There are clear arguments in favor of doing things in addition to each other. What should be avoided is that countries start doing one thing instead of another.
One of the basic problems with "cap and trade" is that it lets countries trade their way out of their obligations to reduce fossil fuel emissions. In my view, a country facing a "cap" on emissions, should not be allowed to "trade" itself out of that obligation by paying for some radiation management somewhere on Earth. Furthermore, many types of radiation management require political agreement at international level, with delicate diplomatic negotiations. On the other hand, no international agreement will be breached if a country decides to build solar or wind farms, to reduce the emissions from its coal-fired power plants that will be decommissioned as a result. I therefore suggest that emission reductions and radiation management each be dealt with in a separate policy framework, but I hasten to add once more that a comprehensive response to global warming should include both parts, and more. Similarly, carbon stock management deserves a separate political framework, because the oceans have to be included. Furthermore, topics like preservation of rainforests and associated biodiversity require special attention. There can be some overlap between emission reduction and carbon stock management. As an example, a country that fails to reach its agreed emission reduction target, could make up for that by carbon capture. But this should not be the rule, it should be an exception, bounded by tight conditions. Instead of making "cap and trade" the rule, we should adopt "cap and capture" as our motto. As an example, a country could be allowed to offset a shortfall in its emission reduction target, if it demonstrated successful capture and safe storage of, say, twice the amount of the shortfall. Failing to do so, the country would face sanctions, as arbitrated by the WTO, and tariffs could be imposed up to the cost such CCS (by international tender) with the proceeds of such tariffs used to ensure that such CCS does indeed take place. Cheers! Sam Carana On May 18, 11:19 am, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > I mentioned a paper by Mathews. My error. I meant Marshall and the > following paper: > > MARSHALL, C.H. et al. (2003) “The Impact of Anthropogenic Land-Cover > Change on the Florida Peninsula Sea Breezes and Warm Season Sensible > Weather”, *Monthly Weather Review*, V. 132 (2004). > See:http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-272.pdf > > Pielke, et al. have done similar studies for the Northeast U.S., in > Australia and I think in the California agricultural valley. He also > discussed some similar work on the west coast of Africa. Add up enough of > this and it could have a significant effect on global temperature. These > level of changes are not adequately reflected in the GCMs used by the IPCC, > according to Pielke. > > d. > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:54 PM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, land management probably should be taken into account by regional > > authorities. Reforestation around Kilimejaro (sp?) would reestablish the > > snow cap up there fairly quickly. Reestablishment of the swamps over 60 > > percent of Florida will cool the state by "several" degrees and increase > > rainfall by 10 - 12% according to the Matthews et al study. Similar > > opportunities exist in western Africa, Australia and no doubt many other > > places. Should the planet continue to warm, regardless of the cause, land > > use may well be a part of adaptation necessary to maintain local temperature > > and precipitation. > > > David. > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Andrew Lockley < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> Countries may well try to use such techniques as a may of meeting > >> obligations, or to justify not cutting GHGs. We should be prepared for the > >> arguments. > >> A > > >> 2009/5/15 David Schnare <[email protected]> > > >>> If we are going to get into albedo management, then we really would > >>> have to get into land management. Pielke's work modeling the effects of > >>> land albedo in Florida and the North East demonstrate the massive effect > >>> of > >>> changing albedo. Thus, if we are going to get into white roofs, it makes > >>> no > >>> sense but to get into an entire albedo budget. Not sure there will ever > >>> be > >>> sufficient political opportunity to mandate land use practices as part of > >>> a > >>> climate change response. > > >>> d. > > >>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Sam Carana > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>>> "Should albedo be taken into account in meeting CO2 emissions > >>>> reduction targets?" > > >>>> Here's my view: > > >>>> Geoengineering should not become a substitute for emission reductions. > >>>> Climate change requires a comprehensive response, consisting of at > >>>> least four parts: > >>>> - Emissions reduction > >>>> - Carbon stock management > >>>> - Heat transfer and radiation management > >>>> - Adaptation > >>>> All parts need to be adequately addressed and each of these parts > >>>> requires a separate and appropriate policy framework - details should > >>>> be worked out at the Copenhagen Conference. > > >>>> At the Copenhagen Conference, an agreement should be reached on > >>>> targets for "emission reduction". Each country can then decide how to > >>>> achieve their targets, provided they do reach them, which should be > >>>> backed up by sanctions against countries that fail to reach their > >>>> targets. > > >>>> The efforts of one country in one part, e.g., albedo change achieved > >>>> by white roofs, may deserve credit, but only as part of "radiation > >>>> management". Such credit should not translate into a reduction of to > >>>> duty for that country to reduce its emissions. > > >>>> Cheers! > >>>> Sam Carana > > >>>> -- > >>>> David W. Schnare > >>>> Center for Environmental Stewardship > > > -- > > David W. Schnare > > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > -- > David W. Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
