Governance for a Ban on Geoengineering
Guest Post by Lili Fuhr, Department Head, Ecology & Sustainable Development, Heinrich Böll Foundation / 26 October 2017
[The views of guest post authors are their own. C2G2 does not necessarily endorse the opinions stated in guest posts. We do, however, encourage a constructive conversation involving multiple viewpoints and voices.]
[C2G2 does not necessarily endorse the opinions stated in guest posts, but encourages a conversation involving multiple viewpoints.]
All geoengineering approaches are by definition large-scale, intentional, and high-risk. Some have well-known negative impacts, threatening the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and undermining fundamental human rights (for example Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage). Others have great uncertainties when it comes to their potential impacts, that will never be fully known before actual deployment (mostly Solar Radiation Management).
There is a very important principle in international and national environmental law when it comes to dealing with uncertainties and risks – the precautionary principle. Based on this principle, the outdoor testing and deployment of SRM technologies, because of their potential to weaken human rights, democracy, and international peace, should be banned outright. This ban should be overseen by a robust and accountable multilateral global governance mechanism.
Other technologies that require great scrutiny are Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) projects that threaten indigenous lands, food security, and water availability. Such large-scale technological schemes must be assessed diligently before setting up proper regulations, to ensure that climate-change solutions do not adversely affect sustainable development or human rights. Any intentional large-scale deployment of transboundary nature (and with potential transboundary risks and harms) needs to be assessed by an agreed UN multilateral mechanism, taking into account the rights and interests of all potentially impacted communities and future generations. Most CDR schemes currently proposed would very likely fail such a rigorous assessment.
A ban requires governance
So why should I be interested in a debate on governance of a set of technologies that I would like to see banned? The answer is clear: a ban requires governance to ensure it is being implemented and enforced. And furthermore: governance of geoengineering is not just about the rules, procedures and institutions controlling research and potential deployment, but it is also about the process and discourse leading up to it. Unfortunately, current debates about climate engineering are undemocratic and dominated by technocratic worldviews, natural science and engineering perspectives, and vested interests in the fossil-fuel industries. Developing countries, indigenous peoples, and local communities must be given a prominent voice, so that all risks can be fully considered before any geoengineering technology is tested or implemented.
The good news is that a debate of governance of geoengineering does not take place in a legal or political vacuum. There are a number of important decisions to build upon. In 2010, 193 governments – parties to the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – agreed to a de facto international moratorium on all climate-related geoengineering. More thematically focused, the London Convention/London Protocol (LP) to prevent marine pollution adopted a decision in 2013 to prohibit marine geoengineering (except for legitimate scientific research). The decision (adopted but waiting to enter into force) applies to the technologies that are included in an annex, which for now only lists ocean fertilization, as other techniques have not been thoroughly considered by the LP yet.
Beyond climate change
But geoengineering is about much more than climate change. Many geoengineering techniques have latent military purposes and their deployment could violate the UN Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD), which prohibits the hostile use of environmental modification. The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) has been in force since 1978 and has been ratified by 77 states. It prohibits the use of environmental modification and commits parties “not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party” (Article I). Article II defines environmental modification techniques: “any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.” This definition encompasses many geoengineering technologies currently under active research and development.
Today, with powerful advocates generating so much pressure to bring geoengineering technologies out of the lab, soft bans with little enforcement mechanisms like the CBD decision are no longer sufficient. The world urgently needs an honest debate on the research, deployment, and governance of these technologies. The CBD and the London Protocol are essential starting points for these governance discussions, but these are certainly not enough.
Using the precautionary principle
In our civil society briefing on the Governance of Geoengineering “Riding the Geostorm” – that the Heinrich Böll Foundation published jointly with ETC Group – we highlight some key criteria for a legitimate discussion on geoengineering governance. In our view it should be based on the precautionary principle and not be confined to climate-related issues, as the consequences are more far-reaching than the climate, including weaponization, international equity, intergenerational justice, impacts on other ecosystems, such as biodiversity and oceans, impact on local and national economies dependent on those, indigenous and peasant rights.
Any debate on geoengineering, in our view, needs to be entwined with and informed by a rigorous discussion on ecologically sustainable and socially just alternatives to confront climate change and its causes, that shows that geoengineering is not a physical necessity or technical inevitability but a question of political choices.
Multilateral, participatory discussions
Discussions on the governance of geoengineering need to be multilateral and participatory, transparent and accountable. They need to allow for the full participation of civil society, social movements and indigenous peoples. All discussions must be free from corporate influence, including through philanthro-capitalists, so that private interests cannot use their power to determine favourable outcomes or to promote schemes that serve their interests. This also means that initiatives like the C2G2 need to have obligatory, public and non-ambiguous conflict of interest policies in place, that prevent researchers with commercial interests in geoengineering to act as “independent” expertise.
