List with three ccs
This is to again raise the topic of geoengineering nomenclature
1. From the middle of p 7 of the IISD paper (which I agree was generally
well done):
/ "We can generally categorize geoengineering efforts into two types:
those that seek to regulate the temperature, and those that seek to
regulate the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This paper
will focus only on the first type. In more technical terms, this type is
often referred to as --*_solar radiation management (SRM)_*,......"
/
*[RWL: This is fine by me, but I wonder how consistent this definition
is. See few questionable items below. The "second" named type seems to
have recently emerged by consensus as CDR - carbon dioxide removal.
Unfortunately this can readily be confused with CCS - Carbon Capture and
Storage [sometimes Sequestration]). My question is whether the authors
ever slipped anywhere in the following and ever meant for Geoengineering
to include CDR. I hope so.]*.
2. From p 11 (emphasis added)
/"A climate emergency seems to satisfy all the criteria; adaptation and
geoengineering being the _*only rapid*_ responses possible./"
*[RWL: I wonder if Biochar, being in both camps by some definitions (if
not this article) should have special consideration on rapidity. I
reject the implicit idea here that tree planting or Biochar will go
slower than the fastest of the (adaptation) renewables (half the world
being farmers, biomass already the largest renewable resource, and the
huge plant-soil sink is many times larger than the atmosphere). Where do
the IISD authors put Biochar? Agreed that it has come to be in both
categories?]
*3. From the top of p14 (17/29), where "it" must refer to SRM (used in
previous sentence, it makes no sense to apply to the CDR "half" of
geoengineering.): (Emphasis added.)
/ "Although only supposed to be temporary, it would have to be sustained
for years, _*all the while doing nothing*_ to alleviate the real problem
and allowing the oceans to become increasingly acidic."
/
*[RWL: I don't see why the authors assume this "/all the while doing
nothing/". That seems to be making a big assumption very damaging to a
discourse on SRM Do the authors know that the Council will be in this
either-or position with respect to SRM and mitigation? If they are
correct here, no one could possibly be in favor of geoengineering - or
at least of their SRM portion.]
*4. from middle of p 18 (and below quoted by Josh):/
It is therefore time that the Arctic Council placed _*all facets of*_
geoengineering high on its research agenda./
*
[RWL: Here is one place that I hope the IISD slipped up and
intentionally meant to include CDR Why else say "/all facets of"/.
Biochar enthusiasts would strongly support the interpretation that the
Council should also look at Biochar. There are some huge carbon stores
in the trees of most of the Council members and that amount could be
increased.]
**
5. p 19. *The last two sentences (just beyond those quoted by Josh):*
/ "/*/Meanwhile, as the risks and implications of geoengineering become
more apparent, the attention and dialogue ensuing from the Arctic
Council’s engagement with geoengineering might actually stimulate a
_*re-doubling of mitigation*_ efforts. That would be the best possible
outcome of the geoengineering debate."
//
/*[RWL: I of course am delighted with this - as long as the authors and
their readers have understood that CDR is (an intersection in a
Venn-diagram sense) also a mitigation technology. Unfortunately, I
expect to see this sentence taken alone by those who are detractors of
Biochar and want always to label Biochar as geoengineering.
6. [RWL6: My conclusion is that if anyone wants to talk only about the
SRM side of geoengineering, it would be much preferable to just replace
the word "geoengineering" by "SRM". I am still not sure that "SRM" was
meant to apply to EVERY use of the word "geoengineering" by the authors .
One way out of this dilemma is to break the present
"geoengineering"world up into three (rather than two) parts:
"geoengineering-SRM", "geoengineering-CDR" and "geoengineering-Bio" -
with Biochar and tree planting in the new third group. Air capture and
some others would stay as part of "geoengineering-CDR ", as they have no
"bio" component. (Bio is short