Climate Law and Geoengineering

Bodle, Ralph

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5440-9_17

Ralph Bodle⁴

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 21))

4080 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Geoengineering describes a range of techniques that are proposed to counteract some of the negative impacts of climate change at a global scale, without actually reducing emissions. This chapter provides an overview of geoengineering techniques and the existing international law applicable to them. Geoengineering techniques are not as such prohibited and are hardly addressed by international law. They pose fundamental challenges to a potentially emerging area of international climate law. The main challenge for policy makers is deciding whether and how to get involved without providing an incentive or excuse for stepping away from reducing emissions. A key component is to clearly separate scientific input and political decision-making.

Ralph Bodle is Senior Fellow at Ecologic Institute, Berlin. He holds an LLM from UCL College, London, and a Ph.D. in law from Humboldt University, Berlin. The author has been a member of the German delegation in the UN climate negotiations since 2008 and also participated in other international negotiations. The views presented in this chapter are entirely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Germany or the EU. The author would like to thank Gesa Homann, Simone Schiele and Elizabeth Tedsen for their input to previous studies that are the basis of this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 229.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 299.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 299.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See below for details on particular techniques.
2.
Phillip Williamson et al., “Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity”, UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28, 28 March 2012, at 9, available at www.cbd.int/SBSTTA 9.
3.
Ibid., at 3–4
4.
See http://implicc.zmaw.de/.
5.
See United States Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, GAO-10-903 (Washington DC: United States Government Accountability Office, 2010).
6.
Selected main studies are: Royal Society (UK), Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (London: The Royal Society, 2009); United States Government Accountability Office: Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering, Technology Assessment: Climate engineering: Technical status, future directions, and potential responses, Report to Congressional Requester, GAO-11-71, (Washington DC: United States Government Accountability Office, 2011); Bipartisan Policy Center, Task Force On Climate Remediation Research, Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies (Washington DC: Bipartisan Policy Center, 2011); German Federal Environment Office (Umweltbundesamt), Geo-engineering – Effective climate protection or megalomania? (Dessau-Rosslau: Umweltbundesamt, 2011); W. Rickels et al., Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System? Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate, Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Kiel: Kiel Earth Institute 2011).
7.
Bart Gordon, Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination. Staff Report, Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives (Washington DC: Committee on Science and Technology, 2010).
8.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), The Regulation of Geoengineering: Fifth Report of Session 2009–10. (London: The Stationery Office, 2010).
9.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2; Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework for Climate-related Geoengineering Relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity”, UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF, 2 April 2012, available at www.cbd.int/SBSTTA.
10.
See for instance ETC Group, “Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering”, ETC Group Communique 103 (2010), available at www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf.
11.
Cf. Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2; Mark New et al., “Four Degrees and Beyond: The Potential for a Global Temperature Increase of Four Degrees and its Implications”, 369 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (2010), 4; Christine Bertram, “Ocean Iron Fertilisation in the Context of the Kyoto Protocol and the Post-Kyoto Process” (Kiel Inst. for the World Econ., Working Paper No. 1523 2009), at 3; Geoff Brumfiel, “Controversial Research: Good Science Bad Science”, 484 Nature, (2012), at 432.
12.
IPCC, “Scope, Content and Process for the Preparation of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)”, IPCC-XXXII/Doc. 4 (2010), at 3, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/syr_final_scoping_document.pdf. Previous IPCC reports briefly mentioned geoengineering, see Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 7.
13.
See below.
14.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993, International Legal Material (2012), para. 12.
15.
For more detailed studies see e.g. Rickels et al., Large-Scale Intentional Interventions, supra, note 6; Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9; Ralph Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law: The Search for Common Legal Ground”, 46 Tulsa Law Review (2010), 305; Rex J. Zedalis, “Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences’ Idea of Geoengineering: One American Academic’s Perspective on First Considering the Text of Existing International Agreements”, 19 European Energy and Environmental Law Review (2010), 18.
16.
The following short description follows the most recent overview of the different geoengineering techniques and their potential impacts, Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 3–4.
17.
Cf. the historical overviews in Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 7–8; J.R. Fleming, Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).
18.
See e.g. Bipartisan Policy Center, National Strategic Plan, supra, note 6; Gordon, Engineering the Climate, supra, note 7.
