Climate Engineering Under The Paris Agreement A Legal And Policy Primer

We have a number of concerns. Geoengineering threatens global peace and security. Some technologies have considerable potential to be armed. The use of solar radiation management could create a race for control of the Earth`s thermostat and significantly alter rainfall and hydrological models, especially in regions already suffering from the negative effects of climate change. Investments in geoengineering could exacerbate the climate crisis by justifying the major polluters to be able to continue to emit while blocking fossil fuel infrastructure for decades to come. We therefore believe that this issue requires urgent attention on the part of the United Nations and at the highest level. The current resolution shows some good signs. First, the weather might be reasonable. IPCC reports have shown that preventing dangerous climate change by reducing emissions alone is highly unlikely, and the scientific evidence that some forms of geoengineering – both carbon dioxide removal and solar ray management – could effectively reduce climate change are now considerable. Second, the UN environment is the right forum to catalyze international environmental policy. Third, the language of the project is open and simply requires an evaluation report from an ad hoc panel of experts. Fourth, there are many proponents of the resolution, including those in need of development and protection. This last point is all the more important as it is increasingly asserted, but without foundation, that geoengineering is encouraged by industrialized countries and opposed by developing countries.

Instead, opinions differ within the two groups – and remain largely divided. What is certain is that countries that are vulnerable to climate change have the most to gain and to lose the ultimate destiny of geoengineering. Their participation is therefore essential. However, it is important not to overestimate where this will take us. At present, it would be bold to predict that the preparation of this assessment within the AAC (essentially UNEP`s governing body) will lead to the creation of a comprehensive treaty for the overall settlement of cdR and SRM activities. The governance of geoengineering has so far shown a functionally differentiated and bottom-up structure, rather than early signs of a step towards a global global treaty. Specific international environmental regulations in a functional way, such as. B those dealing with biodiversity and marine dumping have largely adopted a warning approach to limiting the activities of SRMs and/or CDRs in their respective areas of expertise.

In addition, small field trials of MRS techniques are planned at the national level, which are largely governed by national research laws and protocols. Ideas and practices arising from this national governance of geoengineering can, over time, creep into the international sphere. This governance model is expected to continue as key countries continue to face significant scientific uncertainties about the risks over time and space of the effects of climate change and geographic responses (Reynolds 2017). In addition, the proposed resolution does not sufficiently distinguish between approaches to solar geoengineering (solar radiation management), which can be seen as a radical adaptation to high levels of greenhouse gases, and the elimination of carbon dioxide, which can be considered a form of climate change mitigation (reducing net greenhouse gas emissions).