Biochar-policy list (with usual ccs)
1. This is to provide a little more on last week's Asilomar Geothermal
Conference - but only as I understood it as related to Biochar. As
noted in "C" below, I am reporting on an academic colloquium at
CU-Boulder on Monday, with a 6-person panel, 4 of whom were at Asilomar.
2. Emphasis was on it being patterned closely on a similar conference
decades earlier as a similar group of researchers discussed self
governance of DNA-related research. I believe the four who attended
last week felt the effort was appropriate - even if not handled as they
would have liked. As Rachel suggested that it was bad to have such a
meeting at all, I would like her opinion on the same "should it have
happened" question - now that it is over.
3. One complaint of the attendees apparently was that there were too
few opportunities for some real experts in the audience to speak. The
organizers added an "open mike" segment to address this, but not soon
enough maybe.
4. Apparently no one was invited to (or did) speak that there should be
no geoengineering at all - and no geoengineering R&D either for
some/most of the options. Some on the panel (who didn't attend) took
that viewpoint.
5. I gather that there were quite a few anxious/willing to keep Biochar
out of the discussion all together. That is - to separate SRM (solar
radiation management) from CDR (carbon dioxide removal). That is my
view - that being in the same meeting is comparing apples and oranges.
But there are also panelists who see some forms of CDR (tree-planting
and Biochar being specifically excluded) as also being problematic
(thinking of ocean and deep underground sequestration)..
6. The attendees put in 12 - hour days. About 1/3 of the time were in
five breakout sessions. Plenty of press there. A Canadian documentary
film coming.
7. One panelist compared this discussion to that about nuclear weapons
back in the 50's and 60's. Another comment that it was absurd to try to
do a cost benefit analysis (thinking SRM, I believe) given the
complexity of the problem. Three criteria were given (I can't repeat
them) for taking action in cases like this and that SRM failed all three
tests.
8. There were apparently no or few ecologists in attendance. Some
discussion of theologians and ethicists - apparently not there. But
plenty of NGO's were, I think. I am sure we will hear more. I write
this so others will report whatever they heard - especially if related
to Biochar policy.
9. I emphasize that all the above is second hand - all from a
Biochar-oriented "reporter" (me) hearing from people who knew/know
little about Biochar. I hope we can hearadditions/ corrections from a
few of the many (?) Biochar proponents (or anyone) who apparently were
present. I want to especially hear from those like Dr. Smolker who
feel/felt that the Asilomar conference should never have occurred. To
repeat, I think the only thing that would have made sense was if SRM
and CDR were discussed separately - an dwould love to hear why "apples
and oranges" were OK to compare.
Ron
Ron Larson wrote (few hours ago):
<snip>
C. This was all supposed to relate to the Asilomar conference on
Geoengineering (but doesn't). Next I report on what I learned Monday
from 4 people who attended. None knew anything about Biochar - but
they assured me that Biochar was a big topic. If anyone reading this
knows anyone who attended (and especially the one Breakout session
(one of five) where Biochar was a dominant topic), I hope they will
encourage them to join in - and/or write me.
Ron
Nando wrote:
Rachel ++,
<snip>
--
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.
