1/9 This by @JesseLReynolds got the interpretation ball rolling, and sees the collapse of negotiations at #UNEA4 on #geoengineering as primarily a result of under-informed states, green advocacy groups and limited political capital. I disagree on some points:
https://twitter.com/JesseLReynolds/status/1106065215433510913
2/9 Firstly the knowledge-gap thesis is doubtful as the main protagonist countries were not, imo, at beginning of a steep learning curve. They knew their stuff. They did, however, have very different interpretations of the epistemic politics of geoengineering.
3/9 Secondly, it did also not seem the case that the key actors lacked incentives to spend political capital on this. Both sides spent a lot of capital on it, one side blocking, another promoting. Key conflict: a UNEA study with a view to future governance - or no study.
(Indifference was not the problem!).
4/9 Third, the balance of feeling of supporters was that the resolution would be a step towards future governance, so even if they were under green influence, they would not want to administer 'poison pills' to kill deal, risking free-for-all
4/9 Third, the balance of feeling of supporters was that the resolution would be a step towards future governance, so even if they were under green influence, they would not want to administer 'poison pills' to kill deal, risking free-for-all
5/9 How much influence did anti-geo groups have on events? The original wording was none of their work. Others far more central. The Precautionary Principle is a longstanding peg in EU environmental policy. They weren't at the table.
6/9 The US argument rested on a central claim: that the IPCC was planning a thorough assessment. This does not stack up to scrutiny. Only 8 of roughly 500 bullets in the AR6 remit are geo-related (=25pages?). In any case US/Saudi questioned IPCCs work in Katowice.
7/9 Supporters wanted more systematic and earlier study, and not just climate-science. UNEA provides a broader environmental view and can aid countries without large research capacity. Opponents preferred narrower, later and less systematic study.
8/9 Did it flounder because states lacked incentives? Or because states incentives and interests clashed? Did it flounder because of green groups - or grey governments? Make up your mind, but I know where I think the balance of evidence points.
9/9 .@mclaren_erc lists the important factors dividing opinion here:
/ends
https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc/status/1106102880753385473
/ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
