Mechanics Discussion Tuesday 1700 Presentation - will place this within context of discussion thus far Aim is to limit discussions and make stipulations to enable us to move forward machinery of government a question of how to remain agnostic while making decisions Mechanics and international group have a lot of overlap; international questions are of mechanics and vice versa. National is not unimportant, but it is likely and advantageous for national and international governance levels to move in parallel. Also easier to focus on international rather than a number of diverse nations, thus mechanics is internationally focused. Slide: Mechanics of SRM Research Governance: definitions, boundaries and assumptions These mechanics of governance decisions will not rely upon individual characteristics Slide: Breaking down mechanics 4 key choice elements, plus context Context is discussion of potential category error. Individual projects are different than the whole endeavour, which is different than the response to climate change in general. Slide: International decisions on SRM Research Projects: Key Choices 1 3 clusters, first is legal form and institutions. Informal can be way of co-ordinating without losing authority, allows information exchange. A treaty could be legally binding with soft or hard enforcement. A new organization means more continuity, money, capacity, more autonomous international decision-making authority. Informal is easier and faster, whereas the new organization takes a lot of time and effort to create this much more capable legal form. Informal may take place within governments, and/or scientific bodies P - (To that slide): forum for informal consultations is not necessarily inter-governmental (e.g. scientific community) P - Need to agree on scientific norms P - Is there some stage where an official presence is needed, this could be established eventually. P - More realistic: link between scientific and international community is important but different We could have both (cf. IPCC/UNFCCC)
P - You can have both like as IPCC P - Governance does not require governments P - Most international scientific bodies are sanctioned by governments P - May be that way. There is always a possibility that these scientific bodies discussions can be codified Slide: International decision on SRM Research Projects: Key choices 2 P - Informal consultation often leads to coordination and may result in formalized instruments P - Informal requires texts, drafts, etc. which by a continuous process become the building blocks of government decisions. P - Given history of geoengineering, it is history that scientists can regulate themselves, the public, etc is now involved and regulation by other parties will happen P - There is lack of cultural connection here. National governments need to inform their publics about these issues. There are cultures that worship the sun even. They would see this as a serious threat but do not have involvement at present How do national governments come to a perspective on GE? P - I agree with the importance but the diversity in culture is huge and so decided to focus on international P - It is an issue that you have not defined what GE is. What is X needs to be answered? GE is a spectrum, not a point. P - I made stipulations, that this discussion is to abide by, so that we can park these issues and move forward. Slide: which national governments P - It could be passionate governments, could be major world economies, could be countries trying to make progress on CC. Broader participation may be good, but so might more limited participation for various reasons. Slide: Hybid and adaptive Approaches P - You can have adaptive approaches where you start with some group of informal consultations, try other groups, then start to move to writing things and codifying what works.
P - This seems the way to proceed to me. There needs to be institutionalization for robust decisionmaking. Even if you have an adaptive path, what is the aim for participation? Universal participation? Critical mass? What if some national governments are firmly opposed? are they included? Slide: Inputs to decisions 1 P - The institutions must say yes or no to something, on some basis. Scientific review? If these decisions are made scientifically at international level, like peer review, this is the easiest of the problems because it would be hard to find people who disagree with scientific input by competent scientists Slide: Inputs to decisions 2 P - Could be important to evaluate valuations and concerns at broader level than individual research proposals This is important because objections are often about broader issues, not specific projects P - Compared to objections to adaptation need to address this or at least prepare for it P - Problems are inherent in any strategy. Analytic leaves out consultation processes, etc. You need merging of quantified analysis and public deliberation and consultation _ Slide: Inputs to decisions 3 Slide: Disclosure, Transparency, Secrets Slide: When bad things happen: Failure, Liability, Conflicts _ Slide: SRM research in climate response How do you make decisions about desirability and legitimacy of whole endeavor versus missing forest for trees (in this case a focus only on individual proposals) Firm requirements for re-assessment may be important paired with short-term authorization and funding
How do we get SRM governance and research to catalyze mitigation, does this require decision-making for all climate responses in the same forum Discussion of Presentation P - Are there international regimes a project assessment basis? P - Usually reliance on national assessments (environmental impact ass.) P - Antarctic is interesting example, with treaty level env tl association national and international feedback of information and enforcement is interesting. Contention of entry, the discourse was scientific due to the historical. The price of entry in the Antarctic is research P - Sharing of nuclear test data and led to the comprehensive test ban treaty. It was a large impact on creditability. The politic objections were technical, not political. When we answer the technical issue, the issue was able to be stopped and the treaty negotiated. P - Not to overestimate the relevance of science to the decisions in Antarctica - power politics between Soviet Union, USA P - Takes issue with boundaries being already stipulated. This assumption is troubling. Implication of elaborate when for a decade we may not need this outline. P - Does not see this as a road map; view ahead - what awaits us when threshold questions are settled? P - Problematic if this is issued as part of a RS report P - Not only project out scientific future; model out different institutional futures P - Difference: outlining institutional futures looks like making decisions P - In some respects these experiments are taking place. London convention. Just as GMO was discussing incremental approaches on science, political side is also discussing this. London convention has no thresholds (NOTE P took exceptions of that). Important the document acknowledge that political regime experimentation is happening. P - (on slide key choices 2): who participates. Important to have a discussion on viability of these options (all welcome/price of entry/self-identified group). P - Does thinking about the long-term perspectives impact (inadequately) short-term decisions that need to be taken? P - Response to GMO, we are not the ones to describe this. What do people and their governments say about what is happening. What are the questions on the table: If we have not funding, how are our liabilities dealt with. P - Long-term story very useful; interesting interaction between science and governance process; science is not making the final decisions, but, the Antarctica is an example, science lays the
foundations and gives the advice on which governance is built. P - International Commission on Radiological Protection, est. 1928; basis for many national implementations of rules. Illustrates how hybrids can work.