Jim: I like your analysis; I can see that you and etcgroup have given considerable thought to the possible failings of Geoengineering. Through this reply note, I want to explore whether you can agree there may be exceptions. Specifically I want to look at the Biochar exception. At your website, I found a good bit of short material on Geoengineering and Biochar - but the main items came back with a message that they could not be found. Would you be good enough to check or send anything longer from your group related to Biochar. I did find the short statement you sent to the Royal Society on Geoengineering. The two anti-Biochar references that you cited there (both by BiofuelWatch = BFW) I consider decidedly substandard. If you still believe in those BFW references I ask that you read any of their cited references - almost all by Biochar proponents, not detractors - and tell this group (or me privately) on the one or two of their citations that you have found most credible.
In your following, you give seven criteria that Geoengineering fails to meet. I think it is a fair list. I believe that Biochar meets each and every one. Could you show wherein I am wrong? In highly short hand form (with the full form given below), your seven are 1. " /.. isolates the climate problem from other related cris[es]/: *RWL: I contend that Biochar not only is directly addressing the excess CO2 problem, but also that of peak oil (national security and prestige re-building), badly degraded soil, biodiversity, inequalities, nitrogen and methane release, water retention, ocean acidification, jobs and (worldwide) rural economic development - and I can give others. Can you name one single non-climate area where Biochar is deficient?* 2. " ... /interests with a strong stake in maintaining the economic status quo"/ - *[RWL: To my knowledge, no major oil, biofuels, forestry, or farm supply company is presently involved in Biochar promotion. There are groups, and many well-respected NGOs, all over the world interested in the added farm income aspects of Biochar. I have now attended three Biochar conferences - and aver that at each, I saw only a grass-roots movement, that would benefit a lot from some big corporate money (having virtually none from any government source).] * 3. "./. a high-risk engineered world with .. rather than building resilience of existing ecosystems."/ *[RWL: The whole ag-forestry point of Biochar is to strengthen the now badly-functioning biological soil base of microbes and fungus. Biochar is all about improving the resilience of ecosystems that mankind has slowly been ruining.]* 4. "/ ...overpromised as panaceas ... incomplete scientific knowledge and proved damaging to the common good."/ *[RWL: The main historical basis of today's enthusiasm for Biochar are the large parts of the Amazon where ancient "terra preta" is still outperforming the adjacent soils (from which thet were clearly made by humans) by about 3 to 1. The scientific knowledge on the millenia of lasting power (and centuries in Japan) is indisputable - despite claims of BFW that it can't be replicated. I know of no soil scientist who is not ready to get into the field (and there is close to zero government or industry dollars to help.]* / 5. ".. concentration of economic and technological power ... further disempowering developing countries."/ *[RWL: The UNCCD has endorsed Biochar strongly - along with several dozen developing nations (the only large country doing so is Australia). Biomass growth is so much better as you approach the Equator that it is clear that Biochar is a technology most suited for developing countries.]* 6. "..../ developed and deployed absent of multilateral agreement ... [need for].. international discussion. "/ *[RWL: Exactly what Biochar proponents have been calling for and what BFW (and I am afraid your own etcgroup) have been attempting to derail at Copenhagen. (I blame only BFW, but suggest that etcgroup has overly relied on this one group's mislabeling Biochar as a biofuel.) BFW provides horribly indaequate backup citations for all of their anti-Biochar claims. Biochar is much different from a biofuel - and especially as defined by this discussion group and all of your seven points.]* 7. /".... driven by short term profiteers.. inequitable outcomes and no real results." / *[RWL: I believe there is zero proof that this is even remotely likely to happen. The validation of Biochar credits is trivial (practically impossible to get out of soil once entered). It seems obvious that only s***ustainable, equitable production of the required Biomass resource will lead to the carbon credits that will be required to service the sequestration that this list is discussing. Fortunately, all indications are that Biochar will be by far the cheapest means to accomplish the desired removal of atmospheric CO2. It also can (IMO) supply many wedges of both carbon-neutral and carbon-negative benefits. I would appreciate having the further dialog with you that is not possible with BFW - the only group that I have found you use to support your apparent distaste for Biochar as a geoengineering option. Ron ** This morning I received the following: jim thomas wrote: > Hi Oliver > > Cheers for your list. It reads a like a fairly grudging presentation > of why opponents of geo-engineering are as alarmed as we are at the > rising prominence of the field. Allow me to add a few comments as one > of those true non-believers: > > 1. "Geoengineering adds to climate risks unconscionably". Well – not > just climate risks.... The missing point is that there are also other > environmental and social risks. We are facing multiple planetary > crises with similar systemic roots. Any real 'solution' has to not > only stabilize the climate and other planetary cycles (water, nitrogen > etc) and make energetic sense but it must at the very least take into > account other related crises: loss of biodiversity, the growing > inequality between rich and poor, the erosion of cultures, sovereignty > and human rights, declining access to clean water and health care , > the expansion of landlessness, rising food insecurity just for > starters. Climate change is serious but only the latest in a line of > serious problems that can't be dealt with one at a time. Two thirds of > the global population was already living in a state of everyday crisis > before atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases reached today’s > alarming levels and if a 'geo-engineering solution' worsens their > lives to protect the comfortable lives of the better-off, than that is > also unconscionable. > > And yes, I know that a worsening climate situation also worsens these > other problems but there is no rational basis for allowing climate > change to trump all of these other co-existing problems. > > 2. "It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who > tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions > reduction". The key here is naivete. I don't -- always -- distrust > the motives of those who want a research programme on geoengineering, > but I sometimes do distrust their political judgment. It seems to me > the pro-geoengineering camp is becoming an unholy alliance (marriage > of convenience?) between honestly concerned climate scientists > experiencing understandable levels of panic and industrial, financial > and political interests spotting another useful diversionary strategy > to further derail global agreements and a way to keep what they > consider to be their fair share of the pie. I tend to find the latter > camp more politically astute (and yes I do distrust their motives and > ideological biases) and the former camp sincere but naive about power > and politics in climbing into bed with these sorts of agendas. It is > astonishingly naïve to think that politicians who have failed to > deliver on mitigation targets will not jump at the opportunity for a > “techno-fix”, however sketchy, that appears to let them off the hook > until the next election. The problem is not mainly what peoples > motives are, but what the effects of their actions are. > > Arguments 3 and 4 - I think you are right here and I appreciate the > recognition of sincerity but the tone is a tad patronizing given that > the arguments have not been refuted. Argument 4 is particularly > relevant with regards to SRM technologies, which essentially mask > rather than reduce high concentrations of GHGs. > > 5. "The second moral argument: the purpose of environmental action is > to restore nature." There is a corollary to this which is a > historically-derived distrust of techno-science and scientific hubris. > After generations of technological panaceas that turned into > environmental and social disasters (think DDT, thalidomide, Chernobyl, > dioxin poisoning, hormone disruption, the Green Revolution, antibiotic > overuse, CFC's) people are understandably skeptical of new planet- > altering schemes. Why let techno-science move on to even riskier > “solutions” when we know that underlying scientific knowledge, > especially related to climate, is hugely incomplete? "Nature knows > best" therefore is not so much romantic folklore of a pre-industrial > Golden Age as choosing historically tested circumstances for guidance > on what is safe. Its roughly the same reason James Hanson chooses 350 > ppm as an appropriate threshold for atmospheric carbon - we've been > there before and we know what it looks like. There are also good > scientific reasons for prioritising the protection of intact > ecosystems for their resilience and ability to adapt as well as > effective carbon sinks. > > "One could be opposed to any technology that centralized power as much > as some geoengineering technologies might do". This is key, -- not > an afterthought. By definition, geoengineering has to put a large > amount of technological power in the hands of whoever is deploying the > technology (the "who has their hands on the thermostat' question). > Global decision-making processes overwhelmingly favour the already > powerful (OECD and industrial interests) and they will control the > technology and its deployment. While timid noises are being made > about the need for an international discussion on governance of > geoengineering, that discussion is moving far slower than the > technology itself. Global discussions should, logically, proceed > it. ,Geoengineering will further remove power from those who have > historically contributed little to the problem and who are already > suffering the most impacts. It’s also why militarization of > geoengineering (or at least its geopolitical ramifications) looms > large as a concern. > > A further source of opposition is that geoengineering is being > advanced as part of a package of market-based responses to climate > change that have so far proved socially and ecologically damaging, > inequitable and completely ineffective at limiting greenhouse gas > concentrations (offsets, biofuels, carbon trade). The widespread > opposition to recent ocean fertilization schemes has in large part > been fuelled by the presence of for-profit companies such as Climos > and Planktos looking to get rich quick out of the climate change > crisis. Both new technologies and crises situations alike (war, > poverty, environmental degradation) always attract profiteers who > misrepresent and oversell for their own financial ends. Its a good > way to make a quick buck and a terrible way to save the world. > > So to summarize, reasons to oppose geoengineering include: > > -Geoengineering falsely isolates the climate problem from other > related crisis and is therefore an inadequate response with > potentially devastating social and ecological consequences. > > -Geoengineers largely appear either politically naïve or tied to > interests with a strong stake in maintaining the economic status quo > (which we would regard as highly inequitable). > > -Geoengineering leads us into a high-risk engineered world with > unpredictable consequences and vulnerabilities rather than building > resilience of existing ecosystems. > > - Countless previous risky technologies overpromised as panaceas > have been unleashed onto society and the biosphere without adequate > risk assessment and incomplete scientific knowledge and proved > damaging to the common good. Geoengineering seems firmly in that > inglorious tradition. > > -Geoengineering is seen as a centralized technology facilitating > greater concentration of economic and technological power in the hands > of those who already unfairly wield power - eg strengthening OECD > states and further disempowering developing countries. > > - Geoengineering can be developed and deployed absent of multilateral > agreement and potentially for military or geopolitical advantage. An > international discussion regarding governance and regulation of > geoengineering should precede further research and development and > should be an absolute pre-condition to developing the technologies. > > -Geoengineering is seen as another market-based mechanism, driven by > short term profiteers, that will deliver inequitable outcomes and no > real results. > > Best, > > Jim Thomas > > On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Oliver Morton wrote: > > <snipped [as Jim has Summarized well]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