19.
German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at 9; Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 4.
20.
Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 29–32.
21.
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, 13 December 1979, in force March 3 1983, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
22.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 22 March 1985, in force 1 January 1989, Audiovisual Library of International Law (2008).
23.
For a similar assessment see John Virgoe, “International Governance of a Possible Geoengineering Intervention to Combat Climate Change”, 95 Climatic Change (2009), 103, at 111.
24.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 16 September 1987, in force 1 January 1989, United Nations Environmental Programme (2009).
25.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 3; See also Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 26 and United States Government Accountability Office, Technology Assessment, supra, note 6, at 35.
26.
Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 27.
27.
Ibid., at 27. See also Bipartisan Policy Center, National Strategic Plan, supra, note 6, at 10.
28.
Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 26.
29.
Overview of all proposals in Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 32 et seqq., United States Government Accountability Office, Technology Assessment, supra, note 6, at 36 et seqq.
30.
Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at32; Kelsi Bracmort, Richard Lattanzio, and Emily C Barbour, Geoengineering Governance and Technology Policy. US Congressional Research Service Report, US Congressional Research Service Reports (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2010)
31.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering” supra, note 2, at 44.
32.
Cf. German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at 18.
33.
It was, for instance, expressly excluded from the CBD’s working definition of geoengineering in Decision X/33, para. 8 (w).
34.
Gordon, Engineering the climate, supra, note 7, at 21; Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 20. For differences see ibid. at 14.
35.
Decision 10/CMP.7, Clean Development Mechanism included under article 12, of the Kyoto Protocol, UN Doc FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.2., 2006. See also decision 2/CMP.5, para. 29.
36.
Elizabeth Wilson, Timothy Johnson, and David Keith, “Regulating the Ultimate Sink: Managing the Risks of Geologic CO₂
Storage”, 37 Environmental Science and Technology (2003), 3476, at 3479.
37.
Following an amendment that entered into force in 2007. A further amendment of 2009 regarding the sharing of sub-seabed geological formations for CCS projects is not yet in force, resolution LP.3(4) on the amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol, 30 October 2009, IMO, Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention 1972, LC 33/2/1, at 2.
38.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 97.
39.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 49, noting that enhanced downwelling, without necessarily increasing marine primary production, has also been proposed.
40.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 49; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Fertilisation on Marine Biodiversity. Technical Series No. 45. CBD, (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009); Wallace D.W.R, Law C.S., Boyd P.W., Collos Y., Croot P., Denman K., Lam P.J., Riebesell U., Takeda S. and Williamson P., Ocean Fertilisation: A Scientific Summary for Policy Makers (Paris: IOC/UNESCO, 2010) (IOC/BRO/2010/2).
41.
See Press release by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 1 January 2009 available at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/712.
42.
See UN GA Res. 62/215, para. 97–98, 14 March 2008; Res. 63/111, paras. 115–116, 12 February 2009; Res. 64/71, paras. 132–133, 12 March 2010; Res. 65/37, para. 149, 17 March 2011.
43.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework, supra”, note 9, at 6.
44.
Resolution LC-LP.1 (2008), para. 1. For views on the legal implications of the London Convention and London Protocol statements and decisions as well as the LOHAFEX experiment carrying out ocean fertilisation in 2009 see: David Freestone and Rosemary Rayfuse, “Contribution to the Theme Section ‘Implications of Large-scale Iron Fertilization of the Oceans’ Ocean Iron Fertilization and International Law”, Marine Ecology Progress Series 364 (2008), 227.; Harold Ginzky, “Ocean Fertilization as Climate Change Mitigation –Consideration Under International Law”, 7 Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law (2010), 57; Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, paras. 92 et seqq.
45.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework, supra”, note 9, at 4.
46.
IMO note to UNFCCC COP16, “Resolution LC-LP.2(2010), para. 5”, 29 November 2010, available at http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/COP%2016%20Submissions/IMO%20note%20on%20LC-LP%20matters.pdf
47.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 52.
48.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 53; German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at 28.
49.
Ginzky, “Ocean Fertilization”, supra,note 44, at 64, in respect to ocean fertilisation under the London Convention and London Protocol; Rickels et al., Large-Scale Intentional Interventions, supra, note 6, at 6. Similar arguments could be made under OSPAR.
50.
German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at 29.
51.
Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 11; Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 58.
52.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 58.
53.
On the process see German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at 22; Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 57.
54.
Cf. Article 4(1)(a) UNFCCC and Articles 3(3), 3(4), 3(7) and 4 KP as well as the overview of LULUCF rules available at http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/lulucf, last accessed 2 May 2012.
55.
Virgoe, “International Governance of a Possible Geoengineering Intervention”, supra, note 23; Bertram, “Ocean Iron Fertilisation in the Context of the Kyoto Protocol”, supra, note 11.
56.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 52–55.
57.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 46–47.
58.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 67; Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 16.
59.
United States Government Accountability Office, Technology Assessment, supra, note 6, at vi.
60.
United States Government Accountability Office, Technology Assessment, supra, note 6, at 23; Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 15–16. Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 68 mentions potential risks of pollution from producing and handling the required chemicals.
61.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, 100.
62.
Ius cogens and obligatons erga omnes do not have practical relevance for geoengineering at this stage, Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 27 fn. 16.
63.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion – General Assembly, ICJ Reports, 8 July 1996, at 22, para. 29; Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports (1997), at 7, para. 53; Case concerning pulp mills on the river Uruguay (Argentia v. Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, para. 193. Note that the ICJ’s formulation is “activities within their jurisdiction and control”.
64.
Trail Smelter Arbitration (USA/Canada), Judgement, 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Bd. III, 1905 ff., 1963–1965.
65.
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Judgment, 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports (1949), at 35.
66.
31 ILM 876 (1992); cf. Principle 21 of the preceding 1972 Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration), 11 ILM 1416 (1972).
67.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993, 31 International Legal Material (1992), 818.
68.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio de Janeiro, 9 May 1992, in force 21 March 1994, 31 International Legal Materials (1992), 849.
69.
Patricia W Birnie, Alan E Boyle, and Catherine Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, 3rd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), at 147; Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 307; Rickels et al., Large Scale Intentional Interventions, supra, note 6, at 99; Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 44.
70.
See below on state responsibility.
71.
Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 306–307.
72.
See below on the precautionary principle.
73.
UN Press Conference, “Press Conference on Request for International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change”, 3 February 2012, available at http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/120203_ICJ.doc.htm (last accessed 1 May 2012).
74.
Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 308, with references to ICJ case law.
75.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 58, with further references. Some reject the term precautionary “principle” and prefer the term “approach”, see the overview in Birnie et al., International Law and the Environment, supra, note 69, at 154–155. I use the term “precautionary principle” for ease of reference and without prejudice to these concerns.
76.
Currently 194 parties, http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/items/2352.php. The US is one of the major emitters and potential geoengineering states but not party to the Kyoto Protocol.
77.
More detailed argument in Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 310.
78.
On the precautionary approach in this regard see Birnie et al., International Law and the Environment, supra, note 69, at 162–164.
79.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 61.
80.
For instance, Daniel Bodansky, “Governing Climate Engineering: Scenarios for Analysis”, Discussion Paper 2011-47, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (Harvard Kennedy School, 2011), at 15.
81.
See for instance ITLOS case No.17, “Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber)”, para. 125–135.
82.
Birnie et al., International Law and the Environment, supra, note 69, at 158.
83.
Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina/Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports, para. 164.
84.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 63.
85.
Cf. Rickels et al., Large-Scale Intentional Interventions, supra, note 6, at 101–103.
86.
Rickels et al., Large-Scale Intentional Interventions, supra, note 6, at 102.
87.
See also Birnie et al., International Law and the Environment, supra, note 69, at 161.
88.
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina/Uruguay), Judgement, 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports, paras. 204–206.
89.
Resolution LC-LP.2(2010) on the assessment framework for scientific research involving ocean fertilisation, adopted on 14 October 2010. For the Assessment framework see the draft elaborated by the Scientific Group of the London Protocol and the Scientific Group of the London Protocol, LC/SG/32/15, Annex 2.
90.
Annex to UNGA Res. A/RES/56/83 of 12.12.2001, (“Articles on State Responsibility”). The rules relevant to this chapter are customary law.
91.
Ibid.
92.
Ibid., Article 25
93.
Ibid., Article 25(2)(b)
94.
Article II and an interpretative understanding which clarify that its scope covers inducing changes in climate patterns, which would arguably apply to at least some geoengineering concepts.
95.
Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 312–313.
96.
Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 312.
97.
CBD, “Decision X/33, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33”, 29 October 2010, available at www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-33-en.pdf/, (last accessed 2 May 2012).
98.
The decision was adopted by consensus of the CBD’s 193 parties. The US is a signatory but not a party to the CBD.
99.
For a detailed analysis see Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 313–318; Masahiro Sugiyama, and Taishi Sugiyama, “Interpretation of CBD COP10 Decision on Geoengineering”, SERC Discussion Paper 10013 (Tokyo, Japan: Socio-Economic Research Center, 2010).
100.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, paras. 79–81.
101.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2; Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9.
102.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 182 and 186.
103.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 63.
104.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 196.
105.
Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 321. On the social, economic and cultural considerations regarding geoengineering have significant inter- and intra-generational equity issues see Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 63.
106.
For detailed argument and further references see Ralph Bodle, “International governance of geoengineering: Rationale, functions and forum”, in: William C.G. Burns and A. Strauss, (eds.), Climate Change Geoengineering: Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
107.
Cf. Dan Bodansky, “May we engineer the climate?”, 33 Climatic Change (1996), 309, at 310; see also Albert C. Lin, “Geoengineering Governance”, 8 Issues in Legal Scholarship 3 (2009); Scott Barrett, “Geoengineering’s Governance” Written Statement Prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Hearing on “Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance” (2010), available at http://science.house.gov/publications/Testimony.aspx?TID=15386.
108.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 193.
109.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 160.
110.
Bodle, “Geoengineering and International Law”, supra, note 15, at 321.
111.
Barrett, “Geoengineering’s Governance”, supra, note 107, at 10–11; Karen N. Scott, “Marine Geoengineering: A New Challenge for the Law of the Sea”, 18th Annual Australia New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Conference (Canberra, Australia: 2010, 2009).
112.
Fiona Harvey “Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from air”, The Guardian, 5 June 2011, available at www.guardian.co.uk.
113.
“Bolivian Submission to Joint Workshop of Experts on Geoengineering”, available at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/bolivian_submission_on_geoingeneering.pdf.
114.
Submission on Specific Research Themes by Republic of The Gambia on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), FCCC/SBSTA/2012/MISC.2, 30 March 2012, at 8, available at http://unfccc.int.
115.
For details see Bodle, “International governance of geoengineering: Rationale, functions and forum”, supra, note 106.
116.
See Overview of some definitions in Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 75.
117.
See e.g. National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.). Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (National Academies Press, 1992); Rickels et al., Large-Scale Intentional Interventions, supra, note 6; as opposed to Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6; also German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at 18 and 23; Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 14.
118.
German Federal Environment Office, “Effective Climate Protection or Megalomania?”, supra, note 6, at includes it as a geoengineering technique, while e.g. the Royal Society does not, Royal Society, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, supra, note 6, at 6.
119.
S. Rayner et al., Climate Geoengineering Governance: Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into The Regulation of Geoengineering. (2009), available at http://www.sbs. ox.ac. uk/ centres/ insist /Documents/regulation-of-geoengineering.pdf.
120.
The same goes for the five similar principles recommended as the outcome of the Asilomar conference in March 2010, International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies, Asilomar Conference Center, March 22–26, 2010, Pacific Grove, USA, http://www.climate.org/resources/climate-archives/conferences/asilomar.html.
121.
Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI), Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research (Environmental Defense Fund, The Royal Society and TWAS, 2011).
122.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 6.
123.
Bodle, “International governance of geoengineering: Rationale, functions and forum”, supra, note 106.
124.
European Parliament resolution of 29 September 2011 on developing a common EU position ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20), P7_TA(2011)0430, para. 90.
125.
IPCC, “Scope, Content and Process for the Preparation of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)”, 14 October 2010, available at www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/doc04_p32_cont_process_SYR.pdf.
126.
Williamson et al., “Climate-Related Geoengineering”, supra, note 2, at 9.
127.
Bodle, “International governance of geoengineering: Rationale, functions and forum”, supra, note 106.
128.
Bodle et al., “Regulatory Framework”, supra, note 9, para. 197.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Str. 43/44, 10717, Berlin, Germany
Ralph Bodle

Authors

Ralph Bodle
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph Bodle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Yliopistokatu 3, Helsinki, 00014, Finland
Erkki J. Hollo
62 Zalongkou Street, Strovolos, 2027, Cyprus
Kati Kulovesi
Ecological Institute, Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 1630, Washington D.C., 20009, District of Columbia, USA
Michael Mehling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bodle, R. (2013). Climate Law and Geoengineering. In: Hollo, E., Kulovesi, K., Mehling, M. (eds) Climate Change and the Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5440-9_17

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5440-9_17
Published: 26 September 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5439-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5440-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics