[geo] EU Parliament

[J.L. Reynolds]

I've not seen this mentioned on the list. The EU Parliament recently approved 
the statement that is "Expresses its opposition to proposals for large scale 
geo-engineering"
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0430+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
at paragraph 90. This is part of the process of developing a common EU position 
going into Rio+20.
According to the New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20996-political-backlash-to-geoengineering-begins.html
"The European Parliament's resolution was pushed through by Kriton Arsenis, a 
Greek Socialist MEP. If the other bodies in the European Union approve it, the 
anti-geoengineering statement could become part of the EU's negotiating 
position for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de 
Janeiro in June 2012. In theory, it could then be included in any international 
agreement that comes out of Rio."

- Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
Fulbright Fellow
Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Wilson Center Report

[J.L. Reynolds]

The geoengineering report from The Wilson Center is out:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf

- J

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Hamilton: Ethical Anxieties About Geoengineering

[J.L. Reynolds]

Forwarded from another list

You may be interested in a new paper titled:

ETHICAL ANXIETIES ABOUT GEOENGINEERING:
MORAL HAZARD, SLIPPERY SLOPE AND PLAYING GOD

The abstract and URL are below. Feel free to contact me if there are any
difficulties accessing the paper.

Sincerely

Clive Hamilton

ABSTRACT

Three main justifications are used to defend geoengineering research and
possible deployment-it will allow us to buy time, it will allow us to
respond to a climate emergency, and it may be the best option
economically. Against these a number of ethical risks intrude: we may use
the possibility of climate engineering to blind ourselves to our moral
responsibilities; research into geoengineering may provide an excuse for
governments to reduce mitigation efforts (in the way research into CCS
has); a powerful pro-geoengineering constituency may emerge, skewing
decision-making; and, attempting to regulate Earth's great natural
processes is "playing God", which is dangerous and invites retribution.
The playing-God argument comes in theistic and atheistic versions. In
addition, as a techno-fix geoengineering may make the problem worse by
papering over the social and political causes of the climate crisis.

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=articles


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] some tweets, including cultural cognition

[J.L. Reynolds]

Colleagues:

Below are some of my recent tweets on Twitter regarding geoengineering. As 
always, these are just news headlines, some of which have been discussed here. 
In particular, I draw your attention to the work by the Cultural Cognition 
Project at bit.ly/y4afWs . Any thoughts on this?

You can subscribe at https://twitter.com/#!/geoengpolicy

Best,
Jesse

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
Bárbara Mendes-Jorge @flame_me_up reports from the @policynetwork 
#geoengineering event at @carbonbrief bit.ly/zP9MHS
20 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
"A Critique of #Geoengineering" from Braden Allenby in IEEE Potentials 
bit.ly/x1dXUJ [Can anyone access this for me?]
19 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
Tension between reducing sea-level rise & global warming thru solar-radiation 
management"#geoengineering @natureclimate bit.ly/wlrnsF
18 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
seminar series at Oxford on #geoengineering on 1, 6, and 8 February 
bit.ly/xWef4N
18 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
Cultural Cognition Project on #geoengineering bit.ly/y4afWs @ChrisMooney_ 
responds bit.ly/xLod9h bit.ly/w15EN7
11 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of Potsdam Inst for Climate Research on 
"#Geoengineering: The good, the MAD, & the sensible" bit.ly/AnqXmr
9 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
Latest publication on solar radiation management #geoengineering field tests in 
Russia bit.ly/zeFyr7
9 Jan 

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
"#Geoengineering Our Climate: Science, Ethics and Governance" event Ottawa 18 
Jan w Blackstock Rayner et al bit.ly/wdtG9I @CIGIonline
9 Jan 
»

geoengpolicy J Reynolds 
"The prospects for #geoengineering" event @ Westminster 12 Jan: Martin Rees, 
Anthony Giddens, J Wilsdon bit.ly/AwFwcc @policynetwork
9 Jan Favorite Reply Delete

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] new CBD report on impacts on biodiversity, and more

[J.L. Reynolds]

Returning from a holiday weekend, there's a bundle of stuff at my twitter feed 
(http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy) and below. This seems rather relevant:

Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity
CBD 2012 
SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, 
TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Sixteenth meeting
Montreal, 30 April-5 May 2012
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-28-en.pdf

Best,
- Jesse

23m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
"Governance and equity in the development and deployment of negative emissions 
technologies" #geoengineering http://bit.ly/Hsj3Y0 [PDF]

37m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
"Reflective roofs and pavements" SRM #geoengineering http://bit.ly/HwD6Kv

41m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
Australia's office chief scientist paper: #geoengineering would not work, and 
poses risk http://bit.ly/Iv5ya4 [PDF]

55m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
"Metaphors we die by? #Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from 
catastrophe" http://bit.ly/Huaktm [PDF]

1h J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
"Sucking carbon dioxide out of the air: Neat idea, but impractical" @bradplumer 
on CDR #geoengineering http://wapo.st/IdIsG6


-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] climate engineering tweets

[J.L. Reynolds]

Here are some headlines that I have recently tweeted at 
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy . Sorry for the poor legibility...

- Jesse

5m J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
"Voluntary Support of Scientific Research" some small sample opinion polling on 
#geoengineering http://bit.ly/KcQ78U [PDF]
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
22m J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
"Occurrence of lower cloud albedo in ship tracks" for marine cloud brightening 
#geoengineering http://bit.ly/M2IvFq [PDF]
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
24m J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
The #Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): A Control 
Perspective http://bit.ly/LunGDq [PDF]
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
33m J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
"Capturing our way out of the carbon mess" #geoengineering from @spogburn in 
@highcountrynews http://bit.ly/NCOkMx
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
22h J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
text of chat "Can #Geoengineering Save the World?" @elikint with David Keith is 
now online at @ScienceNOW http://bit.ly/K9dlLp
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
22h J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
SRM #geoengineering will make skies hazier, whiter. Paper http://bit.ly/LftOSf 
news coverage http://bit.ly/L6JIvr http://bit.ly/M3vcYT
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
22h J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
opinion survey from @BrookingsInst on American's attitude to #geoengineering. 
Result: skepticism whether it will work http://bit.ly/K8cxZ9
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
31 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Today 3PM EDT / 21.00 CET Live online chat: "Can #Geoengineering Save the 
World?" @elikint with David Keith at @ScienceNOW
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
31 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Special issue of Energy & Environment on CCS #geoengineering 
http://bit.ly/KfmUhB
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
31 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
"#Geoengineering: Risky to Do, Riskier to Ignore" @MLemonick at @ClimateCentra 
http://bit.ly/MaB2Kh
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
31 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
"Climate Engineering: Avoiding Pandora’s Box through Research and Governance" 
Fridtjof Nansen Institute report http://bit.ly/LhNXVr [PDF]
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
29 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
#geoengineering at the Hay Festival, Wales: @AJCorner Fri 1 June 6.30pm 
http://bit.ly/K8JcCb
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
25 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
In Oxford & online 7 June 2 PM (2B recorded) 5 @oxgeoeng #geoengineering 
researchers on their findings http://bit.ly/Jxr1Be @oxmartinschool
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
25 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
TiO2 for stratospheric SRM #geoengineering from @volansjohn in @guardiansustbiz 
http://bit.ly/Lyf9Bh
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
24 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Cancelled project spurs debate over #geoengineering patents http://bit.ly/Ks19sJ
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
24 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Nature editorial: Regulation in controversial areas (#geoengineering) needs to 
be working before the experiments begin http://bit.ly/JXwgNA
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
23 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
statement from ESPRC (funder) on cancellation of SPICE #geoengineering field 
research http://bit.ly/KKUvPO ht @Jackstilgoe
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
23 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Clive Hamilton on "European versus US attitudes to #geoengineering" 
http://bit.ly/KSjAF2
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
23 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Response to cancellation of SPICE SRM #geoengineering test from 
@HandsOffMotherE http://bit.ly/Kn2SPR
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
22 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
new books from Roger Scruton & @fredguterl http://amzn.to/KGGv5I 
http://amzn.to/KaowGz touch on #geoengineering; generally supportive
 View media
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
21 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
News on SPICE cancellation: http://econ.st/JiDADR from @Eaterofsun; 
http://bbc.in/Lun713 @BBCRBlack; http://bit.ly/KrTQiP @ScienceInsider
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
21 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
Statement from principal investigator of SPICE #geoengineering test on its 
cancellation http://bit.ly/JiC3hj
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
21 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
"Don't dismiss #geoengineering – we may need it one day" from @jameswilsdon of 
@SPRU in @guardianeco
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
21 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
#geoengineering talk in DC, 24 May: David Keith, Steven Hamburg, Granger 
Morgan, Tim. Persons, J Steinbruner http://bit.ly/Lujw3a @cit_cmu
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
16 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
#geoengineering discussed on @KCRW; includes @KenCaldeira @specterm @maggiekb1 
http://bit.ly/L5IKi3 jump to ~7:00
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
16 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
A 3-day workshop on SRM #geoengineering concludes today in Mainz, Germany 
IMPLICC http://bit.ly/JcRMyx http://bit.ly/K666Fq [both PDFs]
Expand
 Reply  Delete  Favorite
16 May J Reynolds ‏@geoengpolicy
IPCC Expert Meeting on #Geoengineering - final report is out 
http://bit.ly/MjSz1

RE: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations

[J.L. Reynolds]

Here are a couple of extra thoughts:

Generally speaking, international law such as LC-LP binds national governments, 
not individuals. George thus cannot violate international law himself, but the 
country under whose flag he flew could have. The LC and LP do not have 
universal membership. In 2007 he said that he planned on operating under a flag 
of convenience. If NASA and/or NOAA did assist him, that would imply that the 
US violated the LC (it is not a party to the LP). I would be surprised for 
various reasons, in part because it was the US EPA that was instrumental in 
ending his operations in 2007.

Regarding this

LC/LP.1 (2008) reads "2. AGREE that for the purposes of this resolution, ocean 
fertilization is any activity undertaken by humans
with the principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans"

Primary productivity is the growth of organisms by fixing carbon from the air 
or dissolved in water. Fish grow through secondary (or tertiary...) means. 
Intention in law is often tricky this way.

The CBD COP resolutions are non-binding.

Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Josh Horton
Sent: dinsdag 16 oktober 2012 0:23
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of 
international regulations

There seem to be a lot more questions than answers here.  Every report I've 
seen on this so far has been based solely on the Guardian story.  Reading that 
story, it's not at all clear to me what exactly Russ George did.  The Guardian 
reports that he had assistance from NASA and NOAA--what?  He wanted to earn 
carbon credits?  I don't know of any authority anywhere that issues offset 
credits for OIF.  George has a checkered history no doubt, but Guardian 
reporting on geoengineering over the past few years has been checkered too and 
its thoroughness and accuracy simply can't be taken for granted.  When a 
newspaper engages in sloppy, biased reporting on a sustained basis, it forfeits 
any assumption that it's providing the full, complete, and accurate story.  
Furthermore, the source of the Guardian story appears to be ETC Group, which is 
certainly entitled to its opinion, but can hardly be considered disinterested.

More facts from more objective sources would be helpful right now.

Josh Horton


On Monday, October 15, 2012 4:51:48 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz wrote:
A trifling investment in dimensional anaysis  reveals that roughly a thousand 
tonnes a week of ferrous sulfate was deposited in the trans-Atlantic and 
Pacific  shipping lanes   every week from roughly 1890 to 1930.

the same torrent of engine exhaust proviided more than synergistic amounts of 
soluble phosphorus and nitrogen, all under the rubric of 'marine propulsion ' 
when the primary fuel was coal, typically holding much of its sulfur content as 
combustable iron pyrites .

Experiments Happen.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:33:21 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article

Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations

Controversial US businessman's geoengineering scheme off west coast of Canada 
contravenes two UN conventions

A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate 
into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of 
Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Lawyers, environmentalists 
and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant violation" of two 
international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United 
Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week.Satellite images 
appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has 
spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The 
intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the 
ocean bed - a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he 
hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.George is the former chief executive of 
Planktos Inc, whose previous failed efforts to conduct large-scale commercial 
dumps near the Galapagos and Canary Islands led to his vessels being barred 
from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments. The US Environmental 
Protection Agency warned him that flying a US flag for his Galapagos project 
would violate US laws, and his activities are credited in part to the passing 
of international moratoria at the United Nations limiting ocean fertilisation 
experimentsScientists are debating whether iron f

[geo] Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering

[J.L. Reynolds]

Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering
CLIMATIC CHANGE
2012, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0619-x
J. Eric Bickel and Shubham Agrawal
http://www.springerlink.com/content/01g462v6j310w461/
[online free access]

Abstract
In this paper, we extend the work of Goes, Tuana, and Keller (Climatic Change 
2011; GTK) by reexamining the economic benefit, of aerosol geoengineering. GTK 
found that a complete substitution of geoengineering for CO2 abatement fails a 
cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios regarding (i) the probability 
that such a program would be aborted and (ii) the economic damages caused by 
geoengineering itself. In this paper, we reframe the conditions under which GTK 
assumed geoengineering would/could be used. In so doing, we demonstrate that 
geoengineering may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios 
originally considered by GTK.



4 Conclusion
As stated at the outset, this paper has made no attempt to argue for the 
deployment of
geoengineering. Instead, we have demonstrated that framing the use of 
geoengineering
is critical to determining its cost-benefit. All of our changes to GTK's 
analysis have
resulted in a much larger region in which GEO may pass a cost-benefit test, 
because
of the way GEO was positioned: Society can either (i) implement an optimally
designed abatement policy (beginning with 25 % reductions 4 years from now) that
will proceed uninterrupted for the next several hundred years, or (ii) implement
geoengineering that completely substitutes for emissions reductions and if 
things go
badly (50 years from now), society must suffer the consequences and is not 
permitted
to choose emissions reductions later. Given this choice, it is not surprising 
that the
range in which GEO would be economic is quite small. Differing and we believe
more reasonable framings of geoengineering use result in nearly the opposite 
conclusion: GEO may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios 
regarding (i)
the probability it would be abandoned, and (ii) the economic damage caused by 
its
use. This conclusion, however, is not invariant to changes in the underlying 
assumptions or model structure upon which it is based. For example, future 
research may
determine that GEO damages increase non-linearly with usage intensity or are 
more
damaging than GTK assumed.

Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Call For Nominations: NRC Study On “Geoengineering: Technical Evaluation Of Selected Approaches” – Due Dec. 17

[J.L. Reynolds]

This and other items of varying degrees of interest can be found on my Twitter 
feed https://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

-  Jesse

Call For Nominations: NRC Study On “Geoengineering: Technical Evaluation Of 
Selected Approaches” – Due Dec. 17
December 6, 2012
Dear Colleagues,
The Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate is pleased to announce a new 
National Research Council (NRC) study on “Geoengineering: Technical Evaluation 
of Selected Approaches.” Geoengineering is a broad term for deliberate, 
large-scale manipulations of Earth’s environment that might be used to 
potentially offset some of the consequences of climate change. Discussions of 
geoengineering are often controversial because of the societal, economic, and 
ethical dimensions. Those dimensions are critically important, but to have 
informed decisions there needs to be sound scientific understanding of the 
techniques being discussed.
Committee’s Task: This study will provide technical evaluation of 2-3 specific 
case studies of potential geoengineering technologies. For each case study, the 
study will: (1) evaluate what is currently known about the science of selected 
example techniques, including potential risks and consequences, (2) describe 
what is known about the potential for implementation of the proposed 
techniques, and (3) identify future research directions. The case studies of 
potential geoengineering approaches will include both solar radiation 
management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques. The most likely 
potential case studies for SRM approaches would be the deliberate introduction 
of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere and the enhancement of marine cloud 
reflectivity, and for a CDR approach it would be ocean fertilization.
Expertise Required: The committee of approximately 12 members will meet 
numerous times via conference call and approximately 3 times in person to 
discuss the charge and issue history, gather information by means of a 20-30 
person workshop with experts from the community, and prepare its report. The 
committee will need expertise in relevant research, observation, modeling, and 
engineering disciplines, including atmospheric sciences (aerosols, clouds, and 
radiation), ocean sciences, and marine ecology.
To submit a nomination, send the person’s name, affiliation, contact 
information, area of expertise, and a brief statement on why the person is 
relevant to the study topic to Shelly Freeland at 
sfreel...@nas.edu NO LATER THAN Monday, December 17, 
2012.
Having the appropriate membership is key to the success of every National 
Academies activity, so we greatly appreciate your help in the committee 
nomination process.
Regards,
Ed and Shelly

-
Edward Dunlea, Ph.D.
Senior Program Officer
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
The National Academy of Sciences
202-334-1334
edun...@nas.edu



Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear Tony (and all),

Thank you for your thoughts on my response. Based upon what you wrote here, it 
seems that we have more common ground than I initially thought. My purpose in 
bringing up the wide array of socially organized responses to other complex 
problems was to indicate that the challenges to compensation for harm from SRM 
often also apply to these other responses. What is supposed to follow is that, 
regarding socially organized responses in general, "While these arrangements 
could be called ethically problematic, they constitute the very core of public 
policy" and that "such 'ethical uncertainty' generally neither raises questions 
of ethical permissibility and nor induces paralysis among policy makers in 
other domains such as the provision of public goods, compensation, and 
mitigation and adaptation in response to climate change." [This is not to imply 
that you called for paralysis, but such paralysis could be a reader's 
reasonable response to your ethical problematization of compensation for harm 
from SRM.] I also do not mean to imply that compensation for SRM harm can fall 
into only one of two categories: (1) completely novel, or (2) completely not 
novel. There are clearly points between. Yet I was struck by the fact that, to 
the large extent that these ethical challenges which you cited also apply in 
these other social responses, you limited your focus to compensation from SRM 
harm.

With best wishes,
-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/<http://bit.ly/1pa26dY>
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy<http://bit.ly/1oQBIpR>

From: Toby Svoboda [mailto:tobysvob...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 August 2014 22:20
To: geoengineering
Cc: Peter Irvine; J.L. Reynolds
Subject: Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds

Hi All,

Interesting discussion. First, regarding intention, much of what has been said 
above is helpful, and I would second Jesse's recommendation of David Morrow's 
paper<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2014.926056#.U-0WuWP6eyM>
 on doing/allowing and double effect (full disclosure: David and I are 
coauthors on a separate project.)
I appreciate Jesse's commentary on Peter's and my paper (thanks!), and I wanted 
to address some of the points he raises. Jesse suggests that the main problem 
in our paper is that we treat "the shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for 
its potential negative secondary effects as if they were sui generis." But to 
clarify, it is not our view that SRM compensation is a sui generis problem, nor 
do we state that it is in our paper. It may well be true that the ethical 
challenges faced by SRM compensation are already faced in other domains, such 
as socially organized responses to complex problems, other instances of 
compensation provision, and climate change (to take Jesse's examples).

Our claim was that providing compensation for SRM-related harm faces some 
difficult challenges. If Jesse is right, many or all of these same challenges 
arise in other domains, but he does not specify what is supposed to follow from 
this. Our argument is not undermined by the fact (if it is one) that there are 
parallels among these various domains, for the challenges to SRM compensation 
remain challenges even if they are not unique to SRM. Jesse writes that "SRM 
might be especially complex, in large part of its global nature, but that does 
not make it entirely novel." We can agree with this, because we did not claim 
that SRM is entirely novel. Nonetheless, since the issue of SRM compensation is 
particularly complex, it is worth investigating whether we can disentangle the 
many issues involved and reduce uncertainty regarding them.

Jesse also suggests that we "stack the deck against SRM," but I think this is 
due to a misunderstanding of what our paper aims to do. Although we noted 
throughout the paper that SRM could have many benefits, we did not emphasize 
these potential benefits because the issue under investigation was compensation 
provision for harms due to SRM. Of course, this focus would tend to emphasize 
potential harms, since our primary question was how such harms should be 
remunerated. Given that question, it would be odd to emphasize the potential 
benefits of SRM, although we certainly acknowledge them.

It is important to note that Peter and I were not addressing whether some form 
of SRM should be deployed in the future. As we wrote, "We conclude that 
establishing a just SRM compensation system faces severe difficulties. This 
does not necessarily imply that SRM ought never to be deployed, as there might 
be satisfac

RE: [geo] Reynolds, Jesse (2014): A Critical Examination of the Climate Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear Ronald,

Thank you for reading my paper and providing comments.

I mentioned in my paper that its content applies primarily to large scale SRM 
methods (e.g. stratospheric aerosol, marine cloud brightening) but that some 
aspects of it could be extended to other climate engineering proposals, both 
SRM and CDR.  I personally find it more useful to think of CDR as mitigation 
methods, albeit novel ones with some novel risks. Indeed, traditional 
mitigation measures at sufficient scales will have negative secondary effects, 
economic and/or environmental, often on other actors.

The adoption of biochar practices may or may not impact crop insurance. I am 
not qualified to comment on that. Insurance was relevant in my paper as 
insurance economics is the source of the term and behavior of 'moral hazard'. 
Obtaining or increasing insurance causes one's incentives to change, and this 
may have socially suboptimal results. As I argue, though, this is a weak model 
for thinking about what we commonly call the moral hazard of climate 
engineering.

Ocean acidification specifically is not relevant to my paper. It presents only 
one of the many advantages and disadvantages of the various response options to 
climate change, which in turn impact the shapes of the various supply and 
demand curves. It is clearly a problem but not fundamentally different in type 
than, let's say, the risks of storing CO2 underground, the land use changes 
required by some CDR methods, the waste disposal problem of increasing nuclear 
power as a means of mitigation, the potential impact of stratospheric sulfur on 
ozone, etc. (Except that addressing acidification through CDR or mitigation may 
be better conceptualized  in the demand curve than the supply curve, although 
this will not have a significant impact on the conclusions.)

Best wishes,
-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/<http://bit.ly/1pa26dY>
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy<http://bit.ly/1oQBIpR>

From: Ronal W.Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
Sent: 18 September 2014 05:03
To: J.L. Reynolds
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Reynolds, Jesse (2014): A Critical Examination of the 
Climate Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern

Dr.  Reynolds  cc list:

1.   Thanks for a new and useful view on (mostly) the SRM part of 
Climate Engineering (CE) - and especially making the whole paper available to 
us without a paywall.  I fought it well reasoned and well written.

2.   In your nice useful discussions of insurance, I was hoping for 
a few sentences on crop insurance - as possibly related to biochar as a CDR 
approach.  I conclude that CE approaches that do not require insurance or 
lessened insurance should be preferred;  would you agree?

3.   I found no mention of  "ocean acidification" in your paper and 
so wonder how you feel this common concern might influence your final 
conclusions.   We interested in CDR use this as a/the primary reason for 
needing CDR (independent of whether SRM is needed).

4.   Here is the final paragraph of the concluding section, which 
seems to summarize the paper well (where MH and RC are defined in your paper's 
title - given below -  Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation.)

"We should not assume that the CE MH-RC concern is warranted and that any 
substitution of climate engineering for mitigation would be negative. Even in 
the cases of the potential mechanisms which might cause deleterious mitigation 
reduction-mechanisms which go beyond the scope of the CE MH-RC concern and 
which are also present in many other policy choices- we should not assume that 
optimal mitigation is always the victim. Policy should be rationally designed 
and based upon the central goal of minimizing net climate risks to humans and 
the environment in accordance with society's preferences. I assert that those 
who argue that consideration of and research into climate engineering should be 
restricted due to the CE MH-RC concern have the burden to demonstrate that such 
effects are likely and would be harmful, and that humans and the environment 
would be better protected by foregoing this option. Until then, this concern 
should not be grounds for restricting or prohibiting climate engineering 
research.
5.   Dr.  Reynold's paper was attached to the following.

Ron


On Sep 16, 2014, at 3:01 AM, J.L. Reynolds 
mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>> wrote:


The link to my paper (below) on "A Critical Examination of the Climate 
Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern" is inactive. I removed 
it from SSRN and Berkeley

RE: [geo] Democracy now, Naomi Klein interview (CE extract)

[J.L. Reynolds]

Adding, contra her assertion, international treaties do not prohibit weather 
modification. The ENMOD treaty does prohibit hostile use of environmental 
modification (which includes both weather and climate modification) which has 
widespread, long lasting, or severe effects which cross international borders. 
This only applies when both the source state and the harmed state are parties 
to the treaty (which most of the industrialized world is). It does not apply 
when the effects are within the source state, are in a non-participating state, 
or in areas beyond national jurisdiction (e.g. the high seas, Antarctica). It 
explicitly protects and even encourages peaceful environmental modification. 
Some text from my article is below.

Although the definition of “environmental modification techniques” includes 
many forms of climate engineering,[1] ENMOD prohibits only “engag[ing] in 
military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques 
having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, 
damage or injury to any other State Party.”[2] ENMOD does not prohibit the 
research and development of potentially hostile environmental modification 
techniques, and it explicitly states that it “shall not hinder the use of 
environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.”[3] Moreover, 
ENMOD recognizes and encourages peaceful environmental modification: “[Parties] 
[r]ealiz[e] that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful 
purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute 
to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of 
present and future generations . . . .”[4] Parties are to exchange scientific 
information regarding peaceful environmental modification, and those with the 
financial means “shall contribute . . . to international economic and 
scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful 
utilization of the environment . . . .”[5] If “the preservation, improvement 
and peaceful utilization of the environment” were to include reducing climate 
change risks, the passage could even be interpreted as an obligation for 
industrialized Parties to “contribute” to climate engineering research.
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/3

-
Jesse L. Reynolds
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 19 September 2014 01:22
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Democracy now, Naomi Klein interview (CE extract)


Poster's note : irksome interview which falls into lazy intellectual traps 
(solar power vs geoengineering, monsoon disruption risk). Maybe a lesson for 
scientists, in that "idealised experiments" clearly have the potential to enter 
folklore as policy-relevant ideas, even among leading environmental thinkers.

http://m.democracynow.org/web_exclusives/2256

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You also talk about others who have other ideas of how to deal 
with the problem—geoengineering—

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —and one conference that you attended during your research on 
geoengineering. Could you talk about that?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, well, look, the point is, is that we have been emitting now 
for so long. We have been going in the wrong direction now for so long that, as 
Michael Mann says, the Penn State climate scientist who wrote The Hockey Stick 
and the Climate Wars, there’s a procrastination penalty. So, we’re now in a 
situation where, you know, if we had started in 1990 or 1992, we maybe could 
have done this gradually. But now, we have to do it so radically that it 
requires things like what we’ve been talking about—contracting, deliberately 
contracting parts of our economies, these huge investments in the public 
sphere. And this is so unthinkable to our economic elites that we are now 
increasingly hearing, "Well, it’s inevitable, and because it’s inevitable, we 
need to start thinking about these technofixes, like geoengineering." So, I 
mean, to me, it’s very telling that it is more thinkable to turn down the sun 
than it is to think about changing capitalism. And—

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, "turn down the sun"?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, so, one of the geoengineering methods that gets taken most 
seriously is called "solar radiation management." Solar radiation management, 
managing the sun. So, what you—so the idea is that you would spray sulfur 
aerosols into the stratosphere, then they would reflect some of the sun’s rays 
back to space and dim the sun and cool the Earth. So, climate change is caused 
by pollution in the lower atmosph

RE: [geo] Democracy now, Naomi Klein interview (CE extract)

[J.L. Reynolds]

Ron, thanks for your congrats. I defend my PhD on Monday.

Note that ENMOD is a treaty, and is thus binding (inasmuch as international law 
ever is binding) on those states (and only on those states) which have ratified 
it. This includes most industrialized countries.
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=460
In contrast, the Stockholm Declaration is an exhortation. It espouses guiding 
principles, and does not have ratifying parties. It is not binding but it did 
reflect the sense of the international environmental law community at the time. 
It is a bit dated, 42 years old now, and thus may not reflect the current 
sense. It has been supplemented and in some ways superseded by the Rio 
Declaration of 1992. I discuss all of these in that paper.

On Greg's comments: 'Hostile' is an intent. CO2 emissions have never been 
intended to be hostile and I can't imagine how they would be.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/<http://bit.ly/1pa26dY>
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy<http://bit.ly/1oQBIpR>

From: Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
Sent: 19 September 2014 17:17
To: Geoengineering; J.L. Reynolds
Subject: Re: [geo] Democracy now, Naomi Klein interview (CE extract)

List, cc (Dr?) Jesse

1.  I recommend others look into the cite below, where there is a 
most extensive (459 footnotes in 69 pages) discussion of much more than the 
little bit below on military aspects of CE.

2.  Re "(Dr?)":  His site (below) says his PhD is expected this 
month, so "Congratulations".  This article shows a lot of apparently excellent 
work.

3.   Jesse's notes did not include this cite that helps understand 
his response about military usage of weather/climate modification:

 81. See Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques, art. III.2, Dec. 10, 1976, 1108 U.N.T.S. 
151
[hereinafter ENMOD] ("The State parties to this Convention undertake to 
facilitate, and
have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific 
and technological
information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful 
purposes.");
see also Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 
para. 7,
June 16, 1972, 11 I.L.M. 1416 [hereinafter Stockholm Declaration] ("Man has the
fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an 
environment of
a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn 
responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.").

4.  As this is way out of my area of interest (about a dozen uses 
of  "CDR" - mostly on ocean fertilization and a smaller number of usages of 
"ethic"; no mention of biochar),  I do not expect to read this tome.  But I 
skimmed the conclusions section and think this summarizes his view on where 
large scale implementation of  climate engineering stands:

"It is important to emphasize that this favorable setting does not 
necessarily extend to the deployment of large-scale climate engineering 
projects."

5.  I will respond separately to Andrew/List on the conversation 
between Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein, to which Jesse is adding the comments 
below.   I would guess that those two would not argue with Jesse; the military 
aspect of weather modification seemed to be an aside to show negative results 
are possible.

Ron



On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, J.L. Reynolds 
mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>> wrote:


Adding, contra her assertion, international treaties do not prohibit weather 
modification. The ENMOD treaty does prohibit hostile use of environmental 
modification (which includes both weather and climate modification) which has 
widespread, long lasting, or severe effects which cross international borders. 
This only applies when both the source state and the harmed state are parties 
to the treaty (which most of the industrialized world is). It does not apply 
when the effects are within the source state, are in a non-participating state, 
or in areas beyond national jurisdiction (e.g. the high seas, Antarctica). It 
explicitly protects and even encourages peaceful environmental modification. 
Some text from my article is below.

Although the definition of "environmental modification techniques" includes 
many forms of climate engineering,[1] ENMOD prohibits only 
"engag[ing] in military or any other hostile use of environmen

[geo] RE: A Critical Examination of the Climate Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear colleagues,

My paper which was circulated and discussed last month has been published in 
the ‘Online First’ category of The Anthropocene Review. Here:
http://anr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/08/2053019614554304
If you cannot access it, here is a key:
http://anr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/08/2053019614554304.full.pdf?ijkey=v0SRu2G6TNtOoo9&keytype=ref

Cheers,
-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/<http://bit.ly/1pa26dY>
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy<http://bit.ly/1oQBIpR>

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of J.L. Reynolds
Sent: 16 September 2014 11:02
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Reynolds, Jesse (2014): A Critical Examination of the Climate 
Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern

The link to my paper (below) on “A Critical Examination of the Climate 
Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern” is inactive. I removed 
it from SSRN and Berkeley Press Digital Works because it has been accepted for 
publication and there is a 12 month embargo against hosting it on such sites. I 
attach the paper here.