An agreed global multilateral governance mechanism must strictly precede any kind of outdoor experimentation or deployment. And a ban on geoengineering testing and deployment is a governance option that I would certainly like to keep on the table.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a long-standing partner of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, received the Nobel Peace Prize this year “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons”. Maybe this shows that despite a rather negative outlook on the future of multilateralism today, there’s an appetite to take bold and clear action when it comes to enclosing high-risk technologies.
I agree with idea that “geoengineering does not exist in a legal void”, a point which my colleague David Reichwein and I elaborated upon in our working paper on “An Exploration of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Scientific Research involving Geoengineering”. However, I think the discussion of the existing legal framework in this blog post requires further clarification. Certainly, there are elements from existing legal frameworks that we can build upon to develop governance for geoengineering, but I do not believe that it does anyone any good to overstate their interpretation of international law as a starting point for developing governance in this field.
The CBD has adopted a series of COP decisions on geoengineering. Their legal status as legally non-binding does not signify that such decisions lack political force. However, ocean fertilisation is an example of a situation in which a similar set of decisions were in place under the LC/LP (also in the CBD – see COP decision IX/16), but in the wake of private activities in this field, ultimately the Contracting Parties to the LP deemed it necessary to adopt a hard law approach. Thus, our experiences of governance in this area colours the notion that we truly have a de facto moratorium in place of any sort. The reference in this blog post is to CBD decision X/33(8)(w). The plain language analysis of this decision indicates that the decision is highly qualified. The chapeau of this provision merely “invites” countries “according to national circumstances and priorities” and other actors “to consider the guidance”. Furthermore, the decision does not prohibit all climate-related geoengineering activities as alleged in this blog post, but instead creates an exception for small-scale research studies subject to additional requirements such as environmental impact assessment. The interpretation of CBD decision X/33(8)(w) has to be read in light of subsequent decisions, in particular, the 2016 decision which “[a]lso notes that more transdisciplinary research and sharing of knowledge among appropriate institutions is needed in order to better understand the impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, socio-economic, cultural and ethical issues and regulatory options” (COP/DEC/XIII/14). This subsequent decision should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that persists within the geoengineering community that the CBD has instituted a ban on geoengineering research.
Furthermore, the LP does not “prohibit marine geoengineering” as stated in this blog post. The Contracting Parties to the London Protocol have adopted an amendment (not yet in force) which makes ocean fertilisation subject to a permitting regime under which only legitimate scientific research is allowed, a determination which is to made according to an assessment framework laid out in an annex. Beyond this, it remains an open question for the future whether other marine geoengineering techniques will be listed and how they will be regulated. The amendment provides for the possibility of an outright ban or permitting subject to certain conditions such as assessment. This is a decision to be made on a technique-by-technique basis at some time in the future.
In addition, I would add that the interpretation of the status, scope and content precautionary principle, endorsed in this article to support a ban on all geoengineering, is not widely supported in the legal literature. Sceptical and contrary interpretations abound.
I fully agree that we need a broader, more inclusive debate about geoengineering which also attends to upstream questions about whether society wants such technologies. However, it strikes me that the statement that “current debates about climate engineering are undemocratic” is clearly an overstatement and does not represent the range of different perspectives in the academic literature and governance discussions to date. Ms Fuhr herself relies on decisions taken in international fora (comprised of governments) on geoengineering, which presumably she regards as legitimate. One role governance and regulation at all levels can play is in structuring this broader conversation by laying out the terms and processes for participation and transparency. We have begin to see this process fully unfold, but it is still very early days. Organisations like the Heinrich Böll Foundation can make an important contribution by voicing a particular set of interests that are germane to this debate and arguably have been underrepresented in the geoengineering discussion to date.
I am writing this response to your blog as one of the founding members on the Climate Restoration Foundation which is a loose knit consortium of scientists, engineers, companies, institutions, legal experts and financiers who support the concept that a climate restoration strategy is now essential.
Before I address your points, it is important to draw the distinction between geo-engineering and climate restoration. Geo-engineering stems from the hubristic ideas of the 1960s that the climate could be improved by, for example, warming Siberia to increase crop growth. It is these dangerous and unfounded ideas that echo through to today to create a negative perception of climate change interventions. Instead, the reality of today is that we must implement a climate restoration strategy to restore the climate to a condition of stability before we pass through critical points of irreversibility, beyond which any climate intervention will be ineffective against the thermal momentum that will have built up. Thus, there is a fundamental difference between geo-engineering and climate restoration and achieving even the limited objective of the latter, which is essential for our survival, will require global co-operation on a scale never before seen.
