|
Welcome to our final newsletter of 2019, with a look back at the
year in geoengineering, a look forward to 2020, and some updates from
the last month.
Geoengineering in 2019: a recap
In the last year, geoengineering
proponents have been normalizing this technofix at an alarmingly rapid
pace. An emboldened geo-clique has attempted to rebrand geoengineering
as “climate restoration” or “climate repair” as part of a larger
push.
In February, we highlighted voices
from Indigenous communities critical of
geoengineering experiments
in the Arctic.
In March, an opportunity to build on the CBD
moratorium and create a
framework for assessing geoengineering technologies was put forward by
Switzerland and 11 other countries, but it was quashed by high-emitting
countries.
A film produced by Leonardo
DiCaprio – who in the past was a voice for climate justice – promoted several geoengineering
technologies as solutions
to the climate crisis. A similar change in tone occurred at the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which proposed a
bizarre Antarctic ice scheme. More recently, the Institute’s director
appeared to jump on the “climate restoration” rebranding of
geoengineering technologies.
The International Standards
Organization (ISO) advanced, in secret, a new proposed standard on radiative forcing that threatens to
create a new market for climate credits that could undermine existing
agreements. The proposed
standard was leaked in August, leading to some pushback, but the ISO –
a corporate-friendly environment largely closed to civil society – has
continued work on the standard.
Also during the summer (the hottest
on record), SCoPEx launched an advisory board aimed at legitimizing
its defiance of the moratorium against open-air testing. The HOME
campaign responded with an Open Letter calling on the committee members to step
down and stop legitimizing “a project that furthers the interests of
climate disrupting forces.”
 The geoengineering push was highly
visible at COP 25 of the UNFCCC in Madrid, where the “climate
restoration” frame was used to promote unproven technofixes, and
asking questions about carbon dioxide removal has increasingly become
a means for the promotion of questionable
technologies.
Geoengineering technologies have actually been considered in recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports as one of
the pathways out of the climate chaos, and those discussions appear
likely to continue.
Through it all, we tracked smaller
developments of a variety of geoengineering projects. carbon capture and venture capital in
May, direct air capture in July, weather modification in
August, upwelling in October, and calls for transparency in
November.
What will 2020 bring?
There is more to be said, but here
are a few things we’re tracking:
- Inclusion of geonengineering in the 6th assessment report of the
IPCC
- The risk
of certain countries sneaking geoengineering into the Post 2020
biodiversity agenda through discussions of "nature based
solutions"
- SCOPEX
has faced delays upon delays, but will they finally attempt to test
their solar geoengineering tech in 2020?
-
The Institute for Advanced
Sustainability Studies will be holding a major conference in October to advance research and policy
on geoengineering, which they are attempting to rebrand as “climate
engineering”.
Raising the stakes at COP 25 in Madrid
 Geoengineering was promoted heavily by
the usual suspects, and some new ones, at COP 25. One surprise was to
see ocean fertilization – among the most thoroughly discredited forms
of geoengineering among scientists – being promoted by the “climate restoration” proponents, with the participation
of old geo-pirates, such as rogue geoengineer Russ George, who was involved in the largest illegal
ocean fertilization experiment to date off the shores of Haida Gwaii,
the traditional territory of the Haida nation in Canada. Just days
before at COP 25, Terran, a civil society organization from Chile, had
exposed an attempt by Oceaneos, a company derived from the Haida Gwaii
initiative, to sell Ocean Fertilization as “Ocean
Seeding.”
The mobilization against
geoengineering and other false solutions was also much higher. A
packed side event critical of geoengineering was organized by
several Hands Off Mother Earth signatories, including Via Campesina,
Indigenous Environmental Network, ETC Group, HOMEF, Climate Justice
Alliance, and Grassroots Global Justice Alliance. Other events
critical of geoengineering were organized with Terran (Chile) and
Ecologistas en Acción (Spain) in the public area of the COP 25 and in
the alternative Social Summit for Climate in Madrid. In total, six
events on geoengineering were held parallel to the COP 25 by members
of the HOME Campaign.
Also on GeoengineeringMonitor.org
The coordinator of our Hands Off
Mother Earth campaign, Niki Miranda-Martinez, was featured in the Manila Times speaking against regional geonengineering
schemes like ocean fertilization and artificial upwelling.
A blog post by Gabriel Levy thoroughly examines the
arguments put forward by Holly Jean Buck for a socialist-flavoured
geoengineering.
In two new reports, our researcher
Anja Chalmin takes a
close look at artificial upwelling and proposals for polar
geoengineering proposals.
And our November geoengineering
updates look closely at new
research funding for geoengineering projects, a new carbon capture
ocean platform, and recent calls for transparency.
|