By the way, the journal in which it will be published—The Anthropocene 
Review—is a relatively new multidisciplinary title on Sage. The editors appear 
keen on publishing papers on climate engineering.
http://anr.sagepub.com/

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/<http://bit.ly/1pa26dY>
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy<http://bit.ly/1oQBIpR>

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 16 September 2014 09:09
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Climate Engineering News Review for week 38 of 2014

-- Forwarded message --
From: "i...@climate-engineering.eu<mailto:i...@climate-engineering.eu>" 
mailto:i...@climate-engineering.eu>>
Date: 16 Sep 2014 07:48
Subject: Climate Engineering News Review for week 38 of 2014
To: mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
Cc:

[tl_files/newsletter/NewsletterBalken.jpg]

Dear Climate Engineering Group,

please find below our weekly climate engineering news review. You can find 
daily updated climate engineering news on our news portal 
www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html>.

Thank you

The Climate Engineering Editors



Climate Engineering News Review for Week 38 of 2014

Upcoming Events and Deadlines

  *   
17.09.2014<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single-event/events/lecture-geoengineering-science-and-governance-43.html>,
 Lecture: Geoengineering: Science and Governance, Cambridge/UK
  *   
24.09.2014<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single-event/events/public-parlamentary-session-in-germany.html>,
 Public parlamentary session in Germany: Climate Engineering - Useful 
Instrument or Dead End, Berlin/Germany
  *   
03.10.2014<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/job-climate-change-adaptation-and-geoengineering-science-advisor-uk-gov.html>,
 Deadline for job application: Climate Change Adaptation and Geoengineering 
science advisor (UK Gov)
  *   
04.11.2014<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single-event/events/workshops-mainstreaming-biodiversity-workshop-geo-engineering-impacts-on-biodiversity.html>,
 Workshops: Mainstreaming Biodiversity Workshop: Geo-engineering impacts on 
biodiversity, Bristol/UK
  *   
02.-03.12.2014<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single-event/events/the-world-science-summit-on-climate-engineering-future-guiding-principles-and-ethics.html>,
 The World Science Summit on Climate Engineering: Future Guiding Principles and 
Ethics, Washington DC/USA
  *   
15.-19.12.2014<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single-event/events/conference-agu-fall-meeting.html>,
 Conference: AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco/USA
  *   
04.-08.01.2015<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single-event/events/conference-20th-conference-on-planned-and-inadvertent-weather-modification.html>,
 Conference: 20th Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, 
Phoenix, Arizona/USA



New Publications

  *   Anand, S.; Mayya, Y. S. 
(2014)<http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/anand-s-mayya-y-s-2014-comment-on-reduced-efficacy-of-marine-cloud-brightening-geoengineering-due-to-in-plum

RE: [geo] International Law Weekend: Panel on Geo-Engineering | Alfred de Zayas' Human Rights Corner

[J.L. Reynolds]

Andrew, thanks for the find. It is encouraging to see a scholar such as de 
Zayas consider climate engineering (CE). However, he displays two logical 
problems which I wish to highlight. First, like most legal scholars who comment 
on solar CE (SRM), he considers only its risks and not its benefits, despite 
his statements to the contrary and despite the fact that the latest modeling 
indicates that SRM would do more good than harm. If significant harm were to 
result, under international law there is strict liability (i.e. no need to 
demonstrate negligence or intent, only harm and causation) for only specific 
risky activities (e.g. space activities, nuclear power, maritime transport of 
oil) in certain treaties, and only for Parties to those treaties. Furthermore, 
there is no evidence that criminal liability could be applied to the 
implementation of SRM in order to reduce climate risks, unless it was done for 
the purpose of genocide, war, or aggression. How an “international duty of 
care, a minimum threshold of responsibility to protect – or R2P for the 
environment” (which does not exist in international law) would be applied in 
the case of CE or SRM specifically, given the mixes of benefits and risks, is 
completely unclear. Furthermore, even if SRM were to violate international law 
(which would depend entirely on how it would be implemented), he could have 
equally pointed to the draft articles on Responsibility of States for 
Internationally Wrongful Acts of the International Law Commission, which permit 
violations under certain circumstances such as distress and necessity. Could a 
small island state whose very existence is at stake, and which implements SRM 
in a manner contrary to international law, claim such defense?

Second, consider the way in which he contrasts countries such as Switzerland 
with those “that do not have ‘direct democracy’, [where] decisions are 
frequently taken without proper consultation”:

Huge issues of democratic governance arise. In a direct democracy like 
Switzerland even banal decisions like building a bridge or a tunnel are subject 
not only to polling but also to national or regional referenda. A fortiori, the 
decision whether or not to implement SRM would require consultation with the 
general public and would have to be approved by referendum, nor merely by 
executive or parliamentary decision, which would be devoid of legitimacy 
without popular consent. …

In countries that do not have “direct democracy”, decisions are frequently 
taken without proper consultation. If the executive were to decide on his own, 
are there any checks and balances? What would the legislative and the judiciary 
do? And in modern representative democracies, would Parliaments pass the 
necessary legislation, e.g. to define the allowed level of risk, to require 
environmental impact assessments, etc.? Would parliaments pro-actively inform 
and consult with their constituents? If Parliaments were to decide such 
important policies without informing the people – or even knowingly against the 
will of the people – could that be considered at all compatible with the 
country’s constitution and with a general consensus on a democratic order? 
Surely not – but that does not mean that it would not happen. … it is entirely 
possible that governments could adopt SRM over the heads of the electorate – 
and it would be for the constitutional courts of those countries to challenge 
the constitutionality of measures adopted undemocratically.

The governments of most countries (including Switzerland) most of the time make 
decisions without a direct referendum on the particular question. Some of these 
individual decisions may be unpopular, but that makes neither the popular nor 
unpopular decisions necessarily illegitimate. Such is the nature of 
representative democracy with its regular elections. Yet the author not only 
sets up a false dichotomy between an ideal Real Democracy and the rest, but he 
also implies that decisions regarding SRM may be adopted by the executive “on 
his own”, by  Parliaments which may not  “pro-actively inform and consult with 
their constituents… even knowingly against the will of the people”, all of this 
“over the heads of the electorate”. We have no reason at this time to believe 
that that would be the case with SRM any more than we would with other policy 
decisions.

Unfortunately, de Zayas for unknown reasons considers only the harms of 
potential SRM implementation and only the scenarios which would violate 
international law, when there is no particular reason to focus solely on those 
two scenarios.

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

RE: [geo] Washington Post op ed

[J.L. Reynolds]

I generally believe that the concerns over potential conflict over solar 
climate engineering are often overblown. There will surely be disagreements 
among countries as to their desired temperatures. Yet often implied and 
sometimes explicitly stated in the CE discourse is that these disagreements 
would likely lead to armed conflict, and/or that they would render CE 
ineffective. Countries, including the powerful ones, routinely disagree over 
numerous things. My sense is that definitions and rules in the WTO and its 
agreements, for example, are much more consequential for them than CE would be. 
These conflicts are resolved through various sorts of bargaining. Perhaps I am 
excessively optimistic, but it seems that the nature of international conflict 
and resolution is fundamentally different (and more peaceful) than 100 years 
ago (to use Olaf’s WW1 example), particularly among the powerful countries. 
Solar CE has the advantage, like much of international trade, that the 
advantages of countries’ collective agreement would likely outweigh their 
potential, individual advantages of getting the climate which they desire. 
Disagreement could lead to various CE programs interfering with one another, 
and they would all be left worse off. That is, it is a resolvable collective 
action problem.

>From my vantage, the biggest concern would be if there were a systematic 
>disagreement on the type and intensity of solar CE among powerful countries 
>versus weak ones. The Ricke et al paper (which I recommend) cited by Ken 
>begins to get at the that, but it also assumes that all countries would desire 
>pre-industrial climates. That may not be the case.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: 31 January 2015 18:32
To: cushngo...@gmail.com
Cc: Motoko; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed

Kate Ricke's model results are often trotted out to support the 'winners and 
losers' meme, but if you look at her results the conflict is between people who 
win less and people who win more.

We did a follow-up study on political dynamics, using her results (see below).

A key point to recognize is that, under typical climate damage metrics, the 
optimal amount of solar geoengineering for any given region differs from the 
global optimum typically by about 10%.  That is, people would be arguing about 
the second digit, not the first digit.  I doubt these second digit arguments 
will lead to any great conflict.

The much greater conflict would likely to be whether to deploy a sulfate 
aerosol layer at all. If a consensus can be found to deploy, I doubt whether 
there will be that much conflict over subtle adjustments to the knob.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014021/article

Panel (a) shows on the vertical axis climate damage to different regions as a 
fraction of damages without solar geoengineering. The horizontal axis is th 
amount of solar geoengineering. Panels (b) and (c) show the optimum preferred 
by different regions. Note that they differ from the global optimum by only 10% 
or so.


[cid:image002.jpg@01D03ED4.BB62D630]



___
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
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

My assistant is Dawn Ross 
mailto:dr...@carnegiescience.edu>>, with access to 
incoming emails.



On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi 
mailto:cushngo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 I partly agree with Andy: Skepticism yes but realism is also needed. Alvin 
Toffler (1970) predicted the “future shock” that “change denial” will cause in 
the anthropocene. He used an analogy from the transmission of sound through 
electrical cables, which until 1875, was unconceivable by some while M. Bell 
was inventing the first telephone. Thence, he called for improved anticipation 
in governance to mitigate that future shock and ensure a smooth transition from 
hold practices to the new technological environment with the pace of social and 
technical change (Jasanoff, 2011; Stilgoe et al., 2013). Nonetheless, Toffler 
(1970) argued that not all technological and scientific discoveries would come 
out from the laboratories and take place nor would they see the light; some 
would just abort while others would vanish in the impasse, owing to their 
unfeasibility or fanciness or even disconnection to reality and disconcertion. 
This

RE: [geo] Earth's chill pill? Responses to the recent Washington Post Op-Ed “engag[ing] in military or any other

[J.L. Reynolds]

ENMOD “addresses” non-hostile CE in that it explicitly states that the treaty 
“shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful 
purposes…. [Parties] [r]ealiz[e] that the use of environmental modification 
techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man 
[sic] and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the 
environment for the benefit of present and future generations...” But it says 
nothing about regulating non-hostile environmental modification. It simply bans 
the hostile or military applications which meet certain criteria of 
destructiveness, and rhetorically supports the peaceful, productive 
applications. Furthermore, it has no infrastructure, e.g. a regular meeting of 
Parties, a secretariat, expert committees, etc. This was typical of treaties of 
its time. So it would be difficult to “awaken” this “sleeping” treaty and to 
refine its approach to the new and emerging technologies of SRM.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andy Parker
Sent: 05 February 2015 13:17
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Earth's chill pill? Responses to the recent Washington Post 
Op-Ed


Some quick responses to Jim/in general:

Oceans – a few people have emailed me to register a concern that the op-ed 
didn’t say that SRM deployment would result in ocean acidification. This is 
something that comes up regularly in SRM discussions and needs to be better 
understood, or at least unpacked, I think. As far as I understand it, SRM would 
not do anything about ocean acidification either way (bar a small effect Phil 
Williamson wrote a paper about a few years ago, where cooler oceans might soak 
up slightly more atmospheric CO2). As such SRM causes ocean acidification about 
as much as adaptation does.

Of course I suspect that people are concerned that SRM deployment would produce 
a very high moral hazard response that would result in reduced action on 
mitigation. If so this needs to be stated, as it’s highly uncertain at this 
point and not an automatic effect of SAI use.

Finally it strikes me that the ‘SRM --> ocean acidification’ charge is an 
example of a common and unhelpful argument over SRM. One group says ‘SRM might 
reduce overall climate risk’ and the other group says ‘SRM can’t solve our CO2 
problems’. Both of these positions are reasonable interpretations of the 
current evidence, but the message a person chooses to emphasise depends on 
their beliefs, values and target audience. Of course both messages fit nicely 
together and should come as a pair.


ENMOD – our piece stated that getting a consensus agreement between nearly 200 
countries on an exact global temperature was implausible, not that getting any 
UN agreement was implausible. And lawyers can and should wade in here, but my 
understanding is that ENMOD is not appropriate for the regulation of 
geoengineering because it addresses only weather/climate modification with 
hostile intent.


Complexity – not sure what you’re agreeing with here, Jim. But it reminds me of 
something I wanted to ask you about previously: your quote from von Neumann in 
the main thread on the Post op-ed implied to me that you think SRM will be 
exploited as a weapon.

"Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others even 
more awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our 
present involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: once 
such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited."
-- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, 106–108.

Is this what you think? And if so, are you saying that you think we will one 
day understand the climate system enough, and be able to control it with 
sufficient accuracy, to be able to use it for military purposes over specific 
territories without unacceptable side effects? How does this square with your 
concerns about complexity? I might be limited by understanding and imagination 
but I cannot see that weaponisation is a realistic possibility for SAI.



On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 12:26:11 AM UTC+1, James Fleming wrote:
Agreed on ENMOD, complexity, and oceans.  See for example Fixing the Sky 
(2010), 183ff.



James R. Fleming
Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College
Research Scholar, Columbia University
Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, 
bit.ly/THQMcd

[geo] National Academies reports

[J.L. Reynolds]

Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume 
report on climate engineering. They are available here
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration
One must register to download, but may read online without doing so.

The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the 
Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and 
NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US 
came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental 
Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying 
degrees of caution expressed).
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/

The press conference was webcast. Some people "live tweeted" it. See
https://twitter.com/elikint
https://twitter.com/janieflegal
https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink
https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc

Cheers
Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. Hamilton. Guardian.

[J.L. Reynolds]

There are good reasons why society should (to some degree) prohibit private 
enterprise from profiting from solar climate engineering. Granted, as a general 
rule, private actors are more efficient that the state. Thus, even when the 
overall endeavor in question is the provision of a non-excludable good or 
service (which typically are and should be provided by the state), such as 
defense or police protection or flood protection, then private contractors are 
often involved in the actual delivery of certain goods or services essential to 
that overall endeavor (military equipment or police cars or levee 
construction). However, when the costs of decisions which unduly favor 
particular private actors at the expense of the public interest are widely 
spread (via higher taxes and poorer services) and the benefits are tightly 
concentrated (via lucrative contracts), then public decision makers are 
susceptible to capture by private actors. For example, in Andrew’s other email, 
he pointed toward private prisons, which in the US have influenced policy 
making in order to increase incarceration.

Solar climate engineering would be such a non-excludable service. Here, the 
stakes for the public’s welfare are very high (on the order of trillions of 
dollars) whereas those of the potential private contractors (e.g. the 
hypothetical Stratospheric Injection services Inc) are much lower (still, on 
the order of tens of billions) but still quite significant. One could argue 
that the former are great enough that democratic mechanisms, despite their 
flaws, would prevent this sort of regulatory capture. However, the potential 
inefficiencies from a state-operated or managed enterprise are much lower than 
the potential social welfare losses which would result from either (1) undue 
influence and capture by the private contractors, or (2) the widespread 
perception of such influence and capture preventing the research, development, 
and implementation of solar climate engineering, assuming this path would be 
warranted.  This is why private patents in SRM be prohibited.

Of course, at some level private industry will benefit. If the state operates 
the machinery, then it must by the machines. If the states builds the machines, 
it must buy the materials. Etc.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 17 February 2015 22:38
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. 
Hamilton. Guardian.


Poster's note : I rarely find myself in agreement with Clive, and this piece is 
no exception. I don't see why there can't be a market in SRM services, just 
like there's a market for train operators or fighter jets. In fact, it's hard 
for me to see why the state would be a natural choice to operate geoengineering 
machinery at all. The fuel and mining firms cautioned against here would seem a 
natural set of partners for CDR - with the right scale, expertise, and 
financial clout to get the job done reliably and safely.

Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making

http://gu.com/p/45pq8

Clive Hamilton
Published: 14:36 GMT Tue 17 February 2015

If you want to make money out of global warming invest in energy efficiency and 
renewable energy companies, says Clive Hamilton

Geoengineering: it could be a money-making opportunity for business

“Save the world and make a little cash on the side.” That’s the motto of Russ 
George, the colourful entrepreneur behind Planktos Science who wants to put 
geoengineering into practice now. George is convinced that by adding iron 
sulphate to the oceans, he can stimulate plankton blooms and so suck enough 
carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to offset human emissions from burning 
coal and oil.

In 2007, backed by a Canadian real estate developer, the Planktos ship set sail 
from San Francisco bound for the Galapagos Islands and loaded up with iron 
sulphate. George was going to make a killing by selling carbon offsets to 
whoever wanted them.

George believed, and told whoever asked, that ocean fertilization could become 
a $100bn business and hinted to journalist Jeff Goodell that America’s biggest 
coal-burning utility was interested in buying his carbon credits.

US businessman defends controversial geoengineering experiment
The venture soon collapsed, leaving a cloud of mistrust hanging over all 
research into iron fertilisation. Not long after Russ George set the regulatory 
alarm bells ringing, the London Convention, which regulates ocean dumping, and 
the Convention

RE: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. Hamilton. Guardian.

[J.L. Reynolds]

Andrew and I had an off-list exchange about his comment that “Far too much of 
this debate strikes me as hand wringing socialist rhetoric, not actual analysis 
of how successful innovation occurs.” Andrew wrote that this was not about me 
per se, and asked me to share my thoughts on the list. My sense is that 
(somewhat echoing Ken here) if we do not want others to make presumptive 
statements about our underlying motives, then we should follow the same 
practice ourselves. Yes, I generally believe that much (but not all) of the 
controversy about climate engineering is echoes underlying and divergent 
worldviews, but I will try to focus on the facts and evidence at hand.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 February 2015 11:13
To: J.L. Reynolds
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. 
Hamilton. Guardian.


Again, I don't agree that there's a clear case for prohibition/reduction of 
private ownership of IP in geoengineering. One can imagine all manner of 
distribution and monitoring equipment that may be needed, and the profit motive 
is important for their development.

Take Salter's ships as an example. He currently develops them without personal 
gain AFAIK, but what if this were not the case? Can we properly say to someone 
that they should give up paid work to toil on geoengineering for free? What if 
they are only scraping by in low paid employment, and trying to raise a family? 
I believe that's a nonsense argument. We may want to have a world free of 
geoengineering IP, but in practice that may mean slow, expensive development 
(80's NASA) at the expense of cheap, nimble, focussed innovation (Space X).

Far too much of this debate strikes me as hand wringing socialist rhetoric, not 
actual analysis of how successful innovation occurs.

When the world tried public control of innovation with cars, we got the 
trabant. When we allowed private profit, we got the tesla.

I'll take the tesla.
On 18 Feb 2015 08:46, "J.L. Reynolds" 
mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>> wrote:
There are good reasons why society should (to some degree) prohibit private 
enterprise from profiting from solar climate engineering. Granted, as a general 
rule, private actors are more efficient that the state. Thus, even when the 
overall endeavor in question is the provision of a non-excludable good or 
service (which typically are and should be provided by the state), such as 
defense or police protection or flood protection, then private contractors are 
often involved in the actual delivery of certain goods or services essential to 
that overall endeavor (military equipment or police cars or levee 
construction). However, when the costs of decisions which unduly favor 
particular private actors at the expense of the public interest are widely 
spread (via higher taxes and poorer services) and the benefits are tightly 
concentrated (via lucrative contracts), then public decision makers are 
susceptible to capture by private actors. For example, in Andrew’s other email, 
he pointed toward private prisons, which in the US have influenced policy 
making in order to increase incarceration.

Solar climate engineering would be such a non-excludable service. Here, the 
stakes for the public’s welfare are very high (on the order of trillions of 
dollars) whereas those of the potential private contractors (e.g. the 
hypothetical Stratospheric Injection services Inc) are much lower (still, on 
the order of tens of billions) but still quite significant. One could argue 
that the former are great enough that democratic mechanisms, despite their 
flaws, would prevent this sort of regulatory capture. However, the potential 
inefficiencies from a state-operated or managed enterprise are much lower than 
the potential social welfare losses which would result from either (1) undue 
influence and capture by the private contractors, or (2) the widespread 
perception of such influence and capture preventing the research, development, 
and implementation of solar climate engineering, assuming this path would be 
warranted.  This is why private patents in SRM be prohibited.

Of course, at some level private industry will benefit. If the state operates 
the machinery, then it must by the machines. If the states builds the machines, 
it must buy the materials. Etc.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and In

RE: [geo] First U.S. state proposed legislation on climate engineering

[J.L. Reynolds]

By my reading , this would also include conventional mitigation efforts, which 
are typically specifically and deliberately designed to minimize climate change 
. .. at least until the Department of Environmental Management implemented an 
exclusion.

Jesse

Sent from Samsung Mobile


 Original message 
From: Greg Rau 
Date:23/03/2015 01:22 (GMT+01:00)
To: kcalde...@gmail.com
Cc: "Hester, Tracy" , geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] First U.S. state proposed legislation on climate engineering

According to their definition, yes, Ken, you are under arrest:
"(6) "Geoengineering" means activities specifically and deliberately designed 
to effect a change in the area climate, with the intent or purpose of 
minimizing or masking anthropogenic climate change, including global warning. 
Such actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(i) Attempts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; and

(ii) Solar radiation management or cloud whitening, or similar process whereby 
aerosols, particles, chemicals, gases, vapors, or other compounds are injected 
into the atmosphere to reflect a portion of the sun's radiation back into 
space. "

I would also warn Rhode Islanders about the use of fertilizer.  If we get any 
inkling that you are adding nutrients to plants for the purpose of increasing 
CO2 removal and storage, you will be met with the full force of the law.  This 
goes double for soil liming.  Don't even think about doing this in the ocean.  
Meanwhile, continue to emit CO2 to your heart's content.

Greg

Sent from the Rau's iPad

On Mar 22, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Ken Caldeira 
mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> wrote:


If this is real and not a joke, and it passes in its present form, it seems as 
if someone in Rhode Island could potentially be fined and imprisoned for 
planting a tree with the intent of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

___
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 
mailto:dr...@carnegiescience.edu>>, with access to 
incoming emails.
Postdoc positions available in my group: 
https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/dge/


On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Hester, Tracy 
mailto:tdhes...@central.uh.edu>> wrote:

We now have possibly the first state proposed legislation in the United States 
to control climate engineering efforts.   A bill (H-5480) was recently 
introduced in the Rhode Island legislature that would require any climate 
engineering efforts to undergo an approval process and two (at least) public 
hearings.  The bill would impose fines and up to 90 days imprisonment for each 
day that the unapproved climate engineering continues.  The bill also gives 
Rhode Island's environmental agency the ability to enjoin and halt an 
unapproved project.

If you’d like to get more details, you can review the bill itself at  
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText15/HouseText15/H5480.pdf

These local initiatives might pop up in other state legislatures if climate 
engineering research gains momentum (especially after the NAS reports last 
month).   If so, the prospect of overlapping or conflicting regulations from 
multiple states will often spur the federal government to impose its own 
consolidated regulatory scheme to preempt the state efforts.


Professor Tracy Hester
University of Houston Law Center
100 Law Center
Houston, Texas 77204
713-743-1152
tdhes...@central.uh.edu
Web bio:   www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester



--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubs

RE: [geo] First U.S. state proposed legislation on climate engineering

[J.L. Reynolds]

Is this the first bill at the state or national level, anywhere, to regulate CE?

RE: Wil’s  noting that “it's really unclear why it [the RI bill] seeks to 
regulate carbon dioxide removal research at all.”
Do not overestimate either the typical understanding of climate engineering or 
the staff resources of a state assemblyman or –woman, particular from a small 
state. At this time, the inclusion of both CDR and SRM under “geoengineering” 
or “climate engineering” does more harm than good, and this is evidence of this 
dynamic.*

RE: Josh’s note about the sponsors. Good find. Of course, we can’t assume 
anything from merely being a member of a Facebook group. Regardless, for the 
curious, here is the “about” of Rhode Island Against Chemtrails and 
Geoengineering:
Do you know if your city in Rhode Island has been sprayed with Chemtrails? 
Residents in Rhode Island were not warned that they are going to be sprayed and 
are now breathing an atmosphere that has been geoengineered to contain ethylene 
dibromide, aluminum oxide, barium salts, strontium, URANIUM 238, cadmium, 
copper sulfate, mercury, sulfur, radio active thorium, and an assortment of 
other geoengineered toxic soups.
--
Will bill H7655 be reintroduced soon? Are there any citizen's groups calling 
and writing to the sponsors of the bill? If just one state...even the 
smallest...steps up to bring this to the light of day, perhaps some positive 
action will be taken. We cannot continue to let legislators ignore us!
-
The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively 
to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the 
High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the 
Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP 
is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and 
capable of destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Bill H7655 of last year’s session is here
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText14/HouseText14/H7655.pdf
which appears to be the same bill. It had different sponsors (MacBeth, 
Dickinson, Ferri, Messier) , and it seems to have died in committee:
02/27/2014 Introduced, referred to House Environment and Natural Resources
03/28/2014 Scheduled for hearing and/or 
consideration 
(04/03/2014)
04/03/2014 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
A quick scan revealed no bills before 2014, but I may have missed one or more.

Cheers,
Jesse

* In fact, the categorization enables likely purposeful obfuscation by through 
asserting, for example, that “climate engineering would give whoever controls 
it the power to alter the weather worldwide”, yet then claim both “There are 
hundreds of CE patents” and “There are CE outdoor tests occurring all over the 
world.” The former statement refers to the high leverage SRM and the latter two 
primarily to localized, lower risk CDR methods (BECCS etc). This is all 
technically true but misleading.

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Josh Horton
Sent: 23 March 2015 16:41
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com; tdhes...@central.uh.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] First U.S. state proposed legislation on climate engineering

I live next door in Massachusetts so take a particular interest in this.  The 
bill has two sponsors, both Democrats:

  *   Rep. Karen MacBeth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_MacBeth
  *   Rep. James McLaughlin 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McLaughlin_(politician)
They serve together on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and both represent 
Cumberland.

It just so happens that MacBeth is a member of Rhode Island Against Chemtrails 
and Geoengineering 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RhodeIslandAgainstChemtrails/members/

Josh Horton

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 10:10:27 AM UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote:
Since the bill defines geoengineering as counteracting global warning and not 
global warming, do we have anything to worry about?

The bill makes no distinction between small scale experiments and large scale 
implementation, but I guess that is what the review process is for.


Alan Robock



Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor

  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics

  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program

Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751

Rutgers Universi

RE: [geo] The Common Law of Geoengineering: Building an Effective Governance for Stratospheric Injections; Edward J. Larson

[J.L. Reynolds]

Ron and others,

The final paragraph of the paper and the sentence which you cite below lead to 
numerous further details and caveats. Briefly, national and subnational (e.g. 
US states) laws are binding on individuals and backed by the implicit threat of 
force. Some of these could be immediately adapted with varying degrees of ease 
to climate engineering (CE), broadly defined. For example, the paper cites (via 
Tracy Hester) the application of US Clean Air Act and stratospheric aerosol 
injection, and Texas case law with respect to weather modification. Further, 
nations and subnational units can implement new legislation (and case law) on a 
moderate time frame, depending on the urgency and the effectiveness of the 
institutions.

But national and subnational laws generally do not regulate transboundary 
impacts, which some CE methods would have at sufficient scale. We turn to 
international law, which is binding on states, not individuals (with few 
exceptions), is more general, and changes much more slowly. Some components of 
international law can also be adapted with varying degrees of ease to climate 
engineering (CE). The paper cites some of these. However, the national 
governments generally must implement these international commitments in some 
way. And due to the absence of centralized enforcer, states have much 'wiggle 
room' in how they implement their commitments.

This is a long way to get to your question. In the short term, national and 
subnational law is probably more important for regulating CE. This is both 
because this law is binding on individuals and because in the short term CE 
will likely not have transboundary impacts (e.g. most CDR, and small scale SRM 
field tests). In the long term, existing and possibly new international law 
will provide guidance and perhaps even some sort of regulatory system. In the 
even longer term, looking toward a scenario of global SRM implementation, I am 
of the mind that international politics ultimately trumps international law, 
although the latter can provide guidance and can influence state behaviour at 
the margin.

Cheers,
-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
Sent: 15 June 2015 02:30
To: J.L. Reynolds
Cc: Geoengineering; ed.lar...@pepperdine.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] The Common Law of Geoengineering: Building an Effective 
Governance for Stratospheric Injections; Edward J. Larson

Dr.  Reynolds, cc List   (adding Prof. Ed Larson as a courtesy cc)

1.  Thanks for forwarding this Edward Larson paper (which cites you 
three times).   Being a non-lawyer, I thought it well referenced on SRM (but 
wished there were more on CDR legalities).

2.  Do you agree with the final two sentences of this paper, which 
say (perhaps new, emphases added), referring  (I believe only) to SRM:  " In 
the absence of a rational international governance regime, which appears 
unattainable at present, existing national environmental statutes and state 
common law may offer our only starting point for regulation. We must work with 
what we have even as we hope for more. "

3.  I have been assuming that only international bodies would be 
involved - so this conclusion is new.  Any opinion (from anyone) on how those 
two (non-international) courts might rule on SRM?

4.  I presume these two sentences would apply also to CDR; that an 
international court would only rarely (as for OIF) act on a CDR approach.  But 
any thoughts on how any non-international court might rule on CDR issues - 
where negative impacts should be generally seen by only one party?

Ron



On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:36 AM, J.L. Reynolds 
mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>> wrote:


A paper is attached. Disclaimer: I've not yet read it.
Cheers
-Jesse

The COMMON LAW OF GEOENGINEERING
BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE FOR STRATOSPHERIC INJECTIONS
EDWARD J. LARSON
Pepperdine University School of Law
A landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued in 2015
is the latest in a series of scientific studies to assess the feasibility of 
geoengineering
with stratospheric aerosols to offset anthropogenic global warming and to
conclude that they offers a possibly viable supplement or back-up alternative 
to 329
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Evidence for this once taboo form of climate
intervention relies heavily on the known past effect of major explosive volcanic
eruptions to moderate average worldwide temperatures temporarily. In the
most extensive study to date, an elite NAS committee now suggests tha

RE: [geo] International liability for transboundary damage arising from stratospheric aerosol injections

[J.L. Reynolds]

Andrew and others:

“Damages” and “harm” are legal terms with some definition. “Winners” and 
“losers” are not. It is a matter of precision, not framing.

There is sometimes liability for accidents. Different context have different 
standards of care which must be demonstrated in order to be free of liability.

I have a forthcoming paper which offers an economic analysis of liability and 
compensation for harm arising from large scale solar climate engineering field 
experiments. I am glad to email it on request.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 10 July 2015 16:49
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] International liability for transboundary damage arising from 
stratospheric aerosol injections


Poster's note : I've seen several similar pieces of work recently. The framing 
of "damages" to me seems less helpful than "winners and losers". The latter 
implies potentially predictable choices, and not reckless accident.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17579961.2015.1052645#abstract

International liability for transboundary damage arising from stratospheric 
aerosol injections

Barbara Saxler, Jule Siegfried and Alexander Proelss
a Department of Law, Trier University, Germanyb Institute of Environmental and 
Technology Law, Trier University, Germany

Law, Innovation and Technology

Volume 7, Issue 1, 2015, pages 112- 147
Published online: 01 Jul 2015

The large-scale implementation of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) may 
potentially lead to disastrous transboundary damage. Before implementation of 
this technique is initiated, it is crucial to address the issue of compensation 
for potential victims of such damage. However, international law does so far 
not provide for a specific liability regime for SAI. This study assesses if and 
to what extent existing international rules on liability could be applicable to 
SAI damage. Apart from the assessment of the rules on State responsibility, the 
question whether States can generally be held internationally liable for damage 
arising from lawful activities is addressed. In addition, liability regimes 
concerning ultra-hazardous activities that are comparable to SAI are analysed, 
taking into account their potential relevance for the design of a future SAI 
liability regime. The issue of uncertainty is particularly challenging in the 
context of SAI, as usually evidence concerning the causality between 
implementation and potential damage would have to be produced. The study 
concludes that existing international liability rules are not capable of 
providing equitable and effective compensation for SAI damage. Still, valuable 
approaches can be found in these regimes in order to identify the main elements 
which a future SAI liability regime would have to address in order to ensure 
such compensation.

Keywords: climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, international 
liability, transboundary damage, uncertainties, causation, ultra-hazardous 
activities
--
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.

[geo] Paper on chemtrails, a favorite subject of conspiracy theorists, retracted

[J.L. Reynolds]

Credit is due to Mick West and his site Metabunk.
-Jesse

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/03/paper-on-chemtrails-a-favorite-subject-of-conspiracy-theorists-retracted/

A paper claiming to expose the "tightly held secret" that long clouds trailing 
from jets are toxic coal fly ash - and not, as the U.S. government says, 
primarily composed of harmless ice crystals - has been retracted.
The paper is called "Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in 
the Troposphere: Consequences for Public 
Health," and was published in the 
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in August. 
Author J. Marvin Herndon - a geophysicist, and 
self-described "independent researcher" - also distributed a press 
release
 about the findings.
The abstract explains:
The author presents evidence that toxic coal combustion fly ash is the most 
likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, 
weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of 
the multifold consequences on public health.
The detailed retraction note, 
authored by the academic editor of the paper, Paul B. 
Tchounwou, a biologist at 
Jackson State University, points out some errors with the science, and notes 
that the "language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically 
objective:"
It was brought to my attention that there are problems related to the recently 
published article "Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in 
the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health" [1].
Together with the Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Franck Vazquez, and the 
Editorial office, we re-evaluated the paper, re-assessed the comments made by 
the three reviewers and note the following crucial concerns:
* The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 
and used by the author to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 
is incorrect. The author uses 70,000 µg/kg, while the correct value resulting 
from the un-leached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by 
Moreno et al. [2]) is 140,000,000 µg/kg. This error invalidates the conclusions 
of the article.
* The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are 
only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching 
experiments [2]. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical 
compositions of other potential sources. Thus, at this stage, the work is 
preliminary since it is not clear what the source of these chemicals is.
* The language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically objective 
for a research article. Consequently, we have decided to retract the article.
This paper is thus declared retracted and shall be marked accordingly for the 
scientific record. MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce strict ethical 
policies and standards very seriously. We aim to ensure the publication of only 
truly original and scientific works. MDPI would like to apologize to the 
readers of IJERPH that this article was published with the errors mentioned 
above. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who bring aspects of 
scientific error to our attention in an effort to maintain scientific integrity.
In June, a veritable cast of characters - including several active airline 
pilots, a biochemist, an artist, and a woman who currently works at home - 
began to pick 
apart
 Herndon's previous work on the topic of jet-spraying-toxins on the discussion 
board Metabunk.org. In a summary 
post
 on the now-retracted paper and 
another Herndon paper 
in Current Science, administrator Mick West says:
There are multiple problems with these papers: figures are incorrect, values 
given are off by several orders of magnitude, masses are calculated 
incorrectly, data sets appear to have been chosen arbitrarily.
Jeffery Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, wrote about 
the paper last 
week
 on his blogScholarly Open Access, prior to the 
retraction:
Herndon's "evidence" of the aerial spraying includes a few pictures of clouds 
and contrails he shot in the skies above San Diego, where he lives.
Here are

RE: [geo] Re: Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China (Guradian)

[J.L. Reynolds]

Hamilton's response does not exclude the possibility that he and Edney & Symons 
are referring to two different meanings of "geoengineering", namely earth and 
civil engineering versus climate engineering. Considering that my daily Google 
Scholar alert on the keyword geoengineering returns a dozen publications from 
China on the latter, I believe this is likely the case.

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Joshua Horton [joshuahorton...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 4:47 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Fwd: [geo] Re: Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China 
(Guradian)

Passing along for Clive, whose message got bounced - I'll respond when I get a 
chance.

Josh

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Clive Hamilton mailto:m...@clivehamilton.com>>
Date: April 1, 2013, 6:17:13 AM EDT
To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, 
bstah...@gmail.com, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>, 
f...@nimblebooks.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China 
(Guradian)

Dear All

Kingsley Edney and Jonathan Symons have written the definitive paper on 
geoengineering in China. They are Sinologists and have researched the question 
in great detail, as their paper shows. I was sent an early draft and it framed 
my understanding of the issue. Since then I have been in close contact with 
these two scholars, not least in asking them to read carefully and correct any 
mistakes or misinterpretations in my article that appeared in the Guardian.

The claims I made about geoengineering research in China are not in any way 
contradicted by the quotes provided by Josh or Fred, as they seem to imply. 
Indeed, it would be odd for Kingsley and Jonathan to both make the quoted 
statements and approve the article I had in the Guardian if they felt there was 
any contradiction.

The fact is that China has included geoengineering among its Earth science 
research priorities, and I don't understand why some participants in this group 
are going out of their way to downplay this fact.

In some unscripted comments I made in an earlier television interview I erred 
in exaggerating the degree of priority being given to geoengineering research 
in China. That is now corrected in the Guardian piece. Soon after my television 
comment Jason Blackstock emailed me saying I had got it completely wrong, that 
he is very well connected with Chinese scientists and officials, and that he is 
quite certain that there is no official endorsement of geoengineering in China. 
Those who think otherwise, he wrote, have mistranslated the relevant Chinese 
word. He has since conceded that Kingsley and Jonathan are right in their 
interpretation and in the facts regarding official inclusion of geoengineering, 
which ought to be no surprise since they know a lot more about China than he 
does.

Clive




On 1 April 2013 00:57, Josh Horton 
mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Even more to the point, see this 
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/131811730/China-and-the-blunt-temptations-of-geoengineering-the-role-of-solar-radiation-management-in-China’s-strategic-response-to-climate-change)
 current draft article on China and geoengineering:

"Some Western scholars have expressed concern that China may already be working 
on unilateral research and implementation of SRM.  Although we cannot discount 
this possibility, we have found no evidence supporting this contention in 
published Chinese literature or our discussions with Chinese scientists.  In 
fact, consideration of SRM currently seems to be confined to epistemic 
communities that are deeply cautious about the possible downsides of deliberate 
intervention into natural systems." (p. 28)

Josh

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:58:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
Before we go too far on this "China priorities meme" let me suggest that we 
make it a practice of the list to always cite Jason Blackstock's very 
persuasive post of 11/26/2012

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/wKAas01rdDA/h2eZpjmvviAJ

the "money quote" of which is this from Kingsley Edney:

So "geoengineering and global change" is one "important research direction" 
among a total of more than 50 that are listed in the field of earth science 
alone. Once we consider all the other categories of scientific research it 
seems quite possible that, as Blackstock claims, geoengineering would not make 
the top 100. If we

RE: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty

[J.L. Reynolds]

Ken wrote: "In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering 
may lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus 
lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions."

That was essentially a conclusion from a study by the Cultural Cognition group 
at Yale: " we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering 
were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to 
a control condition."

- Jesse

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907
Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural 
Experiment


Dan M. Kahan

Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for 
Ethics


Hank C. Jenkins-Smith

University of Oklahoma - Department of Political Science


Tor Tarantola

Cultural Cognition Lab, Yale Law School


Carol L Silva

University of Oklahoma - Main - Department of Political Science


Donald Braman

George Washington University - Law School; Cultural Cognition Project

January 9, 2012

The Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 92
7th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies 
Paper

Abstract:
We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 1500) to 
test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis 
posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings in forming 
perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the 
potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communication strategy 
that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings 
(“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across 
diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on climate 
change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that information was 
experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that 
making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a 
supplement to restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural 
polarization over the validity of climate-change science. We also tested the 
hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that 
exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of 
climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that 
subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more 
concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition.


-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:04 PM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship 
under Uncertainty

Also, these sorts of analyses assume that Homo economicus is an adequate model 
of human social behavior.

Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering works as 
advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce incentive to 
mitigate emissions.

However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public comes to 
believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can conceive of a 
situation in which society "decides" to do everything feasible to reduce this 
threat, including both emissions reduction and solar geoengineering.

In public events, I have seen people who doubted the reality of climate science 
accept the possibility of catastrophic outcomes when presented with a potential 
"quick fix".

So, solar geoengineering can help get people to accept the potential for bad 
outcomes, and then once they accept that, then the next step is to see that the 
"quick fix" isn't all that much of a fix after all.

In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may lead 
more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus lead to 
greater, not lesser, emissions reductions.

---

I note also that this paper makes the assumption that it will be uncertain for 
some time whether solar geoengineering will "work". As Andrew points out, early 
tests, etc, that lead to more information could change the 

RE: [geo] Negative moral hazard?

[J.L. Reynolds]

Two other examples of anti-moral-hazard come to mind:

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural 
Experiment
Dan M. Kahan et al
2012
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907

Britain can't afford to go cool on climate change
Guardian editorial
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/03/climate-change-observer-editorial


-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: dinsdag 27 augustus 2013 1:18
To: Robock
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Negative moral hazard?


There are several relevant studies as you are talking about the effect which 
underpins negative moral hazard.

The main one that's published is the UK NERC one. That's been sent to the list .

My own work, and the Japanese study shown in Harvard summer school, show the 
same effect, but they're in review atm.

I think there's one other, but I can't recall it.

A
On Aug 27, 2013 12:11 AM, "Alan Robock" 
mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
Hi,

I have heard that  telling people about geoengineering makes them believe more 
in global warming.  Can someone point me to a study that shows this?  Thanks.

Alan

--
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences  Phone: 
+1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University  Fax: 
+1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road   E-mail: 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

--
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.
--
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.

-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear Ken [and list],

Although I generally support your position regarding testing, and although I 
consider a policy linkage between SRM and emissions abatement to be wise in the 
abstract, I find the linkage to be problematic in reality.

First, the intent (in your words, to 'limit deployment of solar geoengineering 
systems to the case of "catastrophic" outcomes and would not permit use of 
solar geoengineering for "peak shaving" amid promises of future reductions in 
CO2 emissions') is admirable. However, what if, at some later point, future 
emissions abatement seems imminent but in the meantime the temporary peak of 
GHG concentrations appears to be dangerous? Would it be ethical to withhold the 
use of a (hypothetical) existing technology in order to reduce damage to humans 
and the environment?

Second, as Andrew pointed out, regulating a global, diffuse activity is 
extremely difficult.

Third, the demand for future GHG emitting devices is not only new cars for the 
wealthy but also in order to pull the world's poor out of poverty. Until an 
alternative means to do so exists, it seems unreasonable for the world's rich 
to ask the poor to forego cleaner burner indoor stoves.

Fourth, you often cite the difficulty in defining a climate engineering field 
experiment. How to define a CO2 emitting device? A person? A cow? An outdoor 
wood fire? An indoor wood stove? An indoor coal stove? An indoor gas stove?

Finally, you write "My proposal was not to establish political institutions and 
agreements, but to aim for establishment of norms." However, a norm which would 
be impossible to operationalize in institutions and agreements  would be hollow 
and consequently counter-productive.

Kind regards,
Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: donderdag 12 september 2013 2:15
To: Fred Zimmerman
Cc: Philip M. Macnaghten; Andrew Lockley; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction

But do we really want to be geoengineering at the same time we are building 
more devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump?

Isn't that nearly assuring an outcome with ever increasing CO2 levels 
compensated for by ever increasing amounts of solar geoengineering?

Isn't the end game of that scenario rather ugly?


___
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 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Fred Zimmerman 
mailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It seems more likely that declarations of that nature would tie our hands at 
the moment of greatest need.

It will be centuries before we stop building carbon-emitting devices.


---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Ken Caldeira 
mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> wrote:
My proposal was not to establish political institutions and agreements, but to 
aim for establishment of norms.

For example, countries could be encouraged at this time to make public 
statements like:

If things every got so bad that we felt compelled to deploy a solar 
geoengineering system, we will, before deployment, stop building devices that 
use the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Even absent enforcement mechanisms, propagation of this norm could prove 
powerful.


___
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 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Philip M. Macnaghten 
mailto:p.m.macnagh...@durham.ac.uk>> wrote:
Ken

You make a good point (on which I agree in principle).

However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political 
institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states 
to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, 
infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current 
circumstances.

The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you 
suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with 
current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' 
challenges posed by SRM n

[geo] Climate Engineering Field Research: The Favorable Setting of International Environmental Law

[J.L. Reynolds]

My article "Climate Engineering Field Research: The Favorable Setting of 
International Environmental Law" will appear in Washington and Lee Journal of 
Environment, Climate, and Energy next spring. In the meantime, it is available 
at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2326913 .  I can make some revisions, so if you 
have any comments, please send them my way in the upcoming weeks.

Thanks,

Jesse



Abstract:



As forecasts for climate change and its impacts have become more negative, 
climate engineering proposals have come under increasing consideration and are 
presently moving toward field trials. This article examines the relevant 
international environmental law, distinguishing between climate engineering 
research and deployment. It also maintains an awareness of climate change 
itself and emphasizes the enabling function of law. It concludes that extant 
international environmental law generally favors such field tests. This is in 
large part because, even though field trials may present uncertain risks to the 
environment and human well-being, climate engineering may reduce the much 
greater risks of climate change. Notably, this favorable legal setting is 
present in those multilateral environmental agreements whose subject matter is 
closest to climate engineering. Secondary reasons are that several relevant 
agreements encourage scientific research and technological development, and 
that climate engineering research is consistent with principles of 
international environmental law such as precaution. Existing law imposes 
procedural duties on the states which are responsible for the field research, 
as well as a handful of particular prohibitions and constraints.



-

Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.

PhD Candidate

European and International Public Law

Tilburg Sustainability Center

Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology

email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl

http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds


-- 
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.

[geo] Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research

[J.L. Reynolds]

Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research
Winickoff, David E.
Brown, Mark B.

Issues in Science and Technology
Summer 2013

Even talking about research on geoengineering stirs controversy.Creating an 
effective mechanism for such discussions will be an essential prerequisite to 
any scientific work.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/170204286/Time-for-a-Government-Advisory-Committee-on-Geoengineering-Research

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

-- 
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.

[geo] Special issue of Carbon & Climate Law Review

[J.L. Reynolds]

The first of two special issues of Carbon & Climate Law Review on climate 
engineering is out.
http://www.lexxion.de/en/zeitschriften/fachzeitschriften-englisch/cclr/current-issue.html

Introduction: Climate Change Geoengineering 87
Wil Burns

Implementing the Precautionary Principle for Climate Engineering 90
Elizabeth Tedsen and Gesa Homann

Climate Engineering Research: A Precautionary Response to Climate Change? 101
Jesse L. Reynolds and Floor Fleurke

Regulating Ocean Fertilization under International Law: The Risks 108
Karen N. Scott

Regulating Geoengineering Research through Domestic Environmental  Protection 
Frameworks: Reflections on the Recent Canadian Ocean  Fertilization Case 117
Neil Craik, Jason Blackstock and Anna-Maria Hubert

Tackling Climate Change:  Where Can the Generic Frame-work Be Located? 125
Matthias Honegger, Kushini Sugathapala and Axel Michaelowa

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

-- 
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.

[geo] Special Issue: Carbon and Climate Law Review [2/2]

[J.L. Reynolds]

The 2nd of two special issues of Carbon and Climate Law Review on climate 
engineering is now out.
http://www.lexxion.de/zeitschriften/fachzeitschriften-englisch/cclr/current-issue.html
with four articles + editorial, listed below.

This is behind a paywall for me. If anyone could share the articles, I would be 
appreciative.
- Jesse

Michael Mehling
Editorial
Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 159-160

Tuomas Kuokkanen and Yulia Yamineva
´Regulating Geoengineering in International Environmental Law
Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 161-167 [Article]
Tracy D. Hester
A Matter of Scale: Regional Climate Engineering and the Shortfalls of 
Multinational Governance
Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 168-176 [Article]
Jane C. S. Long
A Prognosis, and Perhaps a Plan, for Geoengineering Governance
Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 177-186 [Article]
Gareth Davies
Privatisation and De-globalisation of the Climate
Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 187-193 [Article]


-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 10:26
To: R. D. Schuiling, (Olaf)
Cc: geoengineering; Bhaskar M V
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The fate of bioavailable iron in Antarctic coastal seas


One of the most recent OIF experiments failed due to a lack of silicic acid in 
their particular patch of the southern ocean. So silicic acid is critical, and 
can't be assumed to be available where needed.

The more iron you add, the more likely it is that other minerals become the 
limiting factor.

A
On Dec 19, 2013 8:52 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" 
mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>> wrote:

Well said, Bhaskar. I am not sure if your statement that silica is "abundantly 
available" is always true. Just as for iron, if you take out a lot of silica 
from the surface waters and transport it to the sediment on the seafloor, 
silica may become locally deficient. I plead for spreading olivine sand along 
the coast and in high energy shallow coastal waters to provide a regular and 
continuous source of BOTH silica and iron (normal olivines are usually close to 
(Mg0.92Fe0.08)2SiO4 so it adds iron and silica). If you prefer to have a cheap 
and abundant source with a higher Fe:Si ratio, I know at least one huge massif 
of olivine rocks (250 km2 immediately on an oceanic coast) where the iron 
content is twice as high. According to the ease of weathering, olivine weathers 
fastest of all the common silicates. Besides providing a steady source of iron 
and silica, the weathering of olivine will help to restore the pH of the ocean, 
which is threatened by ocean acidification. Best regards, Olaf Schuilng


.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
 On Behalf Of Bhaskar M V
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 5:21
To: Andrew Lockley
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: The fate of bioavailable iron in Antarctic coastal seas

Andrew

Diatoms consuming C, N, P, Si and Fe and sinking to the ocean bed is a solution 
not a problem.

The fact that Fe depletes is a problem and this is precisely the reason why 
Iron Fertilization is being suggested.

C, N, P are being fed to oceans due to human action.
Si in bioavailable form ( Silicic Acid ) too is abundantly available.
But Fe in bioavailable form is not available in adequate quantity, i.e., to 
match the availability of the other elements.

The paper is right on facts and analysis but may have arrived at a wrong 
conclusion, if you have understood it to mean that Diatoms are a problem and 
not a solution.

I would like to quote a few sentences and give my response to each.

"Source found that iron was incorporated into biogenic silica in diatoms from 
the Southern Ocean and was then lost from the ecosystem."

Precisely, the diatoms growing naturally are consuming the Fe available and 
taking it down to the ocean bed along with Carbon. That is why the surface 
water is deficient in Fe. What is new about this 'finding' . This fact is the 
foundation of the Iron Fertilization theory.


"The loss of bioavailable iron could favor the growth of phytoplankton species 
that are less efficient at assimilating carbon, the opposite of the desired 
result of iron fertilization.Diatoms, single-celled algae that have a cell wall 
of silica, account for nearly half of the annual marine carbon fixation 
worldwide, and dominate many phytoplankton communities in Antarctic coastal 
seas."

Precisely, the diatoms growing naturally are consuming the Fe availabl

[geo] Call for abstracts: climate engineering panel at the European Consortium for Political Research general conference, 4-6 Sept, Glasgow

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear Colleagues,

The annual general conference of the European Consortium for Political Research 
will be held in Glasgow, Scotland on 4 to 6 September, 2014. I wish to propose 
a panel on the politics (broadly defined) of climate engineering. If you are 
interested, please get a title and abstract to me by Monday 10 February. This 
will allow me to organize them, propose panel title(s), contact the submitters 
for any necessary feedback, etc.

Panels must be proposed by 15 February, and must by that date already include 
the three to five presenters per panel, with titles and abstracts (150 words) 
for each. I wish to coordinate one or more panels on climate engineering and 
its politics, broadly defined to include law, public perception, economics, 
ethics, geography, etc. At this time, I do not have a more specific theme in 
mind. Instead, my intention is to let the presentations guide the theme(s) of 
the panel(s). If interest is great, more than one panel could be proposed. The 
panel(s) must be submitted as part of an existing section, and for this I 
propose "Politics and Governance in the Anthropocene" (details on that are 
below).

With best wishes,
Jesse Reynolds

Links:
http://ecpr.eu/events/eventdetails.aspx?EventID=14
http://ecpr.eu/Filestore/Files/Conferences/General/Glasgow/ScheduleOfActivities.pdf

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

Proposed section:

S049  Politics and Governance in the Anthropocene
Environmental Policy, Governance, Green Politics, International Relations, 
Public Policy

Section Chair:
Philipp Pattberg Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Section Co-Chair:
Fariborz Zelli Lunds Universitet

Abstract: The term anthropocene denotes a new geological epoch in planetary 
history, one that is characterized by the unprecedented impact of human 
activities on the Earth's ecosystems. Scientists today see mounting evidence 
that the entire earth system now operates well outside safe boundaries. Human 
societies must therefore change course and steer away from critical tipping 
points that might lead to rapid and irreversible change, while ensuring 
sustainable livelihoods for all. But while the natural sciences have advanced 
their understanding of the drivers and processes of global change considerably 
over the last two decades, the social sciences lag behind in developing and 
implementing a coherent research paradigm to address this fundamental challenge 
of politics and governance in the anthropocene. The key question from a social 
science perspective is how to organize the co-evolution of societies and their 
surrounding environment, in other words, how to develop effective and 
equita-ble governance solutions for today's global transformations. This 
section invites panels to close this crucial research gap, in particular with 
regards to the following 5 overarching research themes: (i) the role and 
relevance of institutions, both formal and informal as well as international 
and transnational, for governing in the anthropocene; (ii) the question of 
agency and actorness in addressing planetary challenges; (iii) the relevance of 
normative concerns in governing in the anthropocene, including questions about 
fairness, equity, justice and allocation; (iv) the role and relevance of 
accountability and other democratic principles for governing in the 
anthropocene; (v) the challenge of adapting societies at different scales to 
global change.

The section is endorsed by the international Earth System Governance Project, 
the largest social science research network in the area of governance and 
global environmental change. The International Project Office is hosted by the 
University of Lund, Sweden.
http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/

-- 
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.

RE: [geo] "The International Regulation of Climate Engineering: Lessons from Nuclear power " by Jesse Reynolds

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear Ronald et al,

Thank you for reading and (some of you) recommending reading my paper. I 
generally concur with Ronald's points #1 and #2. (Greg, please give the paper a 
read. Your comment is very far from my position.) Regarding #1, if we assume 
that large scale SRM CE deployment could significantly reduce climate risks, 
how many such states with deployment capability would be optimal? All ~193 of 
them seems too many, as there would be more opportunities for conflict and for 
irresponsible use. Zero seems too few, as it would forego an opportunity to 
reduce risks. So there will be some states which would  might want CE 
deployment capability, but whose acquisition of it would create negative 
externalities. It is a type of a collective action problem. How might we 
structure incentives so that these states do not attempt to acquire this 
capability, while maintaining the legitimacy of those with the capability? I 
suggest that this could be achieved by ensuring that they participate in 
research and decision making.

Further comments are always appreciated.

-Jesse

PS: "Dr." in a few months.

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds

From: Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
Sent: dinsdag 8 april 2014 18:59
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; J.L. Reynolds
Subject: Re: [geo] "The International Regulation of Climate Engineering: 
Lessons from Nuclear power " by Jesse Reynolds

Greg, Andrew etal  (adding Dr. (yet?) Reynolds)

1.  Re Greg's comment,  Jesse has written on p 38 about a Climate Engineering 
(CE) non-proliferation pact:
   "Under this, those parties with climate engineering
capabilities would pledge to share knowledge with non-capable parties and to 
include them in
research activities, while not sharing knowledge and research activities with 
nonparticipating
states. In turn, all parties would agree to limit climate engineering 
capabilities to a small
number of states and to abide by certain research standards. "

 I believe Greg and Jesse are apt to be in more agreement re CE than Greg's 
comment imp lie.  I think almost everyone is against nuclear proliferation - 
and I think Jesse has found a reasonable and helpful parallel.

2.  Re Andrew's comment below -  I suggest the nuclear "major disasters" are 
exactly an example of the the low-risk (vs high impact) problem areas that 
cause this to be an interesting and useful paper.  The global reaction 
following Fukushima is briefly in Jesse's paper - on p 13.

3.  I have only skimmed this paper and have no competence to get into SRM 
governance.  But I do have considerable interest in CDR and renewable energy  
(RE) - and think there is another doctoral thesis for someone to compare CDR 
(not in Jesse's paper at all) with RE technologies - just as Jesse has done for 
nuclear and SRM.  I think that such a study would conclude (as has this list, I 
believe) that CDR is not in need of (at least early) international governance.  
I can think of scenarios, where we could overdo CDR - much as we can project 
too much of some RE technologies.  The parallel with public acceptance of RE, 
nuclear, and fossil energies would appear to have considerable overlap with 
CDR, SRM, and fossil futures.

4.Another interesting question would be on predicting the slopes of CDR and 
SRM learning curves.  PV costs are now approaching $1/watt.  In the early 
1970's - two orders of magnitude higher.  Nuclear was said at the same time to 
be "too cheap to meter".  Recently nuclear costs have only been increasing - 
not decreasing - and are nowhere near $1/watt.  I suggest that Jesse's work 
could be extended along these cost parallel lines - in a doctoral topic for an 
economist, interested in how much it will cost to get us out of our present 
mess.

5.  In sum,  I recommend Jesse's handling of the SRM topic for further 
discussion.

Ron


On Apr 8, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Greg Rau 
mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:


"Treaties regarding non-proliferation of global [CE] deployment capability 
should be considered", meaning let's make sure CE is never deployed regardless 
of its benefits relative to costs and impacts?
Greg


From: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:30 AM
Subject: [geo] "The International Regulation of Climate Engineering: Lessons 
from Nuclear power " by Jesse Reynolds

Poster's note - my instinct is that 

RE: Fw: [geo] Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering -- ScienceDirect

[J.L. Reynolds]

I found this paragraph (with no footnotes or citations) to be interesting:

Fifth, the critical discourse is profoundly suspicious that several of the 
leading proponents of geoengineering are not primarily devoted to long-term 
sustainability worldwide, but rather to promoting their own profits (e.g., from 
patent rights), advancing personal careers, or serving the interests of think 
tanks or the fossil fuel industry. These accusations have been levelled because 
some researchers have been found to have both scientific and economic interests 
in specific technologies or field experiments, and because some of their work 
has been financed by venture capitalists. The strong support that 
geoengineering efforts have received from conservative think tanks and fossil 
fuel industry lobbying has certainly strengthened these suspicions.

It makes for an interesting, logical story which may confirm some observers' 
biases. In fact, when I began examining the CE issue, this was my belief. After 
actual research, I have found this to be largely untrue or, where factually 
true, misleading in its implications.

-Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: 02 June 2014 19:29
To: Greg Rau
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: Fw: [geo] Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing 
the critical discourses of geoengineering -- ScienceDirect

This is published in a journal called "Energy Research & Social Science".

As far as I can tell, this article constitutes neither energy research nor 
social science.

If it is indeed social science:  What is the testable hypothesis? What are the 
methods for testing the hypothesis? What results did those methods yield? And 
what did the uncertainty analysis yield?

One of their central conclusions is the following:

Moreover, the until recently nearly hegemonic dominance of the advocacy 
discourse has not encouraged the fundamental questioning of geoengineering or 
created room for political controversies.

I am surprised to learn that a fundamental questioning of geoengineering has 
not been encouraged and that no room has been created for political 
controversies.  I am eager to learn the methods that can be applied to 
observational data to reach such significant conclusions.


___
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
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

Assistant:  Dawn Ross 
mailto:dr...@carnegiescience.edu>>


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Greg Rau 
mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:

Interesting review and analysis of the philosophic vitriol against GE.

"In sum, the fundamental dissensus [difference of opinion] between the two 
discourses is related mainly to how the views of social change, knowledge 
limits, and humanity's ability to control nature are spelled out in the two 
discourses. While the critical discourse stresses the possibility and necessity 
of fundamentally changing existing social, economic, and political structures, 
the advocacy discourse downplays these questions and instead emphasizes that 
new technologies must be developed immediately to counteract climate change. 
The idea that it might be possible to save the planet by deploying grand-scale 
technology is depicted in the discourse critical of geoengineering as both a 
Promethean dream and a way of sustaining the unsustainable, i.e., a way to 
maintain dysfunctional societal structures. On the other hand, the visions of a 
fundamentally reoriented society that permeate the critical discourse are 
deemed naïve and possibly even irresponsible in the advocacy discourse in this 
age of global environmental threats."

In my own view I'm not downplaying social, economic, and political structures, 
they are essential.  Rather it is the ongoing failure of these structures to 
effectively address the problem http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/  using 
"conventional" approaches that forces me and others to consider alternative 
actions. I stress the word "consider" meaning research and evaluation; lets 
first find out if there are any safe and effective alternative actions. Then we 
can turn it over the the social, economic, and political structures to consider 
implementation. Failure here to effectively implement Plan A and/or Plan B (if 
there are any) then clearly comes down to a failure of social, economic, and 
political structures, not technology. In any case at this stage let's not 
prematurely exclude any plans, since

RE: [geo] Offtopic klein - Potential Liability of Governments for Failure to Prepare for Climate Change

[J.L. Reynolds]

Climate change liability been discussed by legal scholars for about 10 years. 
(There are two good edited books on the topic.) See eg
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume155/issue6/Farber155U.Pa.L.Rev.1605(2007).pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Nollkaemper/publication/228218842_International_Liability_as_an_Instrument_to_Prevent_and_Compensate_for_Climate_Change/links/00b495231d2fef0dc100.pdf
It is very difficult. International liability is mostly limited to a few 
specific matters with their own treaty regimes (oil spills, nuclear power, 
space activities). More generally, if a country doesn’t follow certain 
standards of due process and another country is harmed from the former’s 
activities, then the former can be held responsible but actual liability is 
highly uncertain. What’s more, all countries cause, benefit from, and are 
harmed by greenhouse gas emissions. International law operates on the consent 
of states, so any new liability agreement would require the consent of the 
countries that would be held liable. So this appears to be something of a dead 
end.

