ABSTRACT
Some form of international regulation of solar climate engineering is needed, both to manage its potential benefits and to minimise and possibly compensate for its harmful impacts. For example, Albert Lin emphasises the mandate and expertise of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) institutions and states that it’s Conference of Parties should tackle climate engineering soon. The staffs of the Ecologic Institute advocates that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) might better serve as the locus, rejecting the UNFCCC, in part because "it might be intrinsically difficult for the climate regime to pursue a precautionary approach that is restrictive to geoengineering". The CBD fares worse. It would be a stretch of its mandate to develop detailed regulations for activities to reduce climate risks. If the CBD were to attempt this, it would need the close cooperation of the UNFCCC, whose staff may feel that its administrative domain is being infringed upon.
