1. www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc © 2014 Perspectives GmbH CLIMATE ENGINEERING GOVERNANCE – IS THE CLIMATE CONVENTION THE RIGHT PLACE FOR IT? Climate Engineering Conference, Berlin, 2014 Dan Bodansky Axel Michaelowa Matthias Honegger Ying CHEN Co-hosted by:

2. www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc © 2014 Perspectives GmbH The UN Climate Convention is the most adequate forum to launch a decision making process on CE Matthias Honegger honegger@perspectives.cc Berlin, 20.08.2014

3. www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc What is this about? Different wording for governance: decision-making processes  What decisions?  Who?  On what? «The likely» versus «the best» forum for a decision process:  Evidence based arguments not the same as normative  Applicability of evidence for prospective is debatable  Normative arguments could be deduced from Political Theory – applying principles from similar governance problems: climate change & novel technologies for public goods  The Governance Debate is evidence for the need of societal answers and the need for a broad and inclusive approach

4. www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc Evidence based arguments  A1: Climate engineering currently taboo in the UNFCCC  C1: Adaptation was taboo but is a core issue now  A2: UNFCCC has not delivered emissions reductions  C2: The interest-structure of SRM is fundamentally different from mitigation burden-sharing  A3: UNFCCC « will explode » – due to overload of issues  C3: The problem is complex; negotiations need to mirror the problem; epistemic community used to this complexity  A4: Too inclusive (debatable normative element) and therefore impractical (empirical claim)  C4: 1) Inclusion may be necessary, enabling politically on int. level 2) Governments need legitimacy to prevent domestic backlash 3) Consensus not as stringent as outsiders think 4) Negotiations force governments to engage the public

5. www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc Normative arguments against involvement  A5: International multilateral negotiation fora are not legitimate – representative / close to “the public” enough  C5: 1. Decisions not taken by the decision forum, but by the Parties shaped by domestic interests and decision processes 2. Transparency, public attention: Draft decision texts, statements at the negotiations publicly available; level and breadth of involvement of media and NGO’s is unique under the UNFCCC 3. Some decisions are to be taken locally, some require global coordination: international fora are to coordinate & identify common ground  A6: Efforts should not be diverted from mitigation/adaptation negotiations  C6: Addressing CE in other political venues may do the same; a political choice of allocating resources; CE-interest structure may be different enough to unblock negotiations

6. www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc Why the UN Climate Convention?  The right issue focus the necessary negotiation dimensions -Mitigation level and mitigation responsibilities -Adaptation support level -Compensation payments e.g. loss and damage, tech transfer, mitigation support, etc.  The epistemic community familiar with climate complexity  Substantial international attention year after year -Political weight -Transparency and accountability of governments  Based on principles important for agreement on climate change e.g. equity & pursuit of sustainable development  No better alternative for long-term decision making on climate change