Gene: Look at it this way. If methane mitigation makes the mitigator money, then the mitigator is the "we". We would need no stimulus - profit being sufficient.
d. On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>wrote: > First, in US, cutting methane is not expensive, and can pretty readily make > money in some situations—which is why a lot is getting done. We just need > more stimulus. > > More stimulus would start with a price on carbon—even with the 100-year GWP > of methane being something like 22 (or higher if Shindell et al findings are > included). Given how important methane is for this century, one might even > use the 20 year GWP of 75, although we really also need to get CO2 emissions > down, so maybe one trades it off versus the non-CO2 shorter-lived GHGs (so > ozone precursors) and soot. And then add severe penalties for any new > methane emissions—that is require a methane offset times 5 or something. > > Mike > > > > On 11/14/09 5:10 PM, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Very insightful and this is all very interesting; but there are a few > minor issues; who is WE, who decides and approves, and where does the > funding to do these necessary things come from? -gene > > > *From:* Mike MacCracken [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > > *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:01 PM > *To:* Andrew Lockley; [email protected] > *Cc:* Geoengineering > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions > (ERL thread plus Ken's bet) > > On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the > methane concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about > 1000 ppb less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the > elevated methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large > climatic influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory > gives, as I recall, roughly the following source categories: > > 1. About 25-30% from fossil fuels—and if we are going to phase these > out, we should be able to get this down a good deal; > 2. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we > know how to reduce these emissions > 3. Something like 30-35% from agriculture—and these can be partly > controlled. In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and > separate the methane out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can > be done in barns as well) and use the methane for power (right now through > combustion engines that emit NOx which troubles air pollution district > officials) but perhaps soon into fuel cells. > > > Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to > reduce methane and we should do all that we can—and whatever we can do will > help keep temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from > thawing permafrost. > > Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black > carbon and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring > down atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the > 21st century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century > warming influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and > tropospheric ozone are the other most critical ones—then halocarbons and > N2O), so we simply must go after all GHGs aggressively. > > Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up, > but with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of > potential to do better. > > Mike > > > On 11/14/09 9:33 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of > methane are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates. > These cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is > likely to increase as feedback effects kick in. > > Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill, > etc, is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in > the long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere, > the sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning' > mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our > undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a > charging lion running straight for us. > > A > > 2009/11/2 David Schnare <[email protected]> > Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce > methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has > significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why > not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the > only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like > and rice crops. > > David Schnare > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut > emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have > made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into > the air. > > > > I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making > substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today. > > > > Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and > you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation > where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution. > Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture, > and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be > built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see > enclosed). > > > > Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England > Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction > costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I > was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's > reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power > system in a few decades. > > > > I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in > the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any > special ability to judge political outcomes. > > > > It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse > technical facts with judgments about values and politics. > > > > When someone like Peter Read (see below) says “there is no way increasing > CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon” I think he really > means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will > not be made. > > > > However when people and the political community hear technical people say > can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is > untrue and destructive. > > > > It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut > emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the > scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided > not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared > more about current consumption than we did about preserving our > grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our > civilization developed. > > > > I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk > of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows > with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by > emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today. > > > > -David > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Peter Read [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Peter Read > *Sent:* November 1, 2009 3:23 PM > *To:* [email protected]; John Nissen; David Keith > *Cc:* Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line > > > There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed > any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle > they see2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV > > So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit > more so as to bring the level down. > > Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel > with a flow of biofuel. > > A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'. > > It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of > organization. > > It's all so blindingly obvious > > Peter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Mike MacCracken <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > > > *To:* John Nissen <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> ; > David Keith <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > > *Cc:* Climate Intervention > <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > ; Geoengineering > <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > ; Ken Caldeira <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > ; Julian Norman <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > > *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM > > *Subject:* [geo] Re: ERL papers on line > > > Dear John—A couple of comments: > > 1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand > in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what > would > actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held > by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space, > making the ice thicker). > 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation > management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report > that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had > a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. > This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was > and > I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to > keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward > toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling > CO2 > from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a > significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 > related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is > going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other > alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero > quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in > forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my > thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at * > http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf* > > > Mike > > > On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <[email protected] < > http://[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David. > > Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If > we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how > should we approach it. He considers three problem areas: > 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense > tropical cyclones and coral bleaching; > 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of > ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude > weather; > 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate > aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger > methane and carbon feedbacks. > > I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to > trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on > global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level > rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification > process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, > Mike? > > If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice > summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the > other papers seem rather irrelevant! > > Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed > with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean > acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the > arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the > point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM > geoengineering alone. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > --- > > David Keith wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental > Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special > issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101 > > > > *Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate > System > * > 2009 *Environ. Res. Lett.* *4* 045101 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101 < > http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101> < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/help/-topic=abstract/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101> > > > Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving > much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change > is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. > However, the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen > consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or > reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain under-researched. > > > This focus issue of *Environmental Research Letters* is a collection of > research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken > Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods > for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue > highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the > arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept. > > > *Further reading > *Focus on Geoengineering at > http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/subject/tag=geoengineering > *IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science* is an open-access > proceedings service available at www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees> > > > *Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate > System Contents > * > > Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045102> > *David L Mitchell and William Finnegan > * > > Climate engineering and the risk of rapid climate change < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045103> > *Andrew Ross and H Damon Matthews > * > > Researching geoengineering: should not or could not? < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045104> > *Martin Bunzl > * > > Of mongooses and mitigation: ecological analogues to geoengineering < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045105> > *H Damon Matthews and Sarah E Turner > * > > Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research < > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045106> > *David R Morrow, Robert E Kopp and Michael Oppenheimer > * > > On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change > impacts <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045107> > *Michael C MacCracken > * > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09 > 07:38:00 > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > 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] < > mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]>> > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > > -- > 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=. > -- > > 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=. > > -- 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=.
<<image.gif>>
