(geo] UNEA6 fails to adopt SRM resolution
H simmens
A missed opportunity at UNEA-6
The UN Environment Assembly, the governing body of the UN’s Environment Programme (#UNEP), is currently having its 6th session #unea6 in Nairobi.
Yesterday, it failed to approve a draft resolution on solar radiation modification (#SRM). The original draft called for a way to collect what is known about such techniques; creating an international repository; and have experts review that information. After a few days of negotiations, it ended up only asking that UNEP prepare options for a transparent, publicly available registry of information on who-is-doing-what on SRM.
Yesterday, in the last minute, even that reduced draft resolution did not get acceptance. This was a missed opportunity, one that will have negative impacts for the coming years – whether one is against or for SRM.
First, at a time when the world is heading into an increasingly likely, and potentially long period of temperature overshoot, and when different state and non-state actors are engaged in a range of SRM activities without the appropriate regulatory oversight, and often with no transparency, having impartial information from a trusted source on what is happening would have been very much needed.
Second, having such information available would have been an important input into discussions that governments as well as non-state actors really must have to enable them to make evidence-based decisions sooner or later whether to reject SRM, or accept SRM as part of the necessary response strategies to a prolonged overshoot situation.
Third, if UNEA /UNEP – the principal UN institution that is supposed to bring to the attention of governments emerging issues that have impacts on the environment - cannot get a mandate from governments to do this on emerging techniques like SRM, then this actually makes it more difficult for UNEA/UNEP to fulfil its fundamental mandate and thereby it weakens this key multilateral institution – at a time when in fact it needs to be strengthened.
Fourth, addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique, as some claim. It is simply about creating the evidence-base for governments to eventually make decisions on whether or not to make use of SRM to complement the priority emission reductions they must do, and to assess the risk sand other implications of making use of SRM versus not doing so. We know from inter alia the IPCC that there is a governance gap around SRM, in that whatever governance is there, it is neither robust nor comprehensive. The information that would have come from the proposed registry would have perhaps helped to better understand that gap. Putting one’s head in the sand and assuming that this issue does not exist is no way to deal with planetary resilience.
The international community has failed yesterday on this issue. It was a missed opportunity. I hope one way or another in UNEA/UNEP or elsewhere this issue can be revisited – and soon.Janos
☞ My latest [and last article authored as C2G Executive Director] on “SRM Governance in the Context of Temperature Overshoot”.
☞ ☞ You may also wish to listen to the Challenging Climate podcast’s 43rd episode with me, focussing on C2G’s work over the last 7 years.
=============================
Sent from my iPhone--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/79CAC03D-7006-47FE-A8E4-3463FB347076%40pasztor.net.
daleanne bourjaily
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
Clive Elsworth
Dale Anne
So, SRM Watch ignored our Marine Cloud Brightening proposals?
Clive
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CANhw0zwsh%3DbTZPRHgAoq5pFxRtFxZvf3k8TkqyFiD32V%3DceaDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Thanks Herb for bringing these issues to attention. This failure at UNEA6 gives cause for pause to reflect on the strategic context. I agree with Pasztor’s analysis, except for his comment that “addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique.” This comment reflects the tactical decision of C2G and similar groups like the Overshoot Commission to adopt a lukewarm position of confusion and equivocation that fails to advocate the need for higher albedo. As a result, there is no effective lobby to counter the strident bullying disinformation from the opposition. It is essential to normalise conversation about geoengineering, since the attitude that treats it as bizarre can easily dismiss all discussion of albedo without analysis or debate. This is why the opponents are so intent on preventing normalisation, since any step toward engagement could lead their brittle ideology to collapse.
One voice of support in this UNEP debate is the Degrees Initiative - https://www.degrees.ngo/the-degrees-initiative-statement-on-draft-srm-resolution/ - calling for voices from the global south to be heard in support of SRM research, but without any clear statement of the problem.
Obviously no advocates of a brighter world had the organisation or funding to engage at UNEA6. However, those who accept darkening present a range of spurious arguments.
https://www.oceancare.org/en/stories_and_news/protecting-marine-ecosystems-and-geoengineering-pandoras-box-on-the-agenda-of-un-environment-ministers/ states, quite absurdly “Solar radiation modification technologies risk further destabilising an already deeply disturbed climate system, threatening to exacerbate uncontrolled shifts in regional climate and weather, biodiversity loss, food security, global injustice, and human rights abuses for generations to come.” This is so far from any scientific perspective that it can only be understood as a kind of rhetorical ratchet, starting from an ideological standpoint and generating imaginary claims designed purely to advance the ideology without regard to facts. This whole style of argument reflects a purely polarised groupthink perspective on the world, a division of humanity into good and evil. They wrongly see interest in geoengineering as only explicable as the conspiracy of an evil cabal whose every utterance can be automatically dismissed. This political syndrome is as irrational as the QAnon Satanic pizza shop.
Even more pointedly insane is https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Joint-Global-Statement-MGS-UNEA-6.pdf - the Joint Global Statement of Major Groups and Stakeholders for UNEA-6 presented by the Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Farmers, Local Authorities, NGO, Science and Technology, Women, and Workers and Trade Unions Major Groups based on a series of International Consultations and the 20th Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum. It includes the attached statement against geoengineering, another calculated exercise in virulent disinformation and propaganda with such heavy emotional bullying that governments could hardly go against it in the absence of well organised advocacy.
The underlying problem here of dividing the world into good and evil camps is often described as Manichaeism, from the ancient religion of Persia that imagined evil as a cosmic principle in war against goodness and light. Just as communism understood the world as a class war between the good workers and the evil bosses, so too climate activism has its own distorted theology, with the allies of indigeneity on the side of the angels in war against the evil forces of fossil fuels. This simplistic mentality rejects suggestion of integration or reconciliation or dialogue between opposing views, and instead promotes an ideology of partisan conflict, rejecting everything from the other side in order to build support for the political victory of its own tribe. Unfortunately, that approach is unscientific, and as a result generates delusional views. This is especially the case in the climate wars. One of the hallmarks of climate activism is the assertion that their views align completely with science. Maintaining this false assertion requires a refusal to engage in any conversation or allow any platform that could suggest a lack of scientific rigor and evidence within the ideology of emission reduction alone.
In challenging polarised thinking, it is essential to respect the perspectives of opponents, especially the elements of truth that they use to combine with untrue arguments. In this regard the critiques made by Indigenous cultures have a powerful message. But that does not at all imply that respect requires complete assent to their opinions. In particular, I believe the Association of Small Island States could well be convinced to reverse its reported opposition to geoengineering, which is why the critics work so assiduously to prevent these nations from hearing scientific information that would change their minds.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Further updates:
Silver Lining has provided a rather anodyne commentary on the UNEA debacle at https://www.silverlining.ngo/discussions-on-climate-intervention-research-at-un-environment-assembly asserting that the UNEA conversation was “open and productive”, and that it signalled “that research on solar radiation modification is critical to support international policy conversations.” From my distant viewpoint I had the impression the discussion was closed and destructive, but I suppose it is often worthwhile trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. I have the impression many observers did not notice the signal in the silver lining to this rather dark and stormy cloud.
In a far less positive light, a bunch of academic ideologues have written a totally delusional hatchet job at The Conversation, asserting without evidence that action to brighten the planet would be entirely harmful, and that cooling with albedo enhancement is basically impossible. Their article is pure disinformation, presenting as settled science many questions that are totally disputed and under-researched. Once again, like the so-called “Major Groups” quoted in my email below, they start from their conclusion and massage the facts to suit it. I have noticed The Conversation seems never to allow comments on its climate articles, perhaps because the academic establishment has such a strongly enforced party line.
The Conversation article asserts that “research has consistently identified potential risks” from geoengineering, with potential harm to climate and weather patterns, biodiversity loss, food security and human rights. They can only make this false claim by ignoring the research that disagrees, so their assertion of a consistent message is misinformation. My view is that measures to increase albedo, properly governed, would have immense benefits in all these areas of alleged risk, vastly dwarfing the real harms that are inevitable without brightening action. The absence of any risk-risk perspective in this article is a scandal. Perhaps the worst thing about this article is its aura of fantasy, in its assumption that net zero emissions is a realistic climate scenario. The real world is moving in entirely the opposite direction (see article attached), and major flashing lights are saying net zero by 2050 is only possible through economic collapse.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/04cb01da6b8a%247d6ec040%24784c40c0%24%40rtulip.net.
Douglas Grandt
On Feb 29, 2024, at 2:40 PM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 1, 2024, at 11:46 AM, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:
Thanks, Herb -
You will find my reaction posted on my Facebook page yesterday. (Following my signature below). As explanation:Bottom line for me from Janos’ simple summary, is our conundrum is analogous to a stalemate chat (it was quickly truncated with “wait, I believe in a young earth”) I had years ago with my integrated-circuit-design manager/electronics engineer and former Catholic reborn evangelist cousin as I naively ventured into humanity releasing hundreds-of-million-years of CO2 a million times faster than it was sequestered by photosynthesis in an azolla bloom that reduced the atmospheric concentration from ~2,000ppm to ~450ppm when ice first formed on earth.Constructive dialogue is not in the cards when “belief” and “faith” (in that case a 6,000 year old earth) distort otherwise intelligent individuals’ understanding of reality.My take of Janos is that we are now faced with an unfounded fear of a nonexistent evil concept (that conflates geoengineering, SRM and unfettered global SAI) not unlike the DEVIL.Conundrum: There will be no convincing.Rhetoric and logic based on facts is futile.Explore plausible alternative strategies.Below is my preface to Janos’ statement.Enjoy,
DougSent from my iPhone (audio texting)
Chris Vivian
Robert,
Your criticism of Janos Pasztor is unwarranted as C2G was deliberately set up NOT to advocate climate-altering techniques or interventions but to advocate the need for effective governance. If you want to criticise anyone, you should criticise The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs who set up the C2G project.
Chris.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/04cb01da6b8a%247d6ec040%24784c40c0%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Sorry Chris, your point about C2G does not make sense. You seem to imply that because C2G is constituted to make wrong arguments they are immune from criticism.
I respect Janos Pasztor, and am only criticising his argument that “addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique.”
What does this mean? The situation is that the world has an urgent need to normalize advocacy of SRM, replacing the current dangerous situation that treats all such discussion as abnormal.
Normalizing means to start to consider something as normal, as when disputing nations restore normal diplomatic relations. The current abnormal situation for SRM sees almost all advocacy frozen out of public discussion through a general agreement to cancel and non-platform the debate.
My view, which I contend is purely scientific, is that without higher albedo the world faces inevitable catastrophe. Therefore as a matter of urgence we must normalize advocacy of methods that can increase albedo. It seems quite abnormal to me, and excessively cautious, that C2G accepts language that rejects the normalization of cooling action.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/106401da6e4d%246a68a130%243f39e390%24%40btinternet.com.
Alan Kerstein
As you emphasize Robert, the basic fact that should drive all climate policy is that without higher albedo [soon] the world faces inevitable catastrophe. Is the main cause of opposition to SRM that the opponents do not know this, or do they know it and yet oppose SRM? If it’s the former, which is my guess, then advocacy of SRM, however well justified, might be a needless distraction from the main priority of convincing people that without higher albedo [soon] the world faces inevitable catastrophe. I expect that this would result in a societal tipping point that would sweep away the SRM naysayers like a tidal wave. Indeed, we’re in a race between that tipping point and climate-induced tipping points. Basically I’m endorsing Jim Hansen’s approach of focusing on the problem, from which the solution should be obvious enough to most people.
Alan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/054101da6ec3%24a759f6e0%24f60de4a0%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Alan
Thanks very much for your comment. If I can expand on it, you are pointing out that public and scientific ignorance about albedo is a primary stumbling block that is preventing broader recognition of the case for SRM. I would not agree that advocacy for SRM is a distraction, but take your point that SRM has to be presented within a simple rebrightening context.
You are correct about this strategic messaging problem. Most people have not even heard the word albedo, and need to have it explained to them when it comes up. Public opinion works by simple mass mythology, such as the myth that Emissions Reduction Alone could mitigate climate change. The entrenched status of this ERA myth easily excludes all discussion of SRM among climate activists and their supporters. And on the conservative side of politics, the myth that global warming is not caused by man equally functions to block advocacy of practical solutions.
I know calling ERA a myth is provocative, and I am not at all challenging carbon science. But two key points here are that tipping points are mainly about albedo, and that the long term need to fix the carbon cycle could well be achieved more by conversion of CO2 into useful products than by emission reduction. ERA is like a one foot levee for a twenty foot flood.
Both sides of the public debate are in denial of the science. This means that if we advocate SRM when peopled don’t even know what albedo is, let alone that it is in a state of collapse, we can’t get a hearing. Simpler terms like brightness, reflection, shininess, whiteness, etc can help, as well as more technical terms like reflectivity. Our group rebrighten.org has had some discussion about how to promote such simpler strategic messaging, saying the Earth is getting darker, a message that Hansen is promoting.
It is important to challenge the negative line of the anti-cooling activists that SRM is about dimming the Sun. The more accurate and positive message is that SRM will rebrighten the Earth.
I have been arguing for some time that albedo is a more tractable lever than carbon to slow global warming. By a tractable lever, I mean both that it is more effective and that it can ultimately gain better public acceptance. On effectiveness, I was pleased to see that the 2009 Royal Society Geoengineering Review argued that to stop warming, raising albedo could be 1000 times better value for money than emission reduction. This information has been out there for a long time, but it has not been presented simply and clearly enough, let alone to a mass audience. On the problem of gaining acceptance, the key observation is that ERA is a fantasy, and if we focus on the truth we will win the public ear. The ERA ideology is about to crumble. That is why its acolytes were so aggressive at UNEA6 in preventing the simple review of SRM. When more people understand the options on cost and effectiveness there will be a rapid switch.
As you mention, Jim Hansen is doing a superb job in generating strategic clarity. He wrote to me yesterday to clarify a question I asked about his 12 January communication, Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences. In that short paper he presented this graph (without the black line that I have added) and stated
“the large increase of global absorbed solar radiation since 2015 is a decrease of Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) by 0.4% (1.4/340).”
I pointed out to him that this calculation could be done differently. The world has 340 watts per square metre (w/m2) coming in from sunlight and about 100 w/m2 going out as albedo. Mean albedo has recently fallen by 1.4 w/m2. His denominator (bottom line) of sunlight (340 w/m2) can be replaced by albedo (100 w/m2). That would mean the fall in mean reflectivity is calculated at 1.4% (1.4/100) rather than 0.4% (1.4/340). This is a better way to present the data. His numerator (top line) of 1.4 w/m2 is also only a multi-year mean figure, while the latest spike is much worse.
Jim replied, saying “What's driving the climate is the 240 W/m2 of absorbed solar radiation. So you could argue that the most relevant change is 1.4/240. I don't think that it really matters, as long as you are clear. The most informative comparison is probably to the equivalent CO2 change, which is of the order of 100 ppm.”
I don’t understand his point here about the most informative comparison being to CO2, but welcome his recognition that both measures are acceptable. How I see it is that we should aim to present this data accurately in the ways that will provoke most discussion and interest and concern. Highlighting the collapse in albedo can help people to explore how albedo is a more serious climate problem in the short term than carbon, in view of the need to reverse the accelerating feedbacks.
I would say the most informative comparison is between current and past albedo, falling from about 100 to 98 w/m2 in the last few years. That conveniently equates albedo w/m2 to %, due to the coincidence that albedo was about 100 w/m2. Using the red mean line in Jim’s Figure 4 above, on this measure albedo has collapsed by 1.4% over the last decade. I believe it would be reasonable to argue that the collapse of albedo since 2013 is 2%, based on the black line I added to highlight the recent trendline.
There is a case to also note outliers that would make this figure even higher, as high as 3% since 2021. This could be a reasonable number to use given the obvious acceleration and the absence of mitigation. Leon Simons highlighted the extreme recent albedo collapse in a recent tweet.
Jim Hansen also wrote in this paper “This reduced albedo is equivalent to a sudden increase of atmospheric CO2 from 420 to 530 ppm.” That calculation is extremely important in developing a fungible metric for cooling effects, to help justify a possible system of radiative forcing credits.
Getting a proper understanding of the role of clouds and ice and aerosols in albedo collapse still seems to be a work in progress.
I am trying to simplify complex scientific information and have only a general grasp of the issues, so welcome challenge and correction where needed.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAH-gPYE7S-agKBA8QpmbndsaxhRmX8HZwvY3d7QahEA8xS1MvA%40mail.gmail.com.
John Nissen
This is the opposition SRM briefing for UNEA6 delegates, per Geoengineering Monitor.SuzanneAs the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) kicks off in Nairobi, Kenya, the Hands Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance and allies have published a new briefing for delegates on what is set to be a hotly-debated topic at the Assembly: Geoengineering the climate through Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).The science is clear: we can still prevent irreversible harm to the climate, ecosystems, and human rights, and the only way to do so is reducing GHGs and a rapid, funded and equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels.
Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) describes an array of geoengineering techniques designed to partially block sunlight to mask the heating effect of greenhouse gasses. It does nothing to tackle the root causes of climate change, is inherently unpredictable and risks further destabilizing an already destabilized climate system with more and new extremes. It is neither insurance to ‘buy time’ nor any form of supplement to mitigation. Solar geoengineering is a recipe for disaster that delays climate action and real solutions, and puts our communities and ecosystems at unacceptable risk.
Widely discussed SRM techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) carry the further risk of ‘termination shock’ – the sudden spiraling of global temperatures if such injections were, for whatever reason, ever stopped. For SAI this means injections of chemicals into the stratosphere would need to be continued for several decades if not centuries, in effect requiring policy continuity spanning numerous generations – something that is virtually impossible to assure. In addition to severe environmental, social and political risks – which include serious threats to biodiversity and food security – SRM itself poses a clear ‘moral hazard’, risking delays to meaningful climate action that must occur in the near term.
The UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee has warned that geoengineering technologies “could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people”. It has also pointed out the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk and others living in rural areas. These same groups have been vocal in rejecting geoengineering as a dangerous distraction that would violate their rights.
By their very nature, SRM technologies cannot be tested effectively for their impact on the global climate other than through large-scale scale deployment. Small experiments cannot demonstrate whether and how the technique really affects complex climate systems. Because of the time frame and complexity they demand there is no precedent in human history to give comfort that deployment of these technologies could ever be effectively governed. The risk of unilateral deployment and weaponization is real: private actors are financing research and a company has already carried out solar geoengineering experiments for profit.
For all these reasons, SRM, along with other forms of geoengineering, has been under a de facto moratorium through the Convention on Biological Diversity since 2010, and marine geoengineering techniques are the subject of a drive for increased regulation under the London Convention / London Protocol (LC/LP), where the first geoengineering ban – on ocean fertilization – arose. Hundreds of leading scientists from multi-disciplinary backgrounds and civil society movements are in agreement on the need for states to go further and commit to Non-Use of Solar Radiation Modification.
