International reaction to rogue geoengineering?

[Sapo]

Is there any form of international law or protocols to deal with a country that decides to go along with some geoengineering scheme?

Say Japan decides to start iron fertilization of the oceans. Or Russia decides to put tons of sulphur on the stratosphere. They would be doing it in their territory, of course although they would soon spill out and the effects will be global. Is there any way to stop them other than by trade pressure?

How could geoengineering happen at all if not by individual nations doing it? Would it take some form of UN mandate to green light it?

[Zsofia]

Is there really any way to stop any other nation from doing anything besides trade pressure/diplomacy and war?

[Smapti]

Isn’t it obvious?

Superman turns back time to prevent it from happening, then snatches up Japanese Prime Minister Luthor and drops him off at a maximum security prison.

[Sapo]

@Zsofia

Is there really any way to stop any other nation from doing anything besides trade pressure/diplomacy and war?

There is that old joke we like to call international law that is supposed to somehow dictate what countries can and cannot do. The only way to force countries to follow it is indeed threat of sanctions and war, but at least those threats have the facade of being behind a written law, as opposed to just saying “I don’t like that so stop it or else…”

[ralph124c]

Itis an interesting topic. Years ago (1970’s) the Russian government had a plan to divert the huge northern-flowing rivers of Siberia (the Lena, Ob, Yenesi),and force the water to flow int the derts of central Asia. This would have replenished the Aral Sea, and made it possible to irrigate a huge desert. The bad side: removing a huge inflow of fresh water (into the Arctic Ocean) may have had major bad effects-perhaps, it would have changed the climate. So, should these projects be undertaken?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sapo

How could geoengineering happen at all if not by individual nations doing it? Would it take some form of UN mandate to green light it?

Finland (and possibly Sweden and Norway) sued Britain and Germany for polluting its lakes. The lawsuit is generally a pretty handy global tool, as long as you’re suing people whose assets you can grab.

[Sapo]

Here is some info on this topic.

U.N. Says 'No,' Climate Hackers Say, 'Yes We Can'

A major Indian-German geoengineering expedition set sail this week for the Scotia Sea, flouting a U.N. ban on ocean iron fertilization experiments in hopes of garnering data about whether the process actually does take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequester it in the deep ocean…
The LOHAFEX experiment will spread 20-tons of iron sulphate particles over a 115-square-mile section of open ocean north of Antarctica …
The initiative has drawn fire from environmental groups who point out that 200 countries agreed to the moratorium until more evidence was available about its efficacy.
But that hasn’t stopped the LOHAFEX team…, who say they need to conduct experiments to get such data.

[Ravenman]

I have never heard of geoengineering before, but there are indeed various treaties that deal with protection of the ocean environment. The most comprehensive treaty is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which deals with pretty much everything from navigation to the environment to territorial waters to resource extraction.

Not being at all familiar with the concept of geoengineering, I would imagine that those kinds of activities would fall under the general concept of pollution. To use a minimum of words to describe the convention, countries are supposed to have laws to reduce pollution of the oceans, but they’re trusted to make and enforce those laws themselves, but they are urged to comply with international standards.