Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 Messages in 4 Topics

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Wil Burns

unread,
May 25, 2010, 10:51:19 AM5/25/10
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
In response to Josh's comment about the UNFCCC's track record, I think that's a bit unfair. The commitments coming out of Copenhagen substantially bend the curve, and at the higher end, almost get us to the 2C guardrail. Now, we obviously have to insert the substantial caveats, i.e. the Accord is not legally binding, and the Parties may not achieve the upper end of the commitments. But, this is an iterative process, and there's still hope that the parallel AWG processes may get us where we need to be. What's the alternative? Unilateral/bilateral pursuit of geoengineering strategies could undermine trust even further and scupper efforts to cooperate to reduce emissions, which could put us in a far worse place, since, as we know, geoengineering is a band aid, not a long-term solution. And, as for other multilateral regimes, I guess I would ask which one makes sense? The London Dumping Convention doesn't make sense; it has an extremely limited membership, is perceived to be a tool of the North by many countries in the South, and doesn't address the issues I discussed in my original post, i.e. scientific expertise in this context, the coordination of geoengineering and mitigation/adaptation strategies, and possible claims for credits. The Environmental Modification Convention suffers from even more infirmities. So, what regime? You could look to UNCLOS for some of the schemes, but again, I find the UNFCCC to make more sense when one applies the salutary principles of lex specialis. wil

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:10 AM, <geoengineer...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics

    Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> May 24 09:47PM -0700 ^
     
    Folks,
     
    I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the National
    Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report has received
    almost no comment in this group or in the media.
     
    This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have weighed
    in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research into
    geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The National
    Academies call for research into solar radiation management and everyone
    treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?".
     
    (Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider:
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-report-calls-fo.html)
     
     
    I find it amazing that the US National Academies call for research into
    geoengineering options and it is met with a yawn. Have we come to the point
    where nearly everybody (except those involved in the CBD process) thinks it
    is obvious this research is necessary?
     
    I think we have reached an important new milestone. Researching solar
    radiation management has ceased to be controversial (although field testing
    and deployment no doubt continues to be so).
     
    Comments?
     
    Best,
     
    Ken
     
    PS. Here is an extract.
     
    However, the various SRM proposals and their consequences need to be
    examined, as long as such research does not replace or reduce research on
    fundamental understanding of climate change or other approaches to limiting
    climate change or adapting to its impacts. Some key SRM-related research
    needs, discussed in Chapter 15, include the following:
     
    - Improve understanding of the physical potential and technical
    feasibility of SRM and other geoengineering approaches.
     
     
    - Evaluate the potential consequences of SRM approaches on other aspects
    of the Earth system, including ecosystems on land and in the oceans.
     
     
    - Develop and evaluate systems of governance that would provide a model
    for how to decide whether, when, and how to intentionally intervene in the
    climate system.
     
     
    - Measure and evaluate public attitudes and develop approaches that
    effectively inform and engage the public in decisions regarding SRM.
     
     
     
     
     
    On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Caldeira <
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
    To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

     

    John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> May 22 03:05AM -0700 ^
     
    Hi Ken, Andrew, and everybody,
     
    I am feeling the heat!
     
    I am in Finland with Albert Kallio, and it is extraordinarily hot -
    with risk of sunburn, as sun relentlessly beats down from early in the
    morning till late at night. This is the kind of weather they expect
    in July. Albert has just pointed me to the cryosphere today web site:
     
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
     
    I think we have an emergency now. The Arctic sea ice is extremely
    thin in many places, and whole sections could melt away this summer,
    since it is only May. We could have a record minimum sea ice extent
    this year, lower even than 2007. There is no sign of a recovery.
    Perhaps even worse, there is extraordinarily little snow, on Siberia
    and other Arctic and sub-Arctic land masses, compared to the same time
    of year for previous years.
     
    If this isn't an emergency, I don't know what is. The fuse on the
    time-bomb is lit. We may have left it too late. Even the most
    drastic use of stratospheric aerosols may not be enough to prevent
    catastrophic warming of the Arctic. How much worse does it have to
    get before we act? What sense is there for further delay?
     
    John
     
    ----
     
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
    To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

     

    Josh <joshuah...@gmail.com> May 21 04:23AM -0700 ^
     
    Wil,
     
    I agree with you in principle, but as a practical matter making
    geoengineering research (let alone deployment) contingent on
    "overwhelming support" within UNFCCC is deeply problematic. The
    UNFCCC has been in existence for 20 years now, and has yet to take
    concrete steps to reduce GHG emissions by any significant amount.
    Given this record, the urgency of beginning substantive research, and
    the possibility of passing tipping points and climate emergencies,
    relying on UNFCCC is a flawed political strategy. There are other
    multilateral and bilateral structures that are more promising sites
    for international governance (though probably not CBD!).
     
    Josh
     
     
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
    To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

     

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



--
Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy
1702 Arlington Blvd.
El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA
Ph:   650.281.9126
Fax: 510.779.5361
ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org
http://www.jiwlp.com
SSRN site: http://ssrn.com/author=240348
Skype ID: Wil.Burns

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

John Gorman

unread,
May 26, 2010, 2:34:53 AM5/26/10
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, william...@gmail.com
I am afraid it is not true that "The commitments coming out of Copenhagen substantially bend the curve, and at the higher end, almost get us to the 2C guardrail. "
 
I analysed tha committments in some detail and calculated that 2020 emissions would be 20% higher than today with no peak in sight making the 2 degree limit impossible to achieve http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm
 
Subsequently Nature published a paper from the Potsdam Institute confirming my calculations, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7292/full/4641126a.html
 
Their main conclusions were

·  Global emissions in 2020 could thus be up to 20% higher than today ( I would say will be at least!)

·  Current pledges mean a greater than 50% chance that warming will exceed 3°C by 2100 ( 2070 is my estimate -on their figures)

 
 
 
The following is the text of a one pager that I did on this subject

CO2 Emissions: What the "Big" Countries Are Doing 

After Copenhagen all countries were asked to make the best commitments for emissions reductions to be achieved by 2020.(1) I have taken the current emissions for all countries compiled by the USA Environment Information Administration and used these commitments to predict the world overall emissions in 2020.  My conclusion is that emissions in 2020 will be 20% higher than now with no peak or reduction in emissions in sight.(2) 

A very small number of countries are responsible for a very high proportion of overall emissions. Here I have taken as examples just the eight countries with the highest emissions at the moment.  This should demonstrate why no overall reduction is likely in the near future.  These are in reverse alphabetical order. 

USA Reduction by 17% based on 2005 emissions.17% may not sound much but at least it is clear and based on reduction from a recent level. Canada is offering the same as the USA. 

The United Kingdom.  Reduction of 20% (same as rest of the EC. Or 30% with conditions) but based on 1990 emissions.  Since the UK already claims to have achieved a 20% reduction since 1990 (3) this isn't offering much in the next decade to 2020. 

Russia 15 to 25% reduction based on 1990. Russian emissions dropped sharply after the break up of the USSR in 1989. By 40% by 2000.(5) This reduction in comparison with 1990 should therefore be easy to achieve even with continued increase towards 2020. This promise is also conditional on the inclusion of Russian forests in the calculation. 

India  20 to 25% reduction in "Carbon Intensity".(5)  Carbon intensity means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output).  In the 10 years from 1996 to 2007 India’s GDP increased by a factor of 2.9 so, assuming a similar economic future, a reduction in carbon intensity of 25% would allow emissions to more than double between 2010 and 2020.  Since India’s emissions only increased by 60% between 1997 to 2007, this leaves room for a much greater rate of increase of emissions. 

Japan 25% reduction but once again based on 1990. However Japan does not seem to have reduced its emissions since 1990. In fact they have probably increased making this 25% difficult to achieve. 

Germany.  Reduction of 20% (same as rest of the EC.  Or 30% with conditions) but based on 1990 emissions.  Since Germany claims to have already achieved a 28.5% reduction since 1990 (4) no further reduction is being promised by 2020. 

China.  40 to 45% reduction in "Carbon Intensity".(5)  Carbon intensity means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output).  In the 10 years from 1996 to 2007 Chinese GDP increased by a factor of 3.5 so, assuming a similar economic future, a reduction in carbon intensity of 45% would allow emissions to double between 2010 and 2020 exactly as they did from 1997 to 2007 

My conclusion is that most countries are “sandbagging” or fudging the numbers in various ways. In particular the use of 1990 as a base makes percentage offers look much better in most cases or as The Norwegian friends of the Earth put it “There is currently no limit for how much of the Kyoto surplus that can be transferred to a new climate deal. This has the potential to severely weaken a new deal.” Of the eight above, only three seem to be offering anything that could be described as better than “business as usual”. (USA, Canada & Japan) 

One other example will also demonstrate a fudge likely to be used by many developing but prosperous nations. Singapore has offered to reduce emissions by 16% in comparison with Business As Usual. Singapore has defined their BAU as 5% growth in emissions per year and has offered to reduce this by 16% bringing it to 4.2% per year.  However their emissions growth over the last 10 years was 3.6% so that should be easy enough! This is possible because developing nations can define “business as usual” for themselves.

