Seeking to impose order on largely unregulated high-seas climate engineers, the International Maritime Organization will soon announce its plans to regulate oceanic geoengineering projects.

I've reported a lot on ocean fertilization lately, and this is welcome news. Feeding plankton with iron or urea could be a valuable tool for ridding the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, but there's potential for abuse: if engineers don't count the carbon benefits correctly, they could unwittingly release more CO2 than they save. With large-scale projects having potentially regional, if not global, consequences, it'd be nice if *someone *could make sure they make sense scientifically.

Enter the International Maritime Organization, the high-seas overseers who drafted the London Convention in 1972. Until now, the Convention has regulated only ocean pollution.

Dumps of, for example, tons of plankton-feeding iron don't comee under its purview.

Some have suggested that the Convention's purview be expanded. Earlier this summer, the Convention's own scientific advisors said much the same thing, and expressed concern that ocean fertilization projects could go global before they were adequately understood.

A few minutes ago, Jim Thomas from the ETC Group told me that a London Convention meeting currently being held in

(surprise) London was about to conclude with a formal declaration of increased ocean fertilization regulation.

As Thomas explained it, the regulation is a little confusing – not through any fault of his, but because maritime law is pretty confusing to begin with. But the bottom line is this:

From now on, London Convention rules and regulations – those presently existing, and those drafted in the future – will apply to geoengineering projects that occur on the high seas, or in any way involve its 31 signatory countries.

Even if a project happens in non-territorial waters, if it involves one of the 31 countries – a company or research partner is based there, the ship flies under that flag, the materials come from there – then the project needs to be vetted by relevant national bodies. The national bodies can also defer their regulatory process to that suggested by the Convention.

The only way to conduct an ocean geoengineering project without oversight is to place it in waters belonging to a country that didn't sign the Convention, and make sure that everything and everyone involved traces its origins to a non-signatory country.

So cowboy engineering is still possible, but it's a lot more difficult – and, more importantly, it just looks

bad. "Hey, Mr. Big Institutional Investor, take a look at these tests we conducted off the Ivory Coast, and give us a call at our offices in

Mongolia." If you're a geoengineering company, you're going to want official seals of approval – and to get those, you'll have to be responsible.

Some people will say this is another unwelcome layer of bureaucracy, added just when climate change threats are urgent and time is running short.

But the Convention's scientists aren't knee-jerk critics of anything commercial. They just want to make sure that geoengineering really works. Companies like Planktos have already agreed, voluntarily, to these sorts of rules. The Convention also said that it plans to start seriously studying ocean fertilization – and that research should generate valuable knowledge.

When the water settles, critics and climate engineers will both be better off.

Update: Official ETC Group announcement here (.pdf)

See Also: