Can "Enlightened Capitalism" Geoengineer?

Sir Richard Branson has declared that "enlightened capitalism" must play a leading role in constructing arrangements to govern geoengineering research. Is this the case? There are many philosophical, moral, ethical, and political arguments against commercial participation in climate engineering, particularly SRM. Whatever their various merits, the intensity of opposition to commercial involvement in SRM research is a good reason, from a practical political point of view, to consider excluding private firms from initial research and development. If deployment becomes necessary, multilateral consensus will be essential to successful implementation. For better or worse, commercial participation would present one of the most significant threats to such a consensus.

Apart from the political aspect, private capital has so far failed to drive any serious advances in geoengineering research. In 2007, Branson organized the Virgin Earth Challenge offering $25 million to any inventor of practicable CDR technology. The contest has attracted problematic entries and suffered numerous other setbacks, and the prize money has not been awarded. Time will tell, but the market may be the wrong way to pioneer climate engineering.

ETC Group Behaving Badly

In the days since adoption of the CBD moratorium, the ETC Group has made a series of misleading statements and patently false assertions in what appears to be an attempt to steamroll advocates of geoengineering research. The following is one such comment from Diana Bronson, ETC Group Program Manager:

“There are many complex reasons which explain why the UNFCCC is a such a disappointing failure in terms of emissions reduction … But the failure of a specific international mechanism to achieve results in a given time frame is not a reason to give up on multilateralism altogether.”

It is ridiculous to suggest that supporters of research into geoengineering are in favor of abandoning multilateral solutions to the problem of climate change. To the contrary, scientists, policymakers, and most others amenable to intervention strategies strongly back international arrangements to govern research and possible deployment. This is common knowledge in the field and ETC Group is certainly aware of it. ETC Group discredits itself and its message when it resorts to twisting facts and misrepresenting opposing views.

More Momentum for Geoengineering

Following on from yesterday's alternative perspective on the CBD moratorium (see "The Meaning of the Moratorium," 10/31), several other recent developments suggest that geoengineering is in fact gathering momentum among scientists and policymakers:

• Last month, the London Convention/London Protocol on ocean dumping adopted an Assessment Framework to facilitate research on ocean fertilization (see "LC/LP Agrees on Ocean Fertilization AssessmentFramework," 10/19).
• Last week, the co-chair of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) confirmed that the panel will formally consider geoengineering next year in preparation for the Fifth Assessment Report due in 2014. This follows multiple indications that the IPCC is growing more open to the idea of climate intervention (see "More Pachauri," 10/18).
• The US House Committee on Science and Technology released a report calling for significantly greater research on geoengineering. This report was the result of a series of hearings the committee held on different aspects of climate engineering, in conjunction with a UK House of Commons inquiry.
• In response to a request by Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a comprehensive report titled "Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts."

This is hardly an exhaustive list, yet it underscores the extent to which geoengineering is gaining in legitimacy and credibility, and the speed with which this is occurring. Those who celebrate the new moratorium as a repudiation of geoengineering not only misread the CBD decision, but look past the mounting evidence that climate intervention is going mainstream.

The Meaning of the Moratorium

CBD COP10 has adopted a moratorium on geoengineering, and many have portrayed this development as the imposition of a UN ban on all geoengineering activities. But this is not quite right. Following are core elements of the moratorium (from "Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)"):

8(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;

9.9(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;

A moratorium is by definition temporary. The CBD Decision specifies that the moratorium is instituted "in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms." Given the "possible need for science based global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms," the provision then directs the convention Secretariat to "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."

In other words, the CBD has asked governments to call a temporary halt to geoengineering activities while it explores alternative governance arrangements, arrangements the CBD acknowledges may fall outside its field of competence. This is not the same thing as a ban. Rather, this resolution has established a road map for developing international governance mechanisms to regulate (not outlaw) climate engineering techniques. Viewed in this light, the moratorium may turn out to be a hollow victory for opponents of geoengineering that, over the long run, does more to facilitate climate intervention than inhibit it.

Momentum Building for Ban at CBD

The moratorium on geoengineering activities proposed at CBD COP10 is gaining traction in informal talks at the conference. Revised text of the ban has been leaked, and there are indications that a consensus is forming in support of a prohibition.

What would a ban mean in practice? The CBD itself entails few concrete obligations other than implementing national action plans to protect biodiversity. Any moratorium would take the form of a "Decision," and the legal force of such rules is unsettled. But a formal ban on geoengineering would signal a normative shift against climate intervention. Norms matter because they frame debates, shape opinions, and inform international legal discourse. In the LOHAFEX case, opponents disrupted ocean fertilization experiments by appealing to the normative sensibilities of the German government. A more general CBD prohibition may jeopardize other types of geoengineering research.

Update on CBD COP10

Discussions have begun on a proposed moratorium on geoengineering at CBD COP10, and coalitions are starting to crystallize.

• Those in favor of a ban include: Tuvalu, the Philippines, Costa Rica, the "African Group" (representing the continent), Switzerland, the "ALBA Group" (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, led by Venezuela and including Bolivia), and Grenada. These countries are supported by Greenpeace, Ecosystems Climate Alliance, and ETC Group.


• Those more favorably disposed toward geoengineering include Japan and Russia, supported by the Royal Society.


• Those in the middle, expressing some combination of openness and caution, include Brazil, the EU, and Norway.

Other countries have yet to take public positions. It is notable that none of the major powers has expressed support for the moratorium. Discussions continue ...

LC/LP Agrees on Ocean Fertilization Assessment Framework

Last week, the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) formally adopted an "Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization." Development of this framework was set in motion by a 2008 resolution accepting the value of "legitimate scientific research" on ocean fertilization, but stipulating that "scientific research proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis using an assessment framework to be developed by the Scientific Groups under the London Convention and Protocol." The Assessment Framework is a stepwise evaluation tool summarized by the following LC/LP figure:

One of the more interesting issues associated with the Assessment Framework is how it will affect ongoing deliberations on geoengineering more broadly within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where a prohibition is currently under consideration (see "Moratorium on Geoengineering Proposed at CBD.") In 2008, parties to the CBD agreed "to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities" (an exception was made for research in coastal waters). The LC/LP Assessment Framework appears to fill this void. However, the CBD also requires an effective governance mechanism for ocean fertilization to proceed, and has been silent up to now on other climate intervention techniques.