John Gorman. Chartered Engineer. Hampshire, UK April 2010 Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, UK 

(1) http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php  UN official website.

(2) www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm  My analysis of Copenhagen numbers.

(3) http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2008/080131c.htm  Publicity newsletter from UK Dept of environment.

(4) http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=b58bd48d4f3245eca32edc7c4&id=4295fbad6f&e=c902cf3aad Quoting German department of Environment

(5) http://unfccc.int/home/items/5265.php UN list of commitments by developing countries.

(6) http://naturvernforbundet.no/getfile.php/Dokumenter/rapporter/2009/Fact-Sheet-Russia.pdf  FoE Norway

(7) www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/12/03/true-or-false-singapore-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-growth-by-16-from-2020-bau-levels/

 

And a recent comrehensive letter that I wrote to our new Minister for Climate Change is at http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm  
 
Regards
john gorman

Wil Burns

unread,
May 26, 2010, 7:23:49 AM5/26/10
to John Gorman, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Dear John,

If you've read my writings over the years, you know I'm not an apologist for the UNFCCC. However, the fundamental issue that I have with Rogelj, et al. analysis, and yours, is that it doesn't look at the long range trajectory. Even that study says there's a plausible path to 2C with a halving of emissions by 2050, and that doesn't take into account the possibility of more aggressive measures to address black carbon or HCFCs.

And I reiterate what I said before, if you try to proceed outside of a framework e.g. the UNFCCC, you'll undermine efforts to effectuate reductions in emissions by the developing world, responsible for 95% of the growth of emissions over the next 30 years. So this isn't an either/or proposition, i.e. even if I accept the tenet of geoengineering intervention, the key is governance. As Ken Caldeira recently observed in his Commonwealth Club appearance, if you factor in the social and political instability that geoengineering schemes might wrought, it is by no means clear that we end up with a more "secure" world. I find the arguments of the Benedick, et al. camp dangerous; given the potential impacts of some schemes on both the global commons, and the potentially very negative impacts on individual States, a multilateral approach is both dictated by sound politics and morality. wil

Chris

unread,
Jun 7, 2010, 3:28:43 AM6/7/10
to geoengineering
With reference to Wil Burns comments on 20 and 25 May about governance
of ocean fertilisation activities, I would disagree that the UNFCCC by
itself would be the most appropriate body for governing ocean
fertilisation or other marine geoengineering activities. The key issue
that Wil does not mention in the context of ocean fertilisation
activities, is the protection of the marine environment and this is
the reason that the London Convention/Protocol (LC/LP) became involved
with the issue. It is clearly within its remit (Article I of the LC
and article 2 of the LP) and it is also clearly outside the remit of
the UNFCCC. While the LC/LP may only have 92 states party to one or
both of the instruments compared to the universal regime of the
UNFCCC, that is not “an extremely limited membership”. When you take
account of the number of land-locked states in the world – around 40 –
the LC/LP membership has more than 50% of the coastal states in the
world. The same point also applies with respect to the CBD that is in
any case not a regulatory body. While some may regard the LC/LP as a
“tool of the North”, those instruments have a significant number of
developing countries as contracting parties and some of them are very
active in meetings. In addition, there is an active programme to
encourage additional states who are not LC or LP members to sign up to
the LP as the main instrument for the future.

There are 2 separate issues that need to be addressed with respect to
governance of operational marine geoengineering activities (as opposed
to research studies) - protection of the marine environment and
regulation of climate mitigation activities. The LC/LP is the
appropriate body with the necessary expertise for the former while the
UNFCCC is clearly the appropriate body with the required expertise for
the latter. Thus, I suggest that it might be most appropriate and
efficient for the UNFCCC to co-ordinate all climate mitigation aspects
of marine geoengineering, including determining what activities are
acceptable for climate mitigation purposes, claims for credits etc
while the LC/LP regulates those activities determined as acceptable by
the UNFCCC in order to protect the marine environment from harm i.e. a
form of joint governance for ocean fertilisation or other marine
geoengineering activities. This approach is consistent with the
principles of lex specialis that Wil states in his posts.

