CLIMATE ENGINEERING: Environmental groups want a U.N. conference on biodiversity in Japan to ban geoengineering as way to mitigate climate change
Image: Image courtesy rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org
Delegates from 193 nations are meeting in Nagoya, Japan, this week. On their agenda is a proposal for a moratorium on field experiments in potential geoengineering solutions for global warming.
It is a continuation of a controversial debate among the group, usually focused on discussions of ensuring the survival of endangered species and the loss of key habitats. They are parties to the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity.
A draft agenda for the meeting, dated Oct. 1, includes a proposal that "no climate-related geoengineering activities take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks."
It's not clear that the broadly worded prohibition will meet with approval from delegates, but it isn't the first time the Convention on Biodiversity waded into the emerging field.
Two years ago in Bonn, Germany, nations that participate in the convention backed a ban on one geoengineering technique -- seeding the ocean with tiny particles of iron to encourage the growth of algae that consume carbon dioxide.
Environmental groups were able to use the ban to persuade the German government to temporarily halt one large-scale field test of ocean iron fertilization -- known as LOHAFEX -- in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica.
The Canada-based ETC Group is among those pushing for the new ban over concerns that field tests or implementation of geoengineered climate fixes will disproportionately harm developing nations and dilute support for an international effort to cut the world's greenhouse gas output, said program manager Diana Bronson.
A Plan B for the planet?
"In 2008, this really was seen by everybody as a nutcase sci-fi thing and now, regrettably, people are starting to take it a lot more seriously," she said.
Major scientific organizations -- including the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the U.K. Royal Society -- have issued cautious calls for more research, though warning that geoengineering approaches shouldn't supplant efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Many experts who support geoengineering research say it should be considered a planetary "Plan B," an option to exercise if cutting greenhouse gas emissions can't stave off severe climate change effects.
Policymakers are starting to take notice, judging by a number of reports on geoengineering that are nearing completion.
The House Science and Technology Committee is "hopeful" it will release a report co-authored with the science committee in the U.K. House of Commons by the end of the month, said a spokeswoman for Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.).
"Geoengineering is controversial and something I hope will never take place, but it's irresponsible to at least not start looking into areas of potential research," Gordon said at a congressional hearing he convened earlier this year. "Any implementation would be decades out, but you have to start somewhere."
The Government Accountability Office is also preparing a geoengineering report, as is a task force created by the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. That group aims to release its report early next year, said NCEP's research manager, Sasha Mackler.
The commission will weigh in with recommendations for a federal geoengineering research program and principles for governing the emerging technology at a time when geoengineering's profile is rising rapidly.
"There is now a sort of a policy vacuum in the climate space because of what we've seen happen over the course of this Congress," Mackler said, referring to Democrats' failed effort to pass a climate bill. "There's an appetite for fresh ideas. Geoengineering is very unknown in policy circles, really, and that's almost a dangerous position to be in for an issue like this ... it can be picked up and politicized very easily."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentWe're already dying; why not try a few experimental ideas and see what happens, at least to the extent that we're able to determine. After all, you never can tell...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny experiments should run long enough to reveal any unexpected consequences. They should be geographically self-limiting, perhaps in one of the oceanic junk collecting areas that doesn't experience mixing from global currents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put: therein lies the problem...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some simple geoengineering solutions for global warming:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Stop building new fossil fuel power plants; when existing plants retire, replace them with renewable or nuclear
2) Reduce production of internal combustion engine cars by 1% every year; gradually increase production of electric cars to fill the shortage
3) Stop destroying our forests; do massive reforestation, plant trees!
4) Paint all houses, buildings and infrastructure white; use white cement for top coating of roads; white color reflects all the visible wavelengths of light, it reflects 7x more radiant energy than black color
Dr. Strangelove, you have the right idea on how to control global warming and even reverse it. Your idea needs to be taken further...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop producing fossil fuel vehicles and start mass producing electric vehicles only; stop building all fossil fuel power plants and shut down the ones we have in operation now. Start mass building clean energy power plants that is the most economical, cleanest for the environment, safest, and produces the most power for the dollar, ie., Geothermal for inland and Wave for coastal. Start mass planting that band of pines that goes half way around the world that scrubs more CO1 out of the air than any other tree or plant and mass plant hardwood trees that produce food for the animals and people. Pass laws where these trees and plants can not be harvested for profit but can be thinned for health and functioning for the plants -- no clear or mange cutting.
The only way we can stop and reverse global warming is to force, by law, these advanced countries to take the first step in cleaning up their environment and then help countries that cannot afford to clean up theirs to global standards. At this time in our history, America should be producing 'zero' pollution and 'zero' destruction to the land and environment.
Geoengineering will put a force that can and would become a very destructive tool in the wrong hands. Since there are very foul and sick thinking people who could care less for the environment or the people and animals on this planet, you must keep destructive toys and ideas away from them.
I like your forestry ideas. The total fossil fuel ban is ideal but not realistic. Fossil fuels account for 86% of the world's energy consumption today. If we ban fossil fuels next year, we can't put up the replacement capacity in one year. The world economy will grind to a halt. A gradual phase out over 10-20 yr. period is more realistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven a 20-yr. phase out period will need a lot of political will as the big oil companies and big car manufacturers will surely oppose it.
Where were these environmental groups when they proposed ultra-deep oil drilling? If the Gulf of Mexico can recover from the Deepwater Horizon disaster (??) then a small portion of the ocean can surely recover from an iron fertilization experiment. Such hypocrisy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this