Liability within a country might have some grounds. This is not my expertise, 
but I know that the plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she has actually been 
harmed, which under present circumstances is difficult. This may change in a 
decade or two. The tobacco case is partially instructive, but this was settled 
out of court, and the causation was more proximate. (The person who smokes gets 
lunch cancer etc. GHGs work through more intermediaries and with more 
confounding factors.)  Note that the tobacco settlement was possible because US 
states were already bringing action for their Medicaid expenses. Perhaps if 
states and municipalities could argue that their expenses, such as adaptation 
and infrastructure maintenance, have increased due to climate change, then 
there might be some traction there. There could also be a class action lawsuit, 
but victims can also be negligent. That is, if a farmer should reasonably know 
about climate change and how to adapt to it, but fails to do so, then he/she 
may not be able to recover damages.

Cheers
Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: 03 November 2015 16:37
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Offtopic klein - Potential Liability of Governments for 
Failure to Prepare for Climate Change

Relatedly, what is the liability of individuals and corporations who actively 
(and successfully) impede efforts to address and prepare for climate change? 
e.g.:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/30/seething-anger-probe-demanded-exxons-unparalleled-climate-crime

http://350.org/the-department-of-justice-must-investigate-exxonmobil/


Greg



From: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 10:54 PM
Subject: [geo] Offtopic klein - Potential Liability of Governments for Failure 
to Prepare for Climate Change

Poster's note : broadly relevant to a range of climate change areas, but 
perhaps useful in discussion of legal framework for compelling geoengineering 
research
klein
Potential Liability of Governments for Failure to Prepare for Climate 
ChangeThis paper examines whether governments can expose themselves to 
potential legal
liability by turning a blind eye to the accumulating risks of climate change. 
Specifically, the paper
addresses potential claims sounding in negligence, fraud, and takings, 
describing the benefits and
challenges of each theory. The paper explores ways to overcome a government’s 
claim of sovereign
immunity in the context of a negligence claim, noting in particular the common 
government
waiver of immunity for claims arising out of dangerous conditions of government 
owned
property. The paper describes the challenges of bringing a claim for fraud 
where officials
intentionally obscure relevant information about climate change risks, 
including the sovereign
immunity defense as well as difficulties proving causation and intent in this 
context. Finally, the
paper explores claims for just compensation where a government causes property 
to be damaged
or destroyed through its failure to prevent the impacts of climate change, and 
concludes that this
type of suit is the most promising of the three.
If claims under any of these theories are successful, such litigation could be 
used to
promote climate change adaptation by encouraging governments to we

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering’s Moral Hazard Problem

[J.L. Reynolds]

David and list,

I agree that George wrote an excellent piece on the moral hazard issue. I am 
glad the he brought up the point that less emissions mitigation in response to 
the availability of climate engineering can be theoretically socially optimal.

David: maybe you were being modest but you wrote an excellent article on the 
moral hazard issue. “Ethical Aspects of the Mitigation Obstruction Argument 
against Climate Engineering Research” in Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society A, vol. 372. I will refrain from modesty and point to my article, 
“A Critical Examination of the Climate Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk 
Compensation Concern” in The Anthropocene Review, vol. 2 no. 2.

Cheers,
-Jesse


Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher; Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
European and International Public Law; Tilburg Sustainability Center
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Web http://jessereynolds.org
[http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/imweb2/images/content/UTI020_Logo.png]


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of David Morrow
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 6:32 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering’s Moral Hazard Problem

I think George has written a great piece here, but I do want to quibble with 
one thing. I suspect this is something that George knows but had to 
oversimplify due to space constraints, but it's worth mentioning. George 
writes, "Besides, the whole point of moral hazard is that people don’t make 
objectively correct decisions when it comes to safety and risk."

George's claim is true only if by "objectively correct" he means "socially 
optimal." Moral hazard is a problem when, for example, a homeowner whose 
belongings are insured against theft doesn't invest enough in home security 
measures because the insurance company bears the financial risk from a 
burglary. It's not "enough" in the sense that, if the insurance company had 
perfect knowledge of the homeowner's situation, they would be better off paying 
for extra security than bearing the extra risk -- so there's money (or, at 
least, expected utility) left on the table, making the situation socially 
suboptimal. But *from the homeowner's own perspective,* it's rational (in the 
economic sense) to underinvest in home security. (Analogous arguments could be 
made about risk compensation, in which people do more of something because 
technical innovation reduces its riskiness to the person doing it. Such 
behavior can increase the risks faced by third parties.)

This matters, I think, because the "moral hazard problem" is not itself a 
problem of risk perception. Rather, problems of risk perception compound the 
moral hazard problem, and so we need to think about them separately from or in 
addition to the moral hazard problem.

A short reading list on this, discussing the ethics of moral hazard in general; 
understanding the moral hazard problem for geoengineering; and problems of risk 
perception as they relate to the moral hazard problem:

Hale, Ben (2009) What's So Moral About the Moral Hazard? Public Affairs 
Quarterly 23

Hale, Ben (2012) The World That Could Have Been: Moral Hazard Arguments Against 
Geoengineering. In C. Preston (ed.), Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of 
Solar Radiation Management. (Plymouth: Lexington Books)

Lin, Albert C. (2013) Does Geoengineering Present a Moral Hazard Problem? 
Ecology Law Quarterly 40

I'm happy to send these papers to anyone who doesn't have access to them.

David

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:59:04 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/geoengineering_might_give_people_an_excuse_to_ignore_climate_change_s_causes.single.html

JAN. 15 2016 7:15 AM
FROM SLATE, NEW AMERICA, AND ASU

Geoengineering’s Moral Hazard Problem
Would treating the symptoms of climate change give people permission to ignore 
the causes?

By George Collins

Geoengineering could curb the symptoms of climate change, like sea level 
rise—but what if it makes people complacent about the causes?

For more than a quarter-century, policymakers worldwide have puzzled over how 
to deal with climate change. If nothing else, these negotiations have served as 
a productive greenhouse environment for jargon. In particular, two 
modest-sounding words—mitigation and adaptation—have grown to occupy a special 
position, together including all possible responses to climate change. 
Mitigation attempts to reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases 
by making humans emit less (via renewable energy, fuel-efficient cars, 
well-insulated houses, and so forth) and helping the Earth absorb as much or 
more (by, say, protecting or expanding forests and wetlands). Since we haven’t 
mitigated enough already, we need adaptation as well, which softens the 
negative effects of higher temperatures, rising seas, and

[geo] The International Politics of Climate Engineering: A Review and Prospectus for International Relations

[J.L. Reynolds]

List:

A paper that Joshua Horton and I co-authored, "The International Politics of 
Climate Engineering: A Review and Prospectus for International Relations," is 
being published by International Studies Review. It is now available online 
ahead of print. Abstract below.
http://isr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/17/isr.viv013.abstract?ijkey=aulyd7pTmTao0SK&keytype=ref

Note that a draft of this circulated about a year ago.

Cheers
-Jesse

Proposed large-scale intentional interventions in natural systems in order to 
counter climate change, typically called "climate engineering" or 
"geoengineering," stand to dramatically alter the international politics of 
climate change and potentially much more. There is currently a significant and 
growing literature on the international politics of climate engineering. 
However, it has been produced primarily by scholars from outside the discipline 
of International Relations (IR). We are concerned that IR scholars are missing 
a critical opportunity to offer insights into, and perhaps help shape, the 
emerging international politics of climate engineering. To that end, the 
primary goal of this paper is to call the attention of the IR community to 
these developments. Thus, we offer here an overview of the existing literature 
on the international politics of climate engineering and a preliminary 
assessment of its strengths and lacunae. We trace several key themes in this 
corpus, including problem structure, the concern that climate engineering could 
undermine emissions cuts, the potentially "slippery slope" of research and 
development, unilateral implementation, interstate conflict, militarization, 
rising tensions between industrialized and developing countries, and governance 
challenges and opportunities. The international politics of climate engineering 
is then considered through the lenses of the leading IR theories (Realism, 
Institutionalism, Liberalism, and Constructivism), exploring both what they 
have contributed and possible lines of future inquiry. Disciplinary IR scholars 
should have much to say on a number of topics related to climate engineering, 
including its power and transformational potentials, the possibility of 
counter-climate engineering, issues of institutional design, international law, 
and emergent practices. We believe that it is incumbent on the IR community, 
whose defining focus is international relations, to turn its attention to these 
unprecedented technologies and to the full scope of possible ramifications they 
might have for the international system.



Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University
Book reviews editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Web http://jessereynolds.org

My latest publication: "An Economic Analysis of Liability and Compensation for 
Harm from Large-Scale Solar Climate Engineering Field 
Research" in Climate 
Law

-- 
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.

[geo] Solar Climate Engineering and Intellectual Property: Toward a Research Commons

[J.L. Reynolds]

Geo list:

I have co-authored an article on SRM and intellectual property (i.e. patents, 
trade secrets, and research data). It has been accepted by the Minnesota 
Journal of Law, Science & Technology yet will undergo further revision. We thus 
appreciate any comments that you might have.

With thanks,
-Jesse

Solar Climate Engineering and Intellectual Property: Toward a Research Commons
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2753833

Jesse Reynolds
Tilburg University - Department of European & International Public Law; Tilburg 
Sustainability Center

Jorge L. Contreras
University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law

Joshua D. Sarnoff
DePaul University College of Law

February 29, 2016

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Forthcoming

Abstract:
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges confronting society today. 
Solar climate engineering (SCE) has the potential to reduce climate risks 
substantially. This controversial technology would make the earth more 
reflective in order to counteract global warming. Though the science of SCE is 
still in its infancy, SCE research and development should proceed in a 
coordinated, responsible, and expeditious fashion. However, the role of 
patents, research data, and trade secrets in SCE research remains unclear and 
contested. To this end, this article identifies concerns that may arise through 
the acquisition of intellectual property rights in SCE and proposes the 
formation of an SCE "research commons" to facilitate responsible SCE research 
and development. This research commons would permit public and private sector 
research institutions around the globe to share their research data. They would 
also pledge that any patents or trade secrets they obtain would be managed so 
as to reduce unnecessary barriers to research and development of safe and 
effective SCE technologies.



Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University
Book reviews editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Web http://jessereynolds.org

My latest publication: "The International Politics of Climate Engineering: A 
Review and Prospectus for International 
Relations"
 in International Studies Review

-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Climate Change law (book)

[J.L. Reynolds]

I wrote the brief chapter on CE. It appears to be fully visible on Google 
Books. I am glad to email to anyone who wants it.

-Jesse



Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University
Book reviews editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Web http://jessereynolds.org
Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030

My latest publication: “The International Politics of Climate Engineering: A 
Review and Prospectus for International 
Relations”
 in International Studies Review

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 23:22
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Climate Change law (book)


Poster's note : has a short section with a dozen references to climate 
engineering

https://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=lang_en&id=PXdmDAAAQBAJ&dq=%22climate+Justice%22&q=climate+engineering&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=climate%20engineering&f=false

Climate Change Law

Daniel A. Farber, Marjan Peeters

Edward Elgar Publishing, 24 Jun 2016 - Law - 768 pages

Climate Change Law, the first volume of the Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental 
Law, provides a guide to the rapidly evolving body of legal scholarship 
relating to climate change. This book focuses on concepts that are of concern 
to researchers, students and policymakers rather than on the details of 
national legislation. It provides a comprehensive discussion, with more than 50 
structured entries developed by experts from across the world. The coverage 
sets mitigation and adaptation issues in their wider context, using both 
international and national perspectives. The core topics include the difficulty 
of setting up a coherent international treaty approach, the importance of 
national and subnational legal action, the potential role of international and 
national courts, and the importance of human rights and environmental justice.


--
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.

-- 
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.

[geo] Solar Climate Engineering And Intellectual Property [a summary]

[J.L. Reynolds]

Folks:

Here is a layman's summary of an accepted and online-as-draft article that I 
co-wrote with Josh Sarnoff and Jorge Contreras.

Cheers
-Jesse

http://editions.lib.umn.edu/mjlst/2016/04/27/solar-climate-engineering-and-intellectual-property/

Solar Climate Engineering And Intellectual Property
April 27, 2016
Jesse L. Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School

Climate change has been the focus of much legal and policy activity in the last 
year: the Paris Agreement, the 
Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands, 
aggressive climate targets in China's latest five year 
plan,
 the release of the final US Clean Power 
Plan, and the legal challenge to 
it. Not surprisingly, these each concern controlling greenhouse gas emissions, 
the approach that has long dominated efforts to reduce climate change risks.

Yet last week, an alternative approach received a major-but little 
noticed-boost. For the first time, a federal budget bill included an allocation 
specifically for so-called "solar climate 
engineering."
 This set of radical proposed technologies would address climate change by 
reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation. These would globally cool the 
planet, counteracting global warming. For example, humans might be able to 
mimic the well-known cooling caused by large volcanos via injecting a 
reflective aerosol into the upper atmosphere. Research thus far - which has 
been limited to modeling - indicates that solar climate engineering (SCE) would 
be effective at reducing climate change, rapidly felt, reversible in its direct 
climatic effects, and remarkably inexpensive. It would also pose risks that are 
both environmental - such as difficult-to-predict changes to rainfall patterns 
- and social - such as the potential for international disagreement regarding 
its implementation.

The potential role of private actors in SCE is unclear. On the one hand, 
decisions regarding whether and how to intentionally alter the planet's climate 
should be made through legitimate state-based processes. On the other hand, the 
private sector has long been the site of great innovation, which SCE technology 
development requires. Such private innovation is both stimulated and governed 
through governmental intellectual property (IP) policies. Notably, SCE is not a 
typical emerging technology and might warrant novel IP policies. For example, 
some observers have argued that SCE should be a patent-free endeavor.

In order to clarify the potential role of IP in SCE (focusing on patents, trade 
secrets, and research data), Jorge Contreras of the University of Utah, Joshua 
Sarnoff of DePaul University, and I wrote an article that was recently accepted 
and scheduled for 
publication by the 
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & 
Technology. The article explains the 
need for coordinated and open licensing and data sharing policies in the SCE 
technology space.

SCE research today is occurring primarily at universities and other traditional 
research institutions, largely through public funding. However, we predict that 
private actors are likely to play a growing role in developing products and 
services to serve large scale SCE research and implementation, most likely 
through public procurement arrangements. The prospect of such future innovation 
should be not stifled through restrictive IP policies. At the same time, we 
identify several potential challenges for SCE technology research, development, 
and deployment that are related to rights in IP and data for such technologies. 
Some of these challenges have been seen in regard to other emerging 
technologies, such as the risk that excessive early patenting would lead to a 
patent thicket with attendant anti-commons effects. Others are more particular 
to SCE, such as oft-expressed concerns that holders of valuable patents might 
unduly attempt to influence public policy regarding SCE implementation. 
Fortunately, a review of existing patents, policies, and practices reveals a 
current opportunity that may soon be lost. There are presently only a handful 
of SCE-specific patents; research is being undertaken transparently and at 
traditional institutions; and SCE researchers are generally sharing their data.