It also needs to be made clear that the current LC/LP approach only
deals with the regulation of research activities since the non-binding
resolution agreed in 2008 agreed “that given the present state of
knowledge, ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate
scientific research should not be allowed. To this end, such other
activities should be considered as contrary to the aims of the
Convention and Protocol and not currently qualify for any exemption
from the definition of dumping in Article III.1(b) of the Convention
and Article 1.4.2 of the Protocol”. It maybe that the UNFCCC does not
need to be involved in the regulation of research activities, although
it would clearly be interested in the outcomes of any research so that
it can determine what activities are acceptable for climate mitigation
purposes.
I agree with Wil that we need to move rather swiftly to establish
appropriate governance regimes for such activities and this is what
the LC/LP are currently trying to do for ocean fertilisation in order
to protect the marine environment.

Chris Vivian
Chairman, Scientific Groups of the London Convention and Protocol


On May 25, 3:51 pm, Wil Burns <williamcgbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In response to Josh's comment about the UNFCCC's track record, I think
> that's a bit unfair. The commitments coming out of Copenhagen substantially
> bend the curve, and at the higher end, almost get us to the 2C guardrail.
> Now, we obviously have to insert the substantial caveats, i.e. the Accord is
> not legally binding, and the Parties may not achieve the upper end of the
> commitments. But, this is an iterative process, and there's still hope that
> the parallel AWG processes may get us where we need to be. What's the
> alternative? Unilateral/bilateral pursuit of geoengineering strategies could
> undermine trust even further and scupper efforts to cooperate to reduce
> emissions, which could put us in a far worse place, since, as we know,
> geoengineering is a band aid, not a long-term solution. And, as for other
> multilateral regimes, I guess I would ask which one makes sense? The London
> Dumping Convention doesn't make sense; it has an extremely limited
> membership, is perceived to be a tool of the North by many countries in the
> South, and doesn't address the issues I discussed in my original post, i.e.
> scientific expertise in this context, the coordination of geoengineering and
> mitigation/adaptation strategies, and possible claims for credits. The
> Environmental Modification Convention suffers from even more infirmities.
> So, what regime? You could look to UNCLOS for some of the schemes, but
> again, I find the UNFCCC to make more sense when one applies the salutary
> principles of lex specialis. wil
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:10 AM,
> <geoengineer...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bnoreply@googlegro­ups.com>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >   Today's Topic Summary
>
> > Group:http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics
>
> >    - Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation Management
> >    section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_0>[1 Update]
> >    - Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's
> >    Climate Choices report<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_1>[1 Update]
> >    - Oil leak solutions, Innocentive<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_2>[1 Update]
> >    - Digest for geoengi...@googlegroups.com - 7 Messages in 4 Topics<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_group_thread_3>[1 Update]
>
> >   Topic: Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation
> > Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/fb6bada7bdb580d0>
>
> >    Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> May 24 09:47PM -0700 ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top>
>
> >    Folks,
>
> >    I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the
> >    National
> >    Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report has received
> >    almost no comment in this group or in the media.
>
> >    This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have
> >    weighed
> >    in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research into
> >    geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The National
> >    Academies call for research into solar radiation management and
> >    everyone
> >    treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?".
>
> >    (Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider:
>
> >    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-re...
> >    )
> >    geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsubscribe@go­oglegroups.com>
> >    .
> >    For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> >   Topic: Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's
> > America's Climate Choices report<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/4d184df724bd14a7>
>
> >    John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> May 22 03:05AM -0700 ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top>
> >    geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsubscribe@go­oglegroups.com>
> >    .
> >    For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> >   Topic: Oil leak solutions, Innocentive<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/d2920f384a780463>
>
> >    david kubiak <wdkub...@gmail.com> May 21 05:33PM -0700 ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top>
>
> >    Cool (and literal) grassroots solution for the Gulf oil spill
>
> >    http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/
>
> >    --
> >    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >    Groups "geoengineering" group.
> >    To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> >    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >    geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsubscribe@go­oglegroups.com>
> >    .
> >    For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> >   Topic: Digest for geoengi...@googlegroups.com - 7 Messages in 4
> > Topics <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/faf282e2cb717108>
>
> >    Josh <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> May 21 04:23AM -0700 ^<#128cf9bde646e290_128cef196198982e_digest_top>
>
> >    Wil,
>
> >    I agree with you in principle, but as a practical matter making
> >    geoengineering research (let alone deployment) contingent on
> >    "overwhelming support" within UNFCCC is deeply problematic. The
> >    UNFCCC has been in existence for 20 years now, and has yet to take
> >    concrete steps to reduce GHG emissions by any significant amount.
> >    Given this record, the urgency of beginning substantive research, and
> >    the possibility of passing tipping points and climate emergencies,
> >    relying on UNFCCC is a flawed political strategy. There are other
> >    multilateral and bilateral structures that are more promising sites
> >    for international governance (though probably not CBD!).
>
> >    Josh
>
> >    --
> >    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >    Groups "geoengineering" group.
> >    To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> >    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >    geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsubscribe@go­oglegroups.com>
> >    .
> >    For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Josh Horton