The science driving this conclusion is unequivocal and is based on the following well established principles:
1. Heat is trapped in the atmosphere in proportion to the log of CO2 concentration. Thus, a 50ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 at the beginning of the industrial revolution which took levels from 280ppm to 330ppm creates more warming than the cooling effect of a 50ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 today that would take levels from 410ppm to 360ppm, in the hypothetical circumstance of it happening.
2. Enough heat was already being trapped by 1985 to start Arctic Amplification mechanisms, whereby the heat flow into the Arctic melts the ice cap to expose open ocean which heats up the Arctic more due to higher albedo. This additional heating causes methane to be released from the frozen permafrost and subsea clathrates which causes further heating. Both Arctic ice melting and methane releases individually follow an exponential path once started. With both acting together, a super-exponential change can occur which quickly becomes unstoppable once started and poses an existential threat to humanity. The data from the Arctic shows that there is a serious risk that we are in the early stages of this transition. Future reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be unable to stop this due to the current high levels of atmospheric CO2.
3. There is near perfect correlation (r>0.995) between atmospheric CO2 and cumulative anthropogenic emissions. Thus, a reduction in anthropogenic emissions, even to zero, is highly unlikely to result in a reduction in atmospheric CO2. Instead, the best case that could be achieved with a zero-carbon economy is that atmospheric CO2 would remain at today’s critically dangerous level.
4. There is an unquantifiable time constant between an increase in atmospheric CO2 and temperature equilibrium being achieved. At best this might be 30 years, but more likely it is considerably longer. Thus, the heating that is being experienced today is largely due to the emissions from the 1980s, and the huge rise in greenhouse gases that have occurred over the last 30 years has barely even started to hit us yet, thus there is considerable heating coming towards us in the pipe line. A key factor in this is the rising ocean heat content where 90% of the trapped heat goes. This is causing serious adverse effects such as stratification of the oceans and collapse of the AMOC.
5. Ocean acidification is approaching a critical point, and should this be left unaddressed then a major collapse in marine life will be unavoidable. Along with this, the ocean’s ability to sequester CO2 would be massively diminished.
6. Should these processes be allowed to continue, then hysteresis in the environmental system will increase such that a reduction in atmospheric CO2 to well below pre-industrial levels of 250ppm will be needed to restore stability, which is impossible. The degree of hysteresis is already building, and no research has been conducted to establish what this is and may in case be in-computable.
7. Burning fossil fuels increases entropy which is the natural flow of events. The low entropy of the unburnt fossil fuels is the result of hundreds of millions of years of energy flow into the planet and it is equivalent to storing energy by compressing a spring. With a spring, the natural tendency is that energy can be released many orders of magnitude faster than it can be stored. Thus, it is the same with fossil fuels, the creation of an energy hungery civilisation is allowing the rapid release of the stored energy and it will take millions of years for atmospheric CO2 to naturally decline to the previous stable levels.
We believe these facts clearly demonstrate that a large scale systematic climate restoration programme is essential to addressing the crisis that we now face. This must include Solar Radiation Management (most feasibly through marine cloud brightening), Carbon Dioxide removal through dispersal of buoyant nutrient flakes on ocean surfaces to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, catalytic break down of atmospheric methane, and ice cap thickening through pumping water onto the surface of the ice sheet. Further details are at https://www.climate-restoration-foundation.com/strategy. In addition, other initiatives such as reforestation and increasing carbon uptake by soil must also be pursued.
These approaches are completely different to the proposals currently being advocated such as Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage which you caution against. We believe that your concerns on the adverse impacts that BECCS would cause to the environment and human rights are valid and furthermore, our calculations show that the thermodynamic efficiency of such a process is so poor as to make it impossible to contribute to a significant carbon draw down.
There are considerable scientific and engineering uncertainties in all the avenues that we propose and hence it is vitally important that research is started immediately in all these areas. This should be transparent and ideally should be done under the auspices of the COP.
Thus, finally we agree with you that a global governance mechanism is needed. However, we see fundamentally different objectives of a global governance mechanism. These are:
1. To provide the expertise to independently evaluate laboratory and field trials and ensure that proposed solutions will be effective, scalable, controllable and without unacceptable adverse effects.
2. Ensure that the pace of development is fast enough to be commensurate with the rate of change to the environment. Subject to satisfactory resolution of 1, this is likely to be of more importance than ensuring that adverse effects are avoided.
3. Confirm and define the climate stability targets and scenarios that a climate restoration programme would target and to provide expert and independent assessment on the proximity to irreversible tipping points.
4. Monitor the effectiveness of funding mechanisms to ensure that equitable and fair processes are maintained and to ensure that these are acting to simultaneously curtail anthropogenic GHG emissions.
5. Provide full transparency of the research, the costs, the progress made towards climate stabilisation and associated risks or unforeseen circumstances that arise such that preventative action can be taken.
6. Provide independent advice and guidance to politicians and assist in the drafting of agreements, legal or otherwise.
We believe that your comparison with ICAN’s award of a Noble prize is pertinent. ICAN have long been campaigning to make nuclear weapons illegal. However, despite their efforts and those of others, nuclear weapons are spreading globally and the danger of nuclear war is now more acute now than at any time during the Cold War. The emerging crisis of nuclear weapons illustrates with absolutely clarity the consequences and dangers of unbridled competition where nations pursue short term advantage at the expense of the long term co-operation needed for mutual survival. By comparison the imposition of a climate restoration programme requires recognition of the existential crisis that we face and complete global co-operation. What we are calling for is the antithesis of nuclear competition.
I agree that Geoengineering in any form should be banned. There is no difference between large-scale and small-scale testing, it is all a threat to humanity, biodiversity, and our planet. All testing/research should be stopped immediately! People are sick, our weather is warfare, our water and air pretty soon will no longer be a natural/healthy resource. Our crops and trees will no longer survive, and we need these things for oxygen, for life.
Please realize, there are natural, safe ways to fix our planet. Money shouldn’t be an issue when our planet is literally dying. Everyone should have solar power, everyone should be given solar powered vehicles, fracking should be banned. We must fix our soil and water by planting more plants, they clean the air and water naturally (as known).
Solar Radiation Management and Geoengineering would only cover up the problem, with harmful outcomes in which would and will create even more of a problem. We do not have an UNDO button, we do not have another planet to live on. No scientist, philanthropist, school, or organization, has the power to act as “God”. No one controls or owns our land, air, or water. We must all have a say in this. To further continue with Geoengineering research, would be considered a crime, a crime against humanity. This is murder, and you should be ashamed for even believing that this is even a consideration.
In the early days of climate change awareness, the prime focus was mitigation. There was some suspicion of those advocating an adaptation approach as this seemed to shift the emphasis away from mitigation. In time it became clear that those advocating adaptation fell into two distinct groups. First there were climate change deniers such as the Global Climate Coalition, seeking to prolong the era of fossil fuel domination and to denigrate the science behind climate change and thereby the whole notion of mitigating climate change. But secondly there were those who were rightly concerned about the people adversely affected by climate change, often in the poorest and most vulnerable communities. The need to address both these aspects of climate change, namely mitigation and adaptation is now taken completely for granted.
History is currently repeating itself with regard to a different aspect of climate change. When geoengineering first started to be discussed, it was perceived by many as another scheme from the climate deniers – an approach that said that there is no need to worry about the messy process of climate mitigation: before long geoengineering solutions will be available to address any global warming. But again, over time, some of the people and organisations engaged in geoengineering are being seen to be highly responsible. Geoengineering is starting to be seen in a more positive light.
The precautionary principle is often applied in relation to climate change. This has been the driver behind the whole movement to mitigate the increase in Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), leading to the Paris Agreement and beyond. Climate activists are rightly wary of any sense that “geoengineering will solve the problem so you do not need to mitigate now”. There is far too much risk associated with that scenario. But that does not mean that there is no risk involved in avoiding geoengineering. Humanity has the ability to address climate change, but the difficulties experienced and the limited progress made over the past 25 years are an indication that success is not a forgone conclusion.
Given that there is a clear risk that humanity may not succeed in mitigating fast enough to avoid seriously harmful climate change, it is surely highly risky not to explore other avenues that could potentially be implemented in an emergency. Some of the possible solutions fall under the heading of geoengineering. To explore such solutions can involve virtual trials but eventually they will require “outdoor experiments”. These experiments need to be strictly controlled, with clear guidelines and a clear governance structure. At present, there is the Code of Conduct for Responsible Geoengineering Research. No doubt this code will be further refined in the light of experience and more stakeholder engagement.
Lili Fuhr seeks to ban geoengineering research. She states that “all geoengineering approaches are by definition large-scale, intentional, and high-risk.” Research can potentially reduce and/or better define that risk. Surely that is something that should be welcomed, assuming that it is carried out responsibly, in line with best practice. It is important to avoid undermining the global mitigation effort, but this can be achieved by the avoidance of hype around geoengineering. It goes against the precautionary principle not to carry out responsibly managed research into a possible Plan B, if the realisation of Plan A is not assured.
Thank you for your insights, Robert. Much appreciated.