How far does this get us???? Is it part of our duty to tell the ETC people
that atmospheric geoengineering is already a well-established planetary
reality, as if they don't KNOW? Or should we assign another role to them
other than to be the recipients of such protests??
WayneNews Release
29 October 2010
www.etcgroup.org
Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan
Risky Climate Techno-fixes BlockedNAGOYA, Japan - In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial
meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and
experiments. "Any private or public experimentation or adventurism
intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this
carefully crafted UN consensus," stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American
Director of ETC Group.
The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week
meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure
that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the environment
and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic impacts have
been appropriately considered. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to
report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential
intergovernmental regulatory measures.
The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on
ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the
brakes on a litany of failed "experiments" - both public and private - to
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans' depths by spreading
nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range
of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via
large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space
that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.
"This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the United
Nations where it belongs," said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney.
"This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution. It will
not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on geoengineering
cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries
that establish self-serving 'voluntary guidelines' on climate hacking. What
little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the
global North has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and
its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance
Initiative and respect that the world's governments have collectively
decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the
UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil society can
watch and influence what they are doing."
Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat that
deployment - or even field testing - of geoengineering technologies poses to
the protection of biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and
difficult late night sessions of a "friends of the chair" group, attended by
ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010.
The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final text
"a highly delicate compromise." All that remains to do now is gavel it
through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).
"The decision is not perfect," said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines.
"Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition
of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture
and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample
opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate
techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important
debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of
course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward."
In Nagoya, Japan
Pat Mooney: mooney@etcgroup.org (Mobile +1-613-240-0045)
Silvia Ribeiro: silvia@etcgroup.org (Mobile (local): + 81 90 5036 4659)
Neth Dano: neth@etcgroup.org (Mobile: + 63-917-532-9369)?
In Montreal, Canada:
Diana Bronson: diana@etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236)
Jim Thomas: jim@etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-516-5759)?
Note to Editors:
The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied below:
Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national
circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and
processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, sustainably
use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to
climate-change mitigation and adaptation:
....
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean
fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science
based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms
for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and
Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering
activities[1] that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an
adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and
appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and
biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the
exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted
in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and
only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data
and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on
the environment;
[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of
geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that
deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from
the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding
carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide
before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of
geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity
until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar
insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a
given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined
as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other
than the atmosphere.
AND
9. Requests the Executive Secretary to:
..
(o) Compile and synthesize available scientific information, and views and
experiences of indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders, on
the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and
associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and options on
definitions and understandings of climate-related geo-engineering relevant
to the Convention on Biological Diversity and make it available for
consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of
the Parties;
(p) Taking into account the possible need for science based global,
transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms, subject to the
availability of financial resources, undertake a study on gaps in such
existing mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mind that such mechanisms may
not be best placed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, for
consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and
Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the Conference of the
Parties and to communicate the results to relevant organizations;
Under New and Emerging Issues UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.2 :
4. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to
submit information on synthetic biology and geo-engineering, for the
consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice, in accordance with the procedures of decision IX/29,
while applying the precautionary approach to the field release of synthetic
life, cell or genome into the environment;
Under Marine and Coastal Biodiversity UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.42
13 Reaffirming that the programme of work still corresponds to the global
priorities, has been further strengthened through decisions VIII/21,
VIII/22, VIII/24, and IX/20, but is not fully implemented, and therefore
encourages Parties to continue to implement these programme elements, and
endorses the following guidance, where applicable and in accordance with
national capacity and circumstances, for enhanced implementation:
(e) Ensuring that no ocean fertilization takes place unless in accordance
with decision IX/16 C and taking note of the report
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7) and development noted para 57 - 62;
Impacts of ocean fertilization on marine and coastal biodiversity
57. Welcomes the report on compilation and synthesis of available
scientific information on potential impacts of direct human-induced ocean
fertilization on marine biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7), which was
prepared in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme-World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Maritime
Organization in pursuance of paragraph 3 of decision IX/20;
58. Recalling the important decision IX/16 C on ocean fertilization,
reaffirming the precautionary approach, recognizes that given the scientific
uncertainty that exists, significant concern surrounds the potential
intended and unintended impacts of large-scale ocean fertilization on marine
ecosystem structure and function, including the sensitivity of species and
habitats and the physiological changes induced by micro-nutrient and
macro-nutrient additions to surface waters as well as the possibility of
persistent alteration of an ecosystem, and requests Parties to implement
decision IX/16 C;
59. Notes that the governing bodies under the London Convention and
Protocol adopted in 2008 resolution LC-LP.1 (2008) on the regulation of
ocean fertilization, in which Contracting Parties declared, inter alia, that
given the present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities other
than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed;
60. Recognizes the work under way within the context of the London
Convention and London Protocol to contribute to the development of a
regulatory mechanism referred to in decision IX/16 C, and invites Parties
and other Governments to act in accordance with the Resolution LC-LP.2(2010)
of the London Convention and Protocol ;
61. Notes that in order to provide reliable predictions on the potential
adverse impacts on marine biodiversity of activities involving ocean
fertilization, further work to enhance our knowledge and modelling of ocean
biogeochemical processes is required, in accordance with decision IX/16 (c)
and taking into account decision IX/20 and LC-LP.2 (2010);
62. Notes also that there is a pressing need for research to advance our
understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics and the role of the ocean in the
global carbon cycle;
Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering is a new publication by ETC Group
that provides an overview of the issues involved.
-----
For more information about our work, please visit our website at
http://www.etcgroup.org/Interested in supporting our work? Donate Here!
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5195ETC Group is a registered Charity in Canada. ETC Headquarters are at:
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, ON K2P-0R5
Canada