unread,
Jun 8, 2010, 6:19:48 PM6/8/10
to geoengineering
Chris,

Very interesting idea about joint governance, although it seems to me
this might well lead to a classic regulatory turf war between the two
bodies. You mention the LC/LP in the context of all marine
geoengineering, not just ocean fertilization. Does this mean that LC/
LP would have jurisdiction over technologies such as marine cloud
whitening? Is there any move within LC/LP in this direction? How
could a strategy like marine cloud whitening be interpreted as
dumping?

Your point about environmental protection as opposed to climate policy
is well taken, but I would tend to view climate policy (mitigation and
intervention) and marine protection as identical. Assuming that a
given geoengineering strategy is intended to help stabilize the global
climate system, one ultimate effect would be to protect and conserve
the marine environment. I'm not sure how helpful this distinction
will be in the future.

Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com

Chris

unread,
Jun 14, 2010, 5:51:51 PM6/14/10
to geoengineering
Josh,

I don't see joint governance leading to turf wars at all provide it is
clear where responsibity lies for what.

Regarding other types of marine geoengineering, I was thinking of
included (among others):
1. Increasing the alkalinity (and the pH) of the ocean and thus uptake
of CO2 from the atmosphere by:
- Adding e.g. calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide or calcium carbonate
directly to the ocean- see papers by Kheshgi (1995), Harvey (2008) and
Rau and Caldeira (1999) and http://www.cquestrate.com/
- Enhancing the weathering of silicate rocks on land - see paper by
House et al. (2007) and
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/matsci/people/aziz/research/electrochem-weathering/electrochem-weathering.html
2. Increasing downwelling of carbon through increasing carbon
concentrations in the downwelling water. See the papers by Marchetti
(1977) and Zhou and Flynn (2005) and the abstract at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pt637l16gt5r7023/
3. Depositing crop wastes on the deep seabed - see the paper by Strand
and Benford (2009) and http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/77a63eb86fca311c
4. - Bright Water - see http://jetlib.com/news/tag/russell-seitz/

References:

House, K.Z., House, C.H., Schrag, D.P. and Aziz, M.J. (2007)
Electrochemical acceleration of chemical weathering as an
energetically feasible approach to mitigating anthropgenic climate
change. Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 41, 8464-8470.

Kheshgi, H.S. (1995) Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by
increasing ocean alkalinity. Energy Vol. 20, 915-922.

Marchetti, C. (1977) On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Climatic
Change Vol. 1, 59-68.

Rau, G.H. and Caldeira, K. (1999) Enhanced carbonate dissolution: A
means of sequestering waste CO2 as ocean bicarbonate. Energy
Conservation and Management Vol. 40, 1803-1813.

Strand, S.E. and Benford, G. (2009) Ocean Sequestration of Crop
Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments.
Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 43, 1000-1007.

Zhou, S. and Flynn, P. (2005) Geoengineering downwelling ocean
currents: A cost assessment. Climatic Change Vol. 71, 203-220. Also
see abstract at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pt637l16gt5r7023/

Regarding how could cloud brightening be regarding as dumping, as I
understand it it is likely that a significant proportion of the salt
particle ejected into the atmosphere would fall back to the ocean
surface. Bit tenuos perhaps. However, there is a precedent for this -
ocean incineration due to the deposit of pollutants on the sea from
clouds of burnt gases.

As regards environmental protection, climate mitogation would not
help deal with any immediate damage to the marine environment from the
marine geoengineering activity itself.

Chris Vivian.

On Jun 8, 11:19 pm, Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Very interesting idea about joint governance, although it seems to me
> this might well lead to a classic regulatory turf war between the two
> bodies.  You mention the LC/LP in the context of all marine
> geoengineering, not just ocean fertilization.  Does this mean that LC/
> LP would have jurisdiction over technologies such as marine cloud
> whitening?  Is there any move within LC/LP in this direction?  How
> could a strategy like marine cloud whitening be interpreted as
> dumping?
>
> Your point about environmental protection as opposed to climate policy
> is well taken, but I would tend to view climate policy (mitigation and
> intervention) and marine protection as identical.  Assuming that a
> given geoengineering strategy is intended to help stabilize the global
> climate system, one ultimate effect would be to protect and conserve
> the marine environment.  I'm not sure how helpful this distinction
> will be in the future.
>
> Josh Horton
> joshuahorton...@gmail.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages