Kerryn Brent

Geoengineering the oceans: an emerging frontier in international climate change governance

ABSTRACT International climate change policy is increasingly reliant upon future large-scale removal and sequestration of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Assumptions on the development of ‘negative emissions’ technologies are built into recent IPCC emissions modelling and the 2015 Paris Agreement. Terrestrial proposals, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, may be of limited benefit as the estimated land required would be vast and may negatively impact upon food security. The worlds oceans could play an important role in meeting international climate change targets. ‘Marine geoengineering’ is being proposed to enhance the oceans capacity to sequester emissions and enhance the Earths albedo. This article draws on discussions at a recent Marine Geoengineering Symposium held at the University of Tasmania to highlight prominent marine geoengineering proposals and raise questions about the readiness of the international law system to govern further research and implementation of these ideas.

Does the ‘No-Harm’ Rule Have a Role in Preventing Transboundary Harm and Harm to the Global Atmospheric Commons from Geoengineering?

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) geoengineering poses a significant risk of transboundary and global atmospheric harm. How might international law regulate the future use of SRM? We explore how the ‘no-harm rule’ from customary international law might contribute to the international governance of future attempts at SRM. The no-harm rule imposes a legal duty on states to prevent significant damage across borders and in the global commons. Existing geoengineering literature assumes that, as the international law system lacks a mandatory enforcement mechanism, the no-harm rule will play little or no role in the governance of SRM. We challenge this assumption by focusing on the possibilities of compliance with the no-harm rule through bolstering its legitimacy and sense of legal obligation. We explain how Brunnee and Toope’s theory of ‘interactional international law’ might provide a useful lens for developing the no-harm rule in this way to independently respond to the risks posed by SRM.

International law poses problems for negative emissions research

New international governance arrangements that manage environmental risk and potential conflicts of interests are needed to facilitate negative emissions research that is essential to achieving the large-scale CO2 removal implied by the Paris Agreement targets.

Climate engineering: early reflections on a complex conversation

This is a background account and formal statement prepared by participants in the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies’ Climate Engineering Summer Course, held between 2 and 17 August 2014 in Potsdam, Germany.