Given the extensive, often peer-reviewed work already undertaken by experts from diverse scientific backgrounds that have informed UN decisions to date, and the nature of those findings and their scientific conclusions, we question the outcomes that would arise from establishing an expert group as per the proposal in the resolution put forward to UNEA6 by Switzerland, Monaco, Guinea, and co-sponsored by Georgia and Israel. Discussion of SRM in the manner proposed by the resolution could inadvertently undermine decisions of the CBD and LC/LP, and risks legitimizing SRM technology, while giving cover to large emitters to slow-walk the phase-out of fossil fuels.
The broad range of diverse risks that solar geoengineering entails cannot be narrowed only to environmental dimensions, which is the remit of UNEP. We also note with concern that the UNEP-sponsored ‘One Atmosphere’ report has not been peer-reviewed, does not follow IPCC standards and has not in fact been endorsed by UNEP. It controversially recommends increasing research and open-air experiments, which would only help further the development of solar geoengineering.
States at UNEA6 should focus on firmly recalling and strengthening existing decisions under the CBD and LP/LC, upholding the precautionary principle, and rights of Free Prior Informed Consent, access to information, public participation, and access to justice and remedy. In doing so, States are expected to comply with long-standing norms of international environmental law such as the obligations not to cause transboundary environmental harm and to ensure the harmless use of their territory.
Furthermore, States should acknowledge the risks posed by these most dystopian technologies by stepping up and committing to the Non-Use of Solar Geoengineering. The decision of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment calling for a global SRM Non-Use governance mechanism shows important leadership as does the European Parliament’s explicit call to “initiate a non-use agreement at international level, in accordance with the precautionary principle and in the absence of evidence of its safety and a full global consensus on its acceptability.” The further debate of disruptive planetary technofixes is truly a dangerous distraction from the real and urgent task of tackling the root causes of the climate crisis.
Recommendations for action at UNEA 6
- Do not endorse the creation of an expert group;
- Encourage States to endorse the call for the establishment of a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement;
- Reaffirm a strong precautionary principle approach in relation to solar geoengineering;
- Ensure meaningful consultation, and that Free Prior and Informed Consent is obtained in relation to the undertaking of any projects that affect Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources;
- Ensure access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice and other remedies to the conduct of activities, including experiments, research and decision-making on solar geoengineering, as per the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and Escazu Agreement.
- Reaffirm CBD and LC/LP decisions and emphasize the need to prevent open-air solar geoengineering experiments;
- Call on CBD to ask States to implement Decision CBD X/33.8 (w) and to ask Parties to report on measures taken in accordance with this decision;
- Call on Contracting Parties to the London Convention to enable the 2013 amendment to the London Protocol as per Resolution LP.4(8) to enter into force, and uphold its provisions prior to its entering into force;
Links to resources for further information
- Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement (SGNUA)
- SGNUA Solar Geoengineering Briefing Note
- CIEL Geoengineering and Human Rights briefing
- CAN-International position on Solar Radiation Modification
- African Ministerial Conference on the Environment/19/6 Decision 19/5 Climate Change
- European Parliament Resolution 2023/2636 (RSP)
- Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the Impact of new technologies intended for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights
- Why SRM experiments are a bad idea
- Experimentation on solar geoengineering will not be allowed in Mexico
- Media briefing: Debunking Solar Geoengineering
- Media briefing: 100 countries affirm intention to regulate marine geoengineering
- Stop solar geoengineering – resistance to solar geoengineering outdoor experimentation
- CAN-I Debunking Dangerous Distractions: Solar Radiation Modification
This briefing is endorsed by:
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUBzsjoJFhCUr8%2BZwyg%3Dz9wAUsty6jJ-T6s2mO5DwLzs-w%40mail.gmail.com.