After reviewing various options and proposals, we make tentative suggestions to 
manage SCE IP and data. First, an open technical framework for SCE data sharing 
should be established. Second, 

[geo] Call For Abstracts - Workshop "The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies" - 15-16 June, Utrecht, The Netherlands

[J.L. Reynolds]

Please forward and share as you deem appropriate. Apologies for any 
cross-posting.
-Jesse

Call For Abstracts, Fully-funded Research Workshop
15-16 June, Utrecht, The Netherlands

The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the 
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene

Some scientists propose intentional large-scale interventions in natural 
systems to remove and sequester carbon dioxide. Collectively, these "negative 
emissions technologies" (NETs) could increase the feasibility of ambitious 
climate targets, such as those of the recent Paris Agreement to keep global 
warming "to well below 2°C," and to endeavour to keep it within 1.5°C. Indeed, 
modelling repeatedly indicates that NETs at large scales are essential in any 
realistic scenario of meeting internationally agreed-upon climate targets. It 
is unclear whether this would be possible, or is merely a device to transform 
the impossible into the seemingly attainable. Furthermore, NETs at such scales 
would pose social and environmental risks. Deeper questions linger, such as 
whether this would amount to full scale realization of the Anthropocene, in 
which humans are a dominant force affecting natural systems. Unsurprisingly, 
NETs are controversial.

Despite the growing realization of NETs' necessity, their international 
politics and policies remain amorphous and emerging. Clearly, there will be 
some form of politics and governance of NETs. Simultaneously, there will be 
governance by NETs. That is, NETs may serve as a form of governance of other 
responses to climate change. These matters will be contested; how they are 
contested and by whom may be novel and surprising.

This two-day workshop will bring together 20 to 25 leading researchers in 
political science, law, economics, and related social sciences to present 
papers on the emerging politics and governance of NETs. We invite scholars to 
contribute to the following questions:

· How can the unfolding politics of NETs be understood, theorized, and 
projected?

· In what ways can NETs be effectively, responsibly and legitimately 
developed and governed? How can NETs' social and environmental risks be 
assessed, managed, and regulated? To what extent is innovative governance 
necessary?

· What are some expected impacts of NETs on the politics and policies 
of other responses to climate change?  How can these impacts be channelled to 
facilitate effective, legitimate, and innovative climate policies?

· How does global environmental politics - particularly including those 
regarding the Paris Agreement - affect possibilities for developing NETs and 
how will NETs influence global environmental politics?
Proposals on other topics related to the politics and governance of NETs are 
welcome.

The workshop aims for a special issue of a peer-reviewed academic journal. The 
organizers are presently in discussions with potential outlets.

The following keynote speakers will give talks at the workshop:

· Janos Pasztor, Senior Fellow and Director, Climate Geoengineering 
Governance Project, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs; 
former UN Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change

· Frank Biermann, professor of Global Sustainability Governance, 
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, 
Utrecht University, The Netherlands; chair, Earth System Governance Project

· Steve Rayner, James Martin Professor of Science and Civilization and 
Director, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Oxford University; 
co-director, Oxford Martin Programme on Resource Stewardship and the Oxford 
Geoengineering Programme
Practicalities and submission deadlines:

· Deadline for abstracts of up to 500 words: 22 January 2017

· Applicants will be informed of the acceptance/rejection of their 
proposal: by 28 January 2017

· Deadline for draft papers of up to 8000 words: 31 May 2017

· Workshop participants are expected to prepare comments on the paper 
of one other participant.

· Date and location of meeting: 15-16 June, Utrecht, The Netherlands, a 
30 minute train ride from Schiphol Amsterdam airport.

· Submissions for journal: September 2017

· Final versions: Spring 2018

· Special issue publication: Summer - autumn 2018
Proposals for papers should be sent to the workshop organizer Jesse Reynolds 
(j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl) of Utrecht University.

The workshop will be funded under the 4 year COST Action 
INOGOV (IS1309 Innovations in Climate Governance: 
Sources, Patterns and Effects) (2014-8). INOGOV will cover reasonable travel 
costs and accommodation of all invited participants from COST-INOGOV member 
countries, subject to standard COST reimbursement and eligibility 
rules. The costs of 
other participa

[geo] Parties to CBD new decision on geoengineering

[J.L. Reynolds]

You may recall that in 2010 the Conference of Parties to the Convention on 
Biological Diversity agreed to a statement of caution regarding geoengineering. 
This week, the Parties - which meet every two years - reaffirmed that decision, 
and agreed to some additional text. To me, the most significant aspect of this 
is an endorsement of geoengineering research. The full text is below, with the 
research endorsement bolded, and at 
https://www.cbd.int/.../.../cop-13/in-session/cop-13-l-04-en.pdf

-Jesse

The Conference of the Parties
1. Reaffirms paragraph 8, in particular its subparagraph (w), of decision X/33, 
and decision XI/20;
2. Recalls paragraph 11 of decision XI/20, in which the Conference of the 
Parties noted that the application of the precautionary approach as well as 
customary international law, including the general obligations of States with 
regard to activities within their jurisdiction or control and with regard to 
possible consequences of those activities, and requirements with regard to 
environmental impact assessment, may be relevant for geoengineering activities 
but would still form an incomplete basis for global regulation;
3. Recalling paragraph 4 of decision XI/20, in which the Conference of the 
Parties emphasized that climate change should primarily be addressed by 
reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources and by increasing removals by sinks 
of greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change, noting also the relevance of the Convention on Biological Diversity and 
other instruments, and also recalling paragraphs 8 (j)-(t) of decision X/33, 
and paragraph 5 of decision XII/20, reaffirms its encouragement to Parties to 
promote the use of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and 
mitigation;
4. Notes that very few Parties responded to the invitation to provide 
information on measures they have undertaken in accordance with decision X/33, 
paragraph 8(w), and further invites other Parties, where relevant, to provide 
such information;
5. Also notes that more transdisciplinary research and sharing of knowledge 
among appropriate institutions is needed in order to better understand the 
impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biodiversity and ecosystem 
functions and services, socio-economic, cultural and ethical issues and 
regulatory options;
6. Recognizes the importance of taking into account sciences for life and the 
knowledge, experience and perspectives of indigenous peoples and local 
communities when addressing climate-related geoengineering and protecting 
biodiversity



Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School
Tilburg University
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Web http://jessereynolds.org/
Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030

My latest publication: "Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed 
their welcome" in 
Earth's Future


-- 
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.

RE: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

[J.L. Reynolds]

ve outstayed their 
welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in 
Earth’s Future.

A pleasant weekend to all,
Jesse

The Conference of the Parties… Invites Parties and other Governments... to
consider the guidance below…
Ensure… 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 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;


Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School
Tilburg University
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Web http://jessereynolds.org/
Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030

My latest publication: “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed 
their welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in 
Earth’s Future

From: Anna-Maria Hubert [annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:15
To: j...@etcgroup.org; J.L. Reynolds; macma...@cds.caltech.edu
Cc: 'geoengineering'
Subject: Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"


Hi Doug and others,


I think the original difference of opinion was over Jesse's statement in a 
previous e-mail that "the most significant aspect of this is an endorsement of 
geoengineering research. The full text is below, with the research endorsement 
bolded."


The point was simply that it is difficult to see how this recent CBD decision 
provides an endorsement based on the plain meaning of the word "endorsement" 
which refers to "the act of declaring one's approval or support." Endorsement 
isn't a legal term of art, but there are many examples of provisions in 
international treaties that call for the promotion of scientific research 
(e.g., see Art 12(b) of the CBD) to advance the objectives of the agreement, 
generally, or for specific purposes. Such obligations can be read as positive 
obligations to act to support and actively encourage (including through 
financial support) scientific research. The language of this decision is much 
more attenuated, qualified and precautionary. Such language can also be read 
against the backdrop that any kind of restrictions on research in international 
law are relatively rare.


Second, looking to past state practice in this area, it is difficult to argue 
that there is any evidence that countries endorse/support/approve of 
geoengineering research, in particular, field experiments. Paragraph 5 of the 
recent CBD COP decision "[n]otes that very few Parties responded to the 
invitation to provide information on measures they have undertaken in 
accordance with decision X/33, paragraph 8(w), and further invites other 
Parties, where relevant, to provide such information." Only five States Parties 
to the CBD have responded to the call for information to date 
(https://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/). This could be because States 
Parties are failing to report back, but also more likely because there is 
limited geoengineering research taking place.


Returning back to the original difference of opinion, the recent COP decision 
also doesn't seem terribly "significant" in the sense that it reaffirms past 
decisions, and, though I didn't attend the recent COP, my understanding is that 
it was adopted without much, if any, discussion.


You make a good point though that the phrase "better understanding of impacts 
on biodiversity" is very broad, and that, in practice, probably many of the 
currently proposed field experiments may contribute to this objective. I  defer 
to your expertise as a scientist on this point. However, in principle and maybe 
in practice, one can think of examples of experimental designs that fall short 
of this objective. Moreover, the paragraph may also be directed more broadly at 
a programmatic/research agenda level (not individual experiments) arguing for a 
well rounded scientific research agenda in the area that does not solely focus 
on scientific and technical aspects, but also takes into account 
socio-political, legal and cultural and other considerations. Given that 
geoeangienring is so 

RE: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

[J.L. Reynolds]

Dear Anna-Maria,

I generally agree with your perspective here. Time will tell whether you are 
too optimistic.

To clarify: I wrote that Para 5 of the 2013 CDB COP decision does not include, 
and thus does not endorse (or whatever one’s preferred word is) research into 
delivery systems and similar hardware. This does not imply that such research 
is somehow banned or particularly constrained in any way by the CBD COP 
decisions, provided that the activities are not expected to (significantly 
adversely?) affect biodiversity. I suspect that most engineering (narrowly 
defined) research would have little impact on biodiversity, although that might 
not be so in each and every case. My intention in bringing that up was to 
highlight that Para 5 is not an endorsement of all geoengineering research, but 
instead of only some geoengineering research.

Cheers,
-Jesse



Jesse Reynolds
Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School
Tilburg University
E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>
Web http://jessereynolds.org/
Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030

My latest publication: “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed 
their welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in 
Earth’s Future


From: Anna-Maria Hubert [mailto:annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 16:59
To: j...@etcgroup.org; macma...@cds.caltech.edu; J.L. Reynolds 

Cc: 'geoengineering' 
Subject: Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"


Hello Doug and Jesse and others,



A few additional thoughts on your last points, Doug and Jesse. I think the 
point of the recent CBD COP decision, which essentially adopts last year's 
SBSTTA recommendation, is not that narrowly focused engineering experiments 
which do not inform impacts on biodiversity are not permitted under the new 
decision. (Quoting Jessie, which in my opinion presses the point too far: "That 
does not include, as Doug noted, research into delivery systems and similar 
hardware.") Strictly implemented, this approach would lead to an absurd result 
because such engineering research is necessary to determine the feasibility of 
some techniques. Furthermore, the lack of express definitions and the 
fungibility of terminology means that such experiments could be simply be 
re-characterised narrowly as engineering experiments or advanced by proponents 
for meeting some other purpose. On the other hand, the outcome of the SPICE 
experiment suggests that even pure engineering experiments raise societal 
concerns. I think it is better to think about the spirit of these CBD 
decisions, inter alia, and the implications for research going forward.



For me, the challenging question that emerges from the conversation on this 
thread is how can paragraph 5 (and the rest of the recent CBD decision) be 
fully implemented in good faith to inform societal decision-making on the risks 
and benefits of geoengineering and particular techniques. I think that it is 
worthwhile for scientists and experimental proponents to engage in this 
enquiry, even from a self-interested perspective, because there is the real 
threat of a backlash given that geoengineering research can be controversial. 
This requires creative thinking on the part of everyone involved in 
geoengineering research to develop robust but pragmatic approaches to 
conducting research in this area through all phases of an individual project 
and at a higher programatic level (which engages institutions and funding 
bodies).



Experimental design will be important for supporting an adaptive management 
approach. E.g., in some cases, post-project monitoring to assess the impact of 
the intervention on the ecosystem will be important to understanding the 
impacts on biodiversity. It would also be important to close this loop by 
reporting and publishing experimental results in a timely way (so that everyone 
has access) and feeding this information back into future decision-making on 
other experimental proposals. Perhaps it makes sense to develop 
interdisciplinary advisory bodies for certain experiments to provide advice on 
the non-technical aspects of research design, ethics boards or public 
engagement processes in good faith. Such approaches require diligence and time 
and perhaps additional funds (e.g., monitoring in some cases where it makes 
sense could be costly).



Transdisciplinary research at a programmatic level makes sense because we are 
trying to understand the full spectrum of risks and benefits of geoengineering, 
specifically particular techniques, including social, political, ethical and 
legal implications, global equity issues (including information sharing and 
tech transfer) etc.



As Paul Crutzen pointed out in his 2002 Geology of Mankind article in Nature, 
we are stan

[geo] U.S. should pursue controversial geoengineering research, federal scientists say for first time

[J.L. Reynolds]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/us-should-pursue-controversial-geoengineering-research-federal-scientists-say-first

U.S. should pursue controversial geoengineering research, federal scientists 
say for first time

By Eli Kintisch Jan. 9, 2017 , 
9:00 AM



The U.S. government office that oversees federally funded climate research has 
recommended studies into two areas of geoengineering research, marking the 
first time scientists in the executive branch have formally called for studies 
in the controversial field. The move, part of a climate science planning report 
sent today to Congress, will likely further normalize discussion of deliberate 
tinkering with the atmosphere to cool the planet, and of directly collecting 
carbon from the sky, both topics 
once-verboten
 in the climate science community. Yet the new endorsement of geoengineering 
research comes amid deep uncertainty about the direction that climate research 
will take under the new administration of president-elect Donald Trump.

Geoengineering is discussed in just two paragraphs of the 119-page 
plan,
 which aims to set out a research roadmap through 2021. "While climate 
intervention cannot substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 
adapting to the changes in climate that occur, some types of deliberative 
climate intervention may someday be one of a portfolio of tools used in 
managing climate change," the report states.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which produced the report, 
coordinates climate research across 13 departments and agencies. Currently, 
none expressly support geoengineering research, though federal climate science 
officials have been quietly reviewing the idea for the entirety of the Obama 
administration. In 2009, in his first public interview after receiving Senate 
confirmation for the job of White House science advisor, John Holdren said he 
had discussed the controversial idea in his new position. A 
kerfuffle
 followed over whether the White House was "considering" geoengineering or not. 
In the aftermath, federal scientists rarely broached the topic publically, 
though influential institutions like the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, 
the U.S. National Academies and the House science committee subsequently called 
for government-funded geoengineering research.

The agencies haven't answered the call, as Science reported in 2015:

In recent years, scientists-often working on their own time-have published 
hundreds of theoretical or modeling papers on sun-blocking or carbon removal. 
But they've encountered numerous road blocks at funding agencies. When Douglas 
MacMartin of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena approached the 
National Science Foundation for support on a modeling effort on [albedo 
modification], officials told him the work was too theoretical for the 
engineering division and too applied for the atmospheric science program. At 
DOE, Columbia University physicist Peter Eisenberger's proposed demonstration 
of a carbon sucking machine fared poorly since the department's carbon-capture 
program focuses on coal, he says.

Of the two main geoengineering approaches - altering the albedo, or 
reflectivity, of the Earth, and removing carbon from the atmosphere -- there 
have been more actual experiments involving carbon removal, including 
work
 at several companies. A federal report released in November laid 
out
 a strategy for the US to "deeply decarbonize" its economy by 2050, and said 
that developing CO2 removal techniques "may be necessary in the long run to 
constrain global average temperature increases to well below 2°C."

Excuse for inaction?

Some observers quietly worry that, under Trump, a new focus on climate 
engineering could become part of a justification for delaying government action 
to curb carbon emissions, with the reasoning that geoengineering technologies 
could later be used to remove carbon from the atmosphere, or prevent the 
warming effects of solar radiation.

Some types of deliberative climate intervention may someday be one of a 
portfolio of tools used in managing climate change.
USGCRP report

International relations professor Simon Nicholson, who co-runs the Forum for 
Climate Engineering Assessment at American University in Washington, D.C., says 
that the new call for federal geoengineering research, in the last days of the 
Obama administration, is "ironic and extraordinarily sad." N