Search

Precautionary conservation and cooperative global governance are needed to protect Antarctic blue carbon: the world's largest increasing natural form of carbon storage with high sequestration potential. As patterns of ice loss around Antarctica become more uniform, there is an underlying increase in carbon capture‐to‐storage‐to‐sequestration on the seafloor. The amount of carbon captured per unit area is increasing and the area available to blue carbon is also increasing. Carbon sequestration could further increase under moderate (+1°C) ocean warming, contrary to decreasing global blue carbon stocks elsewhere. For example, in warmer waters, mangroves and seagrasses are in decline and benthic organisms are close to their physiological limits, so a 1°C increase in water temperature could push them above their thermal tolerance (e.g. bleaching of coral reefs). In contrast, on the basis of past change and current research, we expect that Antarctic blue carbon could increase by orders of magnitude. The Antarctic seafloor is biophysically unique and the site of carbon sequestration, the benthos, faces less anthropogenic disturbance than any other ocean continental shelf environment. This isolation imparts both vulnerability to change, and an avenue to conserve one of the world's last biodiversity refuges. In economic terms, the value of Antarctic blue carbon is estimated at between £0.65 and £1.76 billion (~2.27 billion USD) for sequestered carbon in the benthos around the continental shelf. To balance biodiversity protection against society's economic objectives, this paper builds on a proposal incentivising protection by building a 'non‐market framework' via the 2015 Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This could be connected and coordinated through the Antarctic Treaty System to promote and motivate member states to value Antarctic blue carbon and maintain scientific integrity and conservation for the positive societal values ingrained in the Antarctic Treaty System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As marine-ice around Antarctica retracts, a vast 'blue carbon' sink, in the form of living biomass, is emerging. Properly protected and promoted Antarctic blue carbon will form the world's largest natural negative feedback on climate change. However, fulfilling this promise may be challenging, given the uniqueness of the region and the legal systems that govern it. In this interdisciplinary study, we explain: the global significance of Antarctic blue carbon to international carbon mitigation efforts; the urgent need for international legal protections for areas where it is emerging; and the hurdles that need to be overcome to realize those goals. In order to progress conservation efforts past political blockages we recommend the development of an inter-instrument governance framework that quantifies the sequestration value of Antarctic blue carbon for attribution to states' climate mitigation commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. Key policy insights Blue-carbon emergence around Antarctica's coastlines will potentially store up to 160,000,000 tonnes of carbon annually. Blue-carbon will emerge in areas of rich biomass that will make it vulnerable to harvesting and other human activities; it is essential to incentivise conserving, rather than commercial exploitation of newly ice-free areas of the Southern Ocean. Antarctic blue carbon is a practical and prime candidate to build a cooperative, inter-instrument, non-market mitigation around; this should be considered at the 'blue COP' UN Climate change discussions in Spain. Allowing Antarctic fishing states to account for the carbon storage value of blue carbon zones through a non-market approach under the Paris Agreement could provide a vital incentive to their protection under the Antarctic Treaty System. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research would be the ideal body to facilitate the necessary connections between the relevant climate and Antarctic governance regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) geoengineering, the proposal to counteract anthropogenic climate change by large-scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is playing an increasingly prominent role in the modelling that informs international climate change policy. Most of the modelling for the 1.5-2°C temperature stabilisation targets of the Paris Agreement assumes that large-scale CDR will start by 2030 and be in full swing by 2050. The research, testing and development of CDR technologies needed to support these expectations pose significant challenges for international and domestic climate change law. Prominent examples of CDR proposals include bioenergy production with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and carbon sequestration by ocean fertilisation. Australia has vast land and marine estates so has a natural advantage to contribute to the research, field-testing and development and implementation of CDR. Despite this, there has been little analysis to date of how Australian law might govern CDR research, testing and development. Using case studies of BECCS and ocean fertilisation CDR techniques, this article examines the capacity of current Australian law to govern CDR research. We find that general environmental legislation might provide a basic governance framework for research and field-testing of BECCS and ocean fertilisation, but recommend that specific laws be developed if CDR is to play a prominent role in meeting Australia’s international climate change commitments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread public interest on the topic of whaling, there is at present relatively little work on how philosophy might contribute to analysis of the status of whaling in international law. When philosophers have looked at the topic of whaling, they have confined their attention to a fairly narrow set of ethical questions, such as whether international law should permit certain forms of traditional indigenous whaling or extend legal rights to whales themselves. However, there is another important issue which has so far been largely neglected by philosophy, even though it is at the forefront of current international legal disputes over the status of whaling: the issue of so-called 'scientific whaling'. This article considers the international legal dispute between Australia, New Zealand and Japan over the latter's lethal harvesting of whales in the Southern Ocean, and the recent attempt at resolution by the International Court of Justice. On its face, this required that the Court demarcate 'scientific' from 'unscientific' activity; however, it effectively baulked at this task. The authors argue that this approach of the Court was unfortunate, and that demarcating science from commerce is not only achievable in philosophy, but might also inform international legal practice. Resolving this issue is important for genuine progress to be made in the current international stand-off over Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent judgment in the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) determined that Japanese 'special permit' whaling in the Southern Ocean was not 'for the purposes of scientific research'. This is the only exemption permitted under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling's current moratorium on commercial whaling. The Court made its determination by characterising the Japanese research program as a scientific program, but failing to define what scientific research actually was or was not. This paper presents the background to the decision, and challenges the reasoning of the Court and its standard of review test. It concludes that the Court failed to take the opportunity to offer a clear determination to states on their legal–scientific obligations within international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]