Ron, As a practical matter, I don't think there is a feasible way to amend a document like this once it is adopted.
I am responding because I was involved in dealing with the description of biochar in both this and the Royal society document. (These were both group efforts with many authors so I had no special role other than working on that part of the text.) My understanding is that biochar could be a quite important method for improving soil fertility and in some places an effective way to sequester carbon. Where you have collected enough biomass to use large-scale energy technologies, you have to ask what the benefit is of sequestering carbon as biochar compared to using it to displace coal or to displace coal with CO2 capture. We are still pulling gigatons of coal out of the ground. If you have the capacity to generate a flux of reduced carbon it's not clear why you should be burying it back in the ground rather than using it. This applies except in cases where (a) transport limitations make the source to sink matching so hard that local sequestration trumps integration to the energy system, or (b) where the benefits due to soil amendment are large. Independent of exactly how effective biochar is, the policy challenges it raises seem quite distinct from the policy challenges raised by solar radiation management and other high leverage geoengineering techniques. It was for that reason, rather than a judgment about its overall effectiveness, that it got less space than some might have hoped in recent summary documents. Yours, David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Larson Sent: January 14, 2010 1:58 PM To: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: AGU's Statement on Geoengineering Ken and List: From the perspective of a Biochar advocate trying to represent what Peter Reed might have said, I have three questions on the recent AGU statement on Geoengineering.. 1. Since Biochar was not specifically mentioned, was that omission intentional? 2. Since Biochar, apparently unlike all those specifically identified, has unique (carbon-neutral) mitigation and numerous adaptation attributes, would this list perhaps think it best to have this statement explicitly exclude Biochar? 3. What is the procedure to attempt amendments? Ron Ken Caldeira wrote: > fyi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Paul Higgins* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM > Subject: AGU's Statement on Geoengineering > To: Mike MacCracken <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, David Keith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Ken Caldeira <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "John T. Snow" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Ben Santer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Alan Robock <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Margaret Leinen > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "James R. Fleming" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Don Wuebbles > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Steve > Fries <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Aiguo > Dai <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Dian Seidel > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Hi everyone, > > AGU has adopted our policy statement on geoengineering > (http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/geoengineering.shtml). This is > good news and illustrates how effective our drafting team was in > writing the statement. Congratulations (and thanks again) to each of you. > > Thanks especially to Alan Robock. I believe he was a big key to AGU's > decision. > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.139/2619 - Release Date: 01/13/10 12:35:00 > >
-- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
