In America, there is a fierce debate as to whether CO2 is a “pollutant” or not. This seems utterly silly at first, because what’s in a name? But in fact the conversation isn’t about nomenclature, it’s about jurisdiction – whether EPA is obligated to regulate CO2 emissions or enjoined from doing so.
It appears a similar quandary is emerging about geoengineering. There are those who argue that there is a global moratorium on geoengineering to prevent climate change. It seems surprising that we have any sort of global agreement at all regarding climate. But in fact there is such a thing, dating back to late October of 2010. On the other hand, it “isn’t legally binding“, whatever that means.
And what it means is in doubt. From the latter link:
The Nagoya agreement grants an exception for smaller studies conducted in a “controlled setting”, but only if they are thoroughly assessed and “justified by the need to gather specific scientific data”. Ken Caldeira, a geochemist who studies geoengineering at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, finds the agreement’s language vague and confusing. “What does ‘specific’ mean? Who is to determine the necessity of the data? How do I demonstrate a need to do anything?” he asks. Caldeira is also concerned that the agreement does not distinguish between controversial geoengineering technologies intended to block out the sun and less problematic techniques, such as removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
One thing is clear enough: that carbon sequestration by ocean fertilization is excluded. But should it be? The idea of “fixing” global warming by crudely putting in place an extra anthropogenic forcing toward global cooling absolutely terrifies me in its blatant foolishness: it continues the tendency to imagine that climate change is a concern about a single number, a scalar. The plan is akin to the college student who drinks more and more alcohol each night and more and more coffee each morning. It’s hard to imagine a happy ending.
But carbon sequestration is another matter entirely – it really could, in principle, solve the problem. So it’s perhaps unfortunate that ocean fertilization is included in the “geoengineering” umbrella. And it’s perhaps fortunate that the agreement has no teeth.
As I judge it, everybody seems to agree nowadays that no formal international agreement is in reach, but everybody should try to find technical solutions. In other words, whether or not his movie was boring, Lomborgism wins by default. Everyone seems convinced that there is not the remotest possibility of a treaty for decades. Oddly, we have very effective international treaties about money.
Lomborgism looks like a long shot to me. But we shouldn’t stand in its way if it’s the only shot we’ve got. So my sense of it is that while there should never be hard-to-reverse geoengineering to change the albedo of the earth, any way of pulling carbon out of the air should be considered. So I am having a hard time being horrified about somebody breaking the moratorium to try carbon sequestration.
A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.
Lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a “blatant violation” of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week. Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.
I was not aware that there is some suggestion that the tribe had been scammed, but indeed http://metronews.ca/news/canada/404783/100-tonnes-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-off-canadas-pacific-coast/ attributes Jim Thomas “of ETC” thus: Thomas of ETC said George convinced the villagers to set up a company to channel more than $1 million of its own funds into the project. He promised it would help sell carbon credits and that would earn money for the community. ETC certainly has staked out a position against ocean fertilization. But given that the fertilization effort was successful, it makes little sense to read this as a scam. Clearly some substantial sum of money was spent doing the deed. So at present I am maintaining some doubt about ETC’s implications.
On the other hand, concerns expressed by ocean biologists are another story.