (i) should be considered as CBD text. > > > 2. The CBD Secretariat took the lead role in drafting the Key Messages > part of the report. However, I was fully comfortable with that part of the > text (with sign-off also by my co-author, Ralph Bodle). > > > 3. There arguably never was a "moratorium": CBD decision X33 was a > request, with various provisos. For example, identifying the need for > adequate scientific justification, also including the exception for > small-scale scientific experiments in a controlled setting - without > defining what that meant. For a scientific study, the 'control' involves > measurements of the matching situation without experimental treatment. If > the intention was for 'controlled setting' to rigorously mean a > fully-enclosed, laboratory study, that could/should have been > stated. Furthermore, geoengineering was very poorly defined in X33, > without making clear whether land-based CDR (such as BECCS and large-scale > afforestation/reforestation) was or was not included. Definition issues > are discussed further in Annex 2 of Tech Ser 84. > > > 4. Thanks for mentioning my Nature World View article (the pdf is > downloadable from the link you gave). That is a different topic: I will > endeavour to keep you personally informed of the outcome, but would not > presume such issues are of interest to all the Geoengineering group members. > > > Regards > > Phil > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net <javascript:>> > *Sent:* 18 December 2016 06:26 > *To:* Phillip Williamson (ENV) > *Cc:* J.L. Reynolds; annamari...@ucalgary.ca <javascript:>; > Geoengineering; macm...@cds.caltech.edu <javascript:>; jim Thomas > *Subject:* Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the > climate" > > Dr. Williamson, list, et al > > 1. You say below that you had a “small part” - but you seem to have been > the primary author for almost all of “Report 84” (cite given below). > I’ve only so far read the CDR part of most interest to me, but I will try > to at least skim the rest. I thought it the best summary overview of all I > have seen for “my” CDR approach. Of course I would have changed a few > words and phrases, but overall, you captured my area very well. Of most > help is finding more than a dozen new 2016 citations, of which I was > unaware. Amazing turn-around speed on a difficult topic.. > > 2. I didn’t feel the same about the “Key Messages” summary paragraph. > Did another person/group write that? > > 3. I now better understand the phrase “moratorium” - which you focus on > below. Am I correct that you disagree with the ETC group on moratorium > issues/actions at this COP (and whose perception I have retained below)? > > 4. New topic: In googling, I found your recent short article in Nature > at: > http://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106. > > Thanks for your efforts in fighting the climate misinformation coming from > the Breitbart and similar groups. Please keep us informed on how that > turns out. And of further ways that we can help you and each other. > > > <http://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106> > Take the time and effort to correct misinformation ... > <http://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106> > www.nature.com > Scientists should challenge online falsehoods and inaccuracies — and > harness the collective power of the Internet to fight back, argues Phil > Williamson. > > > > Ron > > On Dec 17, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Phillip Williamson (ENV) < > p.will...@uea.ac.uk <javascript:>> wrote: > > A useful and informative discussion. Here's one further input from me: > > Having had a small part in formulating CBD text on this issue (but not > currently at Cancun), I can offer the insight that some ambiguity in > interpretation of CBD Decision text may be politically expedient - and > could either actually be intentional by the drafters. Or else evolves > happen-chance, as extra words are added and taken away, and compromises > reached. At the end of the process, no-one is quite sure what exactly is > meant, but they are prepared to sign-off for the sake of reaching consensus. > > Note that CBD parties have yet to agree on a single definition of > geoengineering, but that doesn't seem to be a problem - since there isn't > any binding regulation to enforce. Parties can therefore take account of > CBD guidance/decisions as they wish to do so, and appropriate to their > interests. > > In my opinion, the new paragraph discussed in these exchanges should be > considered a significant development - clarifying that the claimed, but > never explicitly agreed, "moratorium on geoengineering research" would be > an over-interpretation of previous decisions. The spectrum of what > is/isn't geoengineering research is anyway far too broad to be considered > as a single activity. > > Interestingly, online coverage of CBD Technical Series 84 ( > https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf) rapidly polarised > into two headlines - "UN body bans geoengineering and "UN body approves > geoengineering". Actually it did neither: that report pre-dated COP 13 by > ~ 6 weeks, and was developed as a scientific information paper. As such it > was policy neutral (as far as possible) > > Regards > Phil > p.will...@uea.ac.uk <javascript:> > ------------------------------ > > > <snip 8 messages not pertaining to my question #3> > > > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [ > mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *jim > Thomas > *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2016 8:44 AM > *To:* j.l.re...@uvt.nl <javascript:> > *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> > *Subject:* [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the > climate" > > > Hi Jesse > > > As Anna-Maria and Maggie affirm, it would be perverse to read that > paragraph as some sort of endorsement of geoengineering ‘research’ in which > the term ‘research’ is being treated as a synonym for experimentation. It > is also a bit misleading to present the COP decision of 2010 as just ‘a > statement of caution’ as you do below. In fact it was a global de facto > moratorium on outside experimentation (beyond a “controlled setting”) - so > it went beyond mere caution to common agreement on limits. X/33 (w) asked > parties to “Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 > <http://www.cbd.int/decisions/?m=cop-09&n=16> C, on ocean fertilization > and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, > global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for > geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and > Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering > activities*76* > <https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299#cop-10-dec-33-fn76>that may > affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis > on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the > associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated > social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale > scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting > in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are > justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to > a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;” > > > The discussion from Cancun is re-affirmation of that existing > de-facto moratorium and that is important to bear in mind , especially in > view of current discussions under UNFCCC on how to keep warming under 1.5 > degrees. Reviewing the IPCC AR5 report was the trigger for this further > discussion under CBD of climate geoengineering and The clear message from > governments > is that even after reviewing AR5 they maintain a continued NO to > geoengineering experimentation. Please find below ETC Group’s comment > on the matter. > > > Best > > > Jim > > > Jim Thomas > Programme Director, ETC Group (Montreal) > j > > > *News Release* > *15 December 2016* > *UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate* > *UN Convention on Biological Diversity reaffirms its moratorium on > climate-related geoengineering* > *CANCUN, MEXICO* – The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which > gathered at its 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) in Mexico from > December 4-17, decided to reaffirm its landmark moratorium > <https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/in-session/cop-13-l-04-en.pdf> > on climate-related geoengineering that it first agreed to in 2010. > Geoengineering refers to a set of proposed techniques that would intervene > in and alter earth systems on a large scale – recently, these proposals > have been gaining traction as a “technofix” solution to climate change. > Examples include solar radiation management techniques such as blasting > sulphate particles into the atmosphere as well as other earth systems > interventions grouped under a second broad umbrella of ‘carbon dioxide > removal.’ > The reaffirmation of the CBD moratorium is even more relevant in the light > of the Paris Agreement on climate change, in which governments agreed to > limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. Geoengineers quickly > interpreted the Paris Agreement as allowing or encouraging geoengineering > to meet that ambitious goal. > “The decision to reaffirm the global moratorium on geoengineering is an > important message for those who are now promoting it as shortcut to achieve > the Paris Agreement goals. Geoengineering schemes will impact the global > commons and will have transboundary impacts that could be worse than > climate change,” said *Silvia Ribeiro*, Latin America Director of ETC > Group. “The CBD made a landmark decision on 2010 to halt the deployment of > geoengineering because of its potential widespread negative impacts on > people and biodiversity, and that decision holds firm.” > “Climate change and biodiversity erosion are both acute interrelated > global problems that demand urgent attention and action,” said *Neth Daño*, > Asia Director of ETC Group. “However, climate geoengineering proposals are > a set of unproven techno-fixes that do not address the root causes of > either climate change or biodiversity loss, and could deviate attention and > resources from real, affordable, safe, and globally much more fair > alternatives.” > The CBD decision noted also that the potential impacts of geoengineering > on biodiversity and ecosystem functions, as well as on socio-economic and > cultural/ethical issues have not been studied. This is one of the main > conclusions in the updated report > <https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf> on the impacts on > geoengineering on biodiversity that was organized by the CBD. “Taking the > precautionary approach is the least the UN can do,” said *Silvia Ribeiro*. > In a 2016 article in *Nature*, Phil Williamson, the coordinator of that > report, highlighted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, > which released the largest climate change report to date in 2014, “[…] > leaves out one crucial consideration: the environmental impacts of > large-scale CO2 removal. This omission is striking because the set of > IPCC emissions scenarios that are likely to limit the increase in global > surface temperature to 2C by 2100 […] mostly relies on large-scale CO2 > removal.” > Specifically, the IPCC did not look at the environmental or biodiversity > impacts of their favoured technique: BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture > and storage) or of other so called “negative emissions” technologies. > Furthermore, recent scientific studies also show that these proposals are > not technically or economically viable, but would imply large impacts on > biodiversity and traditional livelihoods. > “The reaffirmation of the CBD moratorium on geoengineering, taken by > consensus of 196 governments, is a wake-up call for the governments > considering these dangerous proposals” said *Jim Thomas, Programme > Director at ETC Group*. "It was a mature decision not only to protect > biodiversity, but also to prevent the few and powerful actors that want > geoengineering from taking control of the global thermostat.” > The decision also emphasised that indigenous peoples and local > communities’ knowledge must be taken into account. “There are plenty of > proven viable, sustainable, culturally and economically viable solutions to > stop both the erosion of biodiversity and climate change, such as peasant > agriculture, that need attention and support instead of high-tech, > high-risk false solutions such as geoengineering” said *Silvia Ribeiro*. > Geoengineering has been a topic of discussion in the CBD for almost a > decade and in 2008, the CBD issued a moratorium on ocean fertilization. > Therefore, the geoengineering decision in COP 13 was preceded by longer > debates in the CBD’s subsidiary scientific body (SBSTTA) and previous COPs > creating high level of agreement, and as such was not a hotly debated topic > in Cancun. > ### > *Note to editors: * > The full decision of the CBD can be found here: > https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/in-session/cop-13-l-04-en.pdf > An eight-page briefing on geoengineering and the CBD can be found here: > http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/final_geoengineering_brief_cop_13_web.pdf > *Expert Contacts*: > Silvia Ribeiro: +52 1 55 2653 3330, sil...@etcgroup.org <javascript:> > Neth Dano: +63 917 532 9369, ne...@etcgroup.org <javascript:> > Jim Thomas: +1 (514) 516-5759, j...@etcgroup.org <javascript:> > > > *Communications Contact*: > Trudi Zundel: +1 (226) 979-0993, tr...@etcgroup.org <javascript:> > Williamson, Phil. "Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods." > *Nature*. 530, no. 7589 (2016): 153. > http://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318 > Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, “The trouble with negative emissions.” > Science, October 2016. > Almuth Ernsting and Oliver Munnion, “Last Ditch Climate Option or Wishful > Thinking? Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage.” Biofuelwatch report, > November 2015. > http://www.wri.org/publication/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land > Tim Searchinger and Ralph Heimlich, “Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for > Food Crops and Land.” January 2015. *Creating a Sustainable Food Future, > *Installment > Nine. > http://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318 > > > > > > <snip one message> > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
