ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
Diana Bronson
See news release below from the ETC Group at the CBD negotiations in Nagoya and watch the press conference of ETC Group explaining the moratorium.
News Release
29 October 2010
www.etcgroup.org
Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan
Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked
NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. “Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group.
The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as the socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental regulatory measures.
The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.
“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney. “This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.”
Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat that deployment - or even field testing – of geoengineering technologies poses to the protection of biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and difficult late night sessions of a “Friends of the chair” group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly delicate compromise.” All that remains to do now is gavel it through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).
“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”
In Nagoya, Japan
Pat Mooney: moo...@etcgroup.org (Mobile +1-613-240-0045)
Silvia Ribeiro: sil...@etcgroup.org (Mobile (local): + 81 90 5036 4659)
Neth Dano: ne...@etcgroup.org (Mobile: + 63-917-532-9369)
In Montreal, Canada:
Diana Bronson: di...@etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236)
Jim Thomas: j...@etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-516-5759)
Note to Editors:
The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied below:
Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, sustainably use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to climate‑change mitigation and adaptation:
....
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities[1] 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;
[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere.
AND
9 9. Requests the Executive Secretary to:
….
(o) Compile and synthesize available scientific information, and views and experiences of indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders, on the possible impacts of geo‑engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and options on definitions and understandings of climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity and make it available for consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties;
(p) Taking into account the possible need for science based global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms, subject to the availability of financial resources, undertake a study on gaps in such existing mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mind that such mechanisms may not be best placed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties and to communicate the results to relevant organizations;
Under New and Emerging Issues UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.2 :
4. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to submit information on synthetic biology and geo-engineering, for the consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, in accordance with the procedures of decision IX/29, while applying the precautionary approach to the field release of synthetic life, cell or genome into the environment;
Under Marine and Coastal Biodiversity UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.42
13 Reaffirming that the programme of work still corresponds to the global priorities, has been further strengthened through decisions VIII/21, VIII/22, VIII/24, and IX/20, but is not fully implemented, and therefore encourages Parties to continue to implement these programme elements, and endorses the following guidance, where applicable and in accordance with national capacity and circumstances, for enhanced implementation:
(e) Ensuring that no ocean fertilization takes place unless in accordance with decision IX/16 C and taking note of the report (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7) and development noted para 57 – 62;
Impacts of ocean fertilization on marine and coastal biodiversity
57. Welcomes the report on compilation and synthesis of available scientific information on potential impacts of direct human-induced ocean fertilization on marine biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7), which was prepared in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Maritime Organization in pursuance of paragraph 3 of decision IX/20;
58. Recalling the important decision IX/16 C on ocean fertilization, reaffirming the precautionary approach, recognizes that given the scientific uncertainty that exists, significant concern surrounds the potential intended and unintended impacts of large-scale ocean fertilization on marine ecosystem structure and function, including the sensitivity of species and habitats and the physiological changes induced by micro-nutrient and macro-nutrient additions to surface waters as well as the possibility of persistent alteration of an ecosystem, and requests Parties to implement decision IX/16 C;
59. Notes that the governing bodies under the London Convention and Protocol adopted in 2008 resolution LC-LP.1 (2008) on the regulation of ocean fertilization, in which Contracting Parties declared, inter alia, that given the present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed;
60. Recognizes the work under way within the context of the London Convention and London Protocol to contribute to the development of a regulatory mechanism referred to in decision IX/16 C, and invites Parties and other Governments to act in accordance with the Resolution LC-LP.2(2010) of the London Convention and Protocol ;
61. Notes that in order to provide reliable predictions on the potential adverse impacts on marine biodiversity of activities involving ocean fertilization, further work to enhance our knowledge and modelling of ocean biogeochemical processes is required, in accordance with decision IX/16 (c) and taking into account decision IX/20 and LC-LP.2 (2010);
62. Notes also that there is a pressing need for research to advance our understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics and the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle;
Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering is a new publication by ETC Group that provides an overview of the issues involved.
Ken Caldeira
The CBD has provided a consistent definition of geoengineering. The language is
My understanding is that this was discussed in Nagoya, but it was felt that large-scale reforestation would fall under the exception when
----
Beyond the spin-doctoring efforts of ETC, the underlying principles behind the adopted language -- that we want to protect biodiversity, diminish environmental risk, and develop appropriate safeguards governing experiments that could potentially have significant adverse impact on biodiversity -- are exemplary.
The main problem is that the adopted language is a bit sloppy. For example, there is the phrase "may affect biodiversity", but of course everything affects everything so one could say that anything and everything may affect biodiversity (even silly press releases from ETC). However, if this phrase is understood to mean "may significantly and adversely affect biodiversity", then we are close to being on the same page.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Josh Horton
press release. The reality is that the CBD, a well-meaning but
relatively insignificant agreement, is preparing to adopt a
conditional moratorium filled with qualifications and exceptions.
This conditional moratorium will apply to a narrow field of activities
in ways that are hardly clear, and its international legal status is
unsettled (to put it charitably). News release aside, this does not
add up to a UN ban on geoengineering.
I think it's fair to view this as a normative win for ETC Group and
its allies, but not much else.
Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/
On Oct 29, 1:29 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:
>
> language is
>
> *any technologies that deliberately** reduce solar insolation or **increase
> it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) **should
> be considered as forms of geo-engineering*
>
> Since large-scale reforestation would *deliberately increase carbon
> sequestration on a large scale and affect biodiversity*, large-scale
> definition.
>
> My understanding is that this was discussed in Nagoya, but it was felt that
> large-scale reforestation would fall under the exception when
>
>
> Thus, it appears to me that* for the first time in history, a recognized
> found it acceptable for deployment.
>
> Beyond the spin-doctoring efforts of ETC, the underlying principles behind
> the adopted language -- that we want to protect biodiversity, diminish
> environmental risk, and develop appropriate safeguards governing experiments
> that could potentially have significant adverse impact on biodiversity --
> are exemplary.
>
> The main problem is that the adopted language is a bit sloppy. For example,
> there is the phrase "may affect biodiversity", but of course everything
> biodiversity* (even silly press releases from ETC). However, if this phrase
> is understood to mean "*may significantly and adversely affect biodiversity*",
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Diana Bronson <di...@etcgroup.org> wrote:
>
> > See news release below from the ETC Group at the CBD negotiations in Nagoya
>
> > News Release
> > 29 October 2010
> >www.etcgroup.org
>
> > Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked*
>
> > NAGOYA, Japan - In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN
> > meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and
> > experiments. "Any private or public experimentation or adventurism
> > intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this
> > carefully crafted UN consensus," stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American
> > Director of ETC Group.
>
> > The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week
> > meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure
> > that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the
> > environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic
> > impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as the
> > socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report
> > back on various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental
> > regulatory measures.
>
> > The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on
> > ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the
> > nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range
> > of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via
> > large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space
> > that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.
>
> > "This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the
> > United Nations where it belongs," said ETC Group Executive Director Pat
> > Mooney. "This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution.
> > It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on
> > geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small
> > group of countries that establish self-serving 'voluntary guidelines' on
> > climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had in some
> > policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision. The
> > UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation
> > Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world's governments
> > have collectively decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should
> > take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where
> > civil society can watch and influence what they are doing."
>
> > Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat that
> > difficult late night sessions of a "Friends of the chair" group, attended by
> > ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010.
> > The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final
> > text "a highly delicate compromise." All that remains to do now is gavel it
> > through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).
>
> > "The decision is not perfect," said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines.
> > "Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition
> > of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture
> > and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample
> > opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate
> > techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important
> > debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of
> > course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward."
>
> > In Nagoya, Japan
> > Pat Mooney: moo...@etcgroup.org (Mobile +1-613-240-0045)
> > Silvia Ribeiro: sil...@etcgroup.org (Mobile (local): + 81 90 5036 4659)
> > In Montreal, Canada:
> > Diana Bronson: di...@etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236)
> > Jim Thomas: j...@etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-516-5759)
>
> > Note to Editors:
>
> > The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied
> > below:
>
> > Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
>
> > 8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national
> > circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and
> > processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, sustainably
> > use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to
> > experiences of indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders, on
> > definitions and understandings of climate-related geo-engineering relevant
> > to the Convention on Biological Diversity and make it available for
> > consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
> > and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of
> > the Parties;
> > (p) Taking into account the possible need for science based global,
> > transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms,
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Wigley
Wording IS important, and your wording ...
"may significantly and adversely affect biodiversity"
would make a substantive and "significant" difference.
Proving a (statistically) significant effect, before the fact, would
be tricky. Choosing the significance level is also a challenge. There
are important scientific issues here that (as far as I can see) have
yet to be addressed.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Caldeira wrote:
> Of course, ETC's claim of a "de facto moratorium" is misleading, at best.
>
> The CBD has provided a consistent definition of /geoengineering/. The
> language is
>
> *any technologies that deliberately*/ reduce solar insolation or*
> */*increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale
> that may affect biodiversity*/ (excluding carbon capture and storage
> from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released
> into the atmosphere) /*should be considered as forms of geo-engineering*
>
> Since large-scale reforestation would /deliberately increase carbon
> sequestration on a large scale and affect biodiversity/, large-scale
> reforestation would be considered a form of geo-engineering under this
> definition.
>
> My understanding is that this was discussed in Nagoya, but it was felt
> that large-scale reforestation would fall under the exception when
>
> / 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/
>
> Thus, it appears to me that* for the first time in history, a recognized
> international body (the CBD) has considered a form of geoengineering and
> found it acceptable for deployment.
> *
> ----
>
> Beyond the spin-doctoring efforts of ETC, the underlying principles
> behind the adopted language -- that we want to protect biodiversity,
> diminish environmental risk, and develop appropriate safeguards
> governing experiments that could potentially have significant adverse
> impact on biodiversity -- are exemplary.
>
> The main problem is that the adopted language is a bit sloppy. For
> example, there is the phrase "may affect biodiversity", but of course
> everything affects everything so one could say that anything and
> everything /may affect biodiversity/ (even silly press releases from
> ETC). However, if this phrase is understood to mean "/may significantly
> and adversely affect biodiversity/", then we are close to being on the
> same page.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> <mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Diana Bronson <di...@etcgroup.org
> <mailto:di...@etcgroup.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> See news release below from the ETC Group at the CBD negotiations in
> Nagoya and watch the press conference
> <http://webcast.cop10.go.jp/index.asp> of ETC Group explaining the
> moratorium.
>
> News Release
> 29 October 2010
> www.etcgroup.org <http://www.etcgroup.org>
>
> *Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan
> Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked*
> Pat Mooney: moo...@etcgroup.org <mailto:moo...@etcgroup.org> (Mobile
> +1-613-240-0045)
> Silvia Ribeiro: sil...@etcgroup.org <mailto:sil...@etcgroup.org>
> (Mobile (local): + 81 90 5036 4659)
> Neth Dano: ne...@etcgroup.org <mailto:ne...@etcgroup.org> (Mobile: +
> 63-917-532-9369)
>
> In Montreal, Canada:
> Diana Bronson: di...@etcgroup.org <mailto:di...@etcgroup.org>
> (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236)
> Jim Thomas: j...@etcgroup.org <mailto:j...@etcgroup.org> (Mobile:
> +1-514-516-5759)
>
> Note to Editors:
>
> The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are
> copied below:
>
> Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
>
> 8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national
> circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and
> processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve,
> sustainably use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services
> while contributing to climate-change mitigation and adaptation:
> stakeholders, on the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques
> <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217>g is a new publication by ETC
> Group that provides an overview of the issues involved.
>
>
>
>
> Have you joined the HOME Campaign against Geoengineering
> experiments? You can do so now at www.handsoffmotherearth.org
> <http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org>
>
> Diana Bronson
> ETC Group
> skpe: dianaetc
> di...@etcgroup.org <mailto:di...@etcgroup.org>
> 1 514 273 6661
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> climatein...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> climateinterven...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:climateintervention%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
Veli Albert Kallio
- It is important to distinguish between experiments and operational geoengineering.
- It only makes sense to state that experiments must not have any impact on biodiversity under any circumstances.
- Operational geoengineering should take place similar escalating procedure as medicines are tested. If harmful effects materialise, the process is stopped and such a method disused.
- As long as there is a common sense and responsible planning the governments will not try to stop it. For example, who can argue sulphur damage for biodiversity when Norilsk steel works put 100 times more of it into air and it falls to the ground perhaps just 3 days or couple weeks later causing acidification. Sulphur and stuff will be flushed out quickly, no one can claim it has impact on biodiversity on small quantities, especially if industrial sources polluting grounds are cut off.
Let's not make a hystery out of it. In principle, what ETC has achieved is to get rules written down or some sort of framework to unregulated activity. The same way in 1940's and 1950'a and 1960's 260 nuclear explosions were detonated in the air. As radioactivity accummulated, it was then regulated to make all the tests underground. Then everything was put into massive supercomputer simulators. Geoengineering could follow similar track to be tested extensively after it is seen there is no harm to biodiversity and if it is effective.
Kr, Albert
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:22:44 -0700
> Subject: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
> From: joshuah...@gmail.com
> To: climatein...@googlegroups.com
Alvia Gaskill
biodiversity, it should be noted that volcanic eruptions injecting on the
order of 150,000 tons of S into the Overworld Stratosphere (>53,000 ft)
occur regularly, about one per year with no effects on biodiversity. As
these eruptions have been occurring for thousands of years, including the
last 10,000 when humans began impacting biodiversity through land use, it is
evident there would be no problem with such manmade experiments up to and
potentially exceeding these limits. If ETC or someone else would like to
provide proof from the scientific literature that such natural events reduce
biodiversity, then they should do so. Similar estimates on the effect on
biodiversity from enhanced OIF and artificial cloud brightening can probably
be made.
The definition also does not include the use of wave sink devices to
transfer heat from the surface of the ocean below the thermocline. There is
also no documented proof that reducing the CO2 mixing ratio in the
Troposphere would negatively impact biodiversity. In fact, the evidence
available is to the contrary. The number of species lost would decrease and
not increase. The language also appears to limit geoengineering that might
lead to increased biodiversity, in conflict with the stated purposes of the
CBD. This is what happens when leftwing human and technology hating
environmental groups are given a free hand with public policy decisions. As
the COP process itself seems endless and impotent, recommendations from an
ancillary body like the CBD are little more than noise.
In reporting on this, media have a responsibility to present the counter
arguments I have made above, rather than just parroting the ETC press
releases. Otherwise, they are little more than tabloid magpies, crying wolf
in order to be heard over the din of the Internet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Horton" <joshuah...@gmail.com>
To: "Climate Intervention" <climatein...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:22
Subject: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed
--
Alan Robock
You are completely misinformed about volcanic eruptions. There are no
such eruptions that you claim. If there are, please name the last 10
that occurred in the past decade. Please do not invent "facts."
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
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
Alan Robock
Please see below.
Alan Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 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
From this fascinating paper that also addresses, not intentionally, some of the concerns about impacts on aviation from man-made sulfate aerosols.This is a misinterpretation of the Volcanic Explosivity Index. The paper presents no evidence of such eruptions.
http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/publications/Carn_Krueger_Krotkov_NaturalHazards2008.pdf
1. The number per year is actually more than I stated, although the S quantity is not mentioned:
"Volcanic plumes generated by intermediate-scale eruptions have the
potential to reach altitudes up to 25 km (Newhall and Self 1982), well within the stratosphere
at all latitudes, and may occur several times a year, compared to roughly once per
decade for events of VEI 5 or above (Simkin and Siebert 1994)."
If you look at my Rev. Geophys. article, Robock (2000), http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ROG2000.pdf ,
you will see the following quote:
A careful reading of Newhall and Self [1982], however, will find
the following quotes: “We have restricted ourselves to
consideration of volcanological data (no atmospheric
data) ...” (p. 1234) and “Since the abundance of sulfate
aerosol is important in climate problems, VEI’s must be
combined with a compositional factor before use in such
studies” (pp. 1234–1235). In their Table 1, Newhall and
Self list criteria for estimating the VEI in “decreasing
order of reliability,” and the very last criterion out of 11
is “stratospheric injection.” For VEI of 3, stratospheric
injection is listed as “possible,” for 4 it is “definite,” and
for 5 and larger it is “significant.” If one attempts to
work backward and use a geologically determined VEI
to give a measure of stratospheric injection, serious
errors can result. Not only is stratospheric injection the
least reliable criterion for assigning a VEI, but it was
never intended as a description of the eruption which
had a VEI assigned from more reliable evidence.
If you examine this website, there is no evidence that all this sulfur went into the stratosphere. Since almost all the SO2 mass disappeared in just 2 days, that points to a tropospheric dissipation rate. And I know of no evidence that this created a stratospheric aerosol cloud. It is a cloud that would produce cooling.
2. Here are 3 such eruptions over just a 2 year period.
Manam, Papua New Guinea, January 2005, 21-24Km, 118,000 tonnes S (http://www.bom.gov.au/info/vaac/manam05.shtml)
I'm not sure where the evidence for these comes from.
Soufriere Hills, Montserrat, May 2006, 20Km, 100,000 tonnes S
Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, October 2006, 18Km, 115,000 tonnes S
3. Regarding the 150,000 tonnes figure, I said "on the order." The annual total is closer to 500,000 to 1,500,000 tonnes. For those who forgot or never knew in the first place, 1 Tg = 1 million metric tonnes. Any kind of human generated field experiment approaching these levels would have to be done over a period of months to years, not requiring pulses on the order of hundreds of thousands of tons over a few days as is the case with volcanoes.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/4657/2007/acpd-7-4657-2007.html
Actually this paper says, "Approximately, 0.1±0.01 Tg(S) was injected into the stratosphere in the form of SO2: the largest single sulfur input to the stratosphere in 2006." [from Soufriere Hills} So how could all these other eruptions also have provided sulfur input in 2006?
On
average, volcanoes are believed to inject 0.5-1.5 Tg(S) per
year into the stratosphere (Halmer et al., 2002); with a large
portion of this due to fewer than 2-3 events each year, but
this is highly variable.
Halmer, M. M., Schmincke, H.-U., and Graf, H.-F.: The annual volcanic
gas input into the atmosphere, in particular into the stratosphere:
a global data set for the past 100 years, J. Volcanol.
Geoth. Res., 115, 511-528, 2002.
Thanks for pointing out this paper, but it also misinterprets the VEI index to significantly overestimate stratospheric sulfur injection
Thus, my conclusion is valid that field tests up to 150,000 tonnes of S per year would not exceed the arbitrary biodiversity impacts limits set by ETC and the CBD. I don't know how you missed this, since this work was also discussed in your own paper I have linked from your wesbsite: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf
This paper only lists a few stratospheric eruptions in the past century. You can average and get an annual input rate.
Whether two wrongs make a right is an ethical question that needs discussion. Just because nature every once in a while produces volcanic eruptions does not mean that it is OK for humans to add to stratospheric aerosols.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
To: <agas...@nc.rr.com>
Cc: <joshuah...@gmail.com>; "Climate Intervention" <climatein...@googlegroups.com>; <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:31
Subject: Re: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
Alvia Gaskill
the concerns about impacts on aviation from man-made sulfate aerosols.
http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/publications/Carn_Krueger_Krotkov_NaturalHazards2008.pdf
1. The number per year is actually more than I stated, although the S
quantity is not mentioned:
"Volcanic plumes generated by intermediate-scale eruptions have the
potential to reach altitudes up to 25 km (Newhall and Self 1982), well
within the stratosphere
at all latitudes, and may occur several times a year, compared to roughly
once per
decade for events of VEI 5 or above (Simkin and Siebert 1994)."
2. Here are 3 such eruptions over just a 2 year period.
Manam, Papua New Guinea, January 2005, 21-24Km, 118,000 tonnes S
(http://www.bom.gov.au/info/vaac/manam05.shtml)
Soufriere Hills, Montserrat, May 2006, 20Km, 100,000 tonnes S
Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, October 2006, 18Km, 115,000 tonnes S
3. Regarding the 150,000 tonnes figure, I said "on the order." The annual
total is closer to 500,000 to 1,500,000 tonnes. For those who forgot or
never knew in the first place, 1 Tg = 1 million metric tonnes. Any kind of
human generated field experiment approaching these levels would have to be
done over a period of months to years, not requiring pulses on the order of
hundreds of thousands of tons over a few days as is the case with volcanoes.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/4657/2007/acpd-7-4657-2007.html
On
average, volcanoes are believed to inject 0.5-1.5 Tg(S) per
year into the stratosphere (Halmer et al., 2002); with a large
portion of this due to fewer than 2-3 events each year, but
this is highly variable.
Halmer, M. M., Schmincke, H.-U., and Graf, H.-F.: The annual volcanic
gas input into the atmosphere, in particular into the stratosphere:
a global data set for the past 100 years, J. Volcanol.
Geoth. Res., 115, 511-528, 2002.
Thus, my conclusion is valid that field tests up to 150,000 tonnes of S per
year would not exceed the arbitrary biodiversity impacts limits set by ETC
and the CBD. I don't know how you missed this, since this work was also
discussed in your own paper I have linked from your wesbsite:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
To: <agas...@nc.rr.com>
Cc: <joshuah...@gmail.com>; "Climate Intervention"
<climatein...@googlegroups.com>; <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:31