I found an interesting paper recently, International Law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge by Karen N. Scott, Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. In it, she discusses the role of international environmental law in dealing with the impact humans have on the planet.
She focuses her attention on one aspect, geoengineering, defined in her paper as defined as “the intentional large-scale manipulation of the environment”. She describes geoengineering both as a part of the “climate change mitigation tool box” as well as a serious challenge to environmental protection.
She says, “The traditional distinction between humankind and nature and the characterization of the latter as something outside of, or other than, the human sphere no longer accurately reflects the relationship between humankind and the environment in the Anthropocene.”
And even if there is still some dispute over whether to call our current epoch the Anthropocene, Scott’s paper makes some intriguing arguments.

Environmental Projections Projections being what they are, this might not actually be the picture in 90 years – but that doesn’t mean we can’t act as if it might be. Source: EarthandEconomy.com via Visual.ly

“Without an appropriate forum to consider these options collectively, in the context of mitigation and adaptation more generally, the international community risks unleashing a twenty-first century version of the Legend of Phaethon.”
Scott proposes new measures for dealing with geoengineering within international environmental law under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
If the issues we face are global in nature (both literally and figuratively), then a global approach of this kind offers a promising framework, both for positive action and transparent regulation.
More:
Michigan Journal of International Law article – International Law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge by Karen N. Scott
Thanks, one issue. If you’re an environmentalist, don’t be apologetic or sound doubtful. I’d imagine you know how dire the situation technically is.
For example, when you said
‘Environmental Projections Projections being what they are, this might not actually be the picture in 90 years – but that doesn’t mean we can’t act as if it might be. ‘
Like IPCC 2007 projections about arctic sea ice … they said it’ll last until 2100… and frankly i doubt it’ll last to the end of the decade at the rate it’s going.
I appreciate the depiction in the image for the most part, except that it makes it look quite ‘safe’ with the grass and sun and stuff.
Reblogged this on Standard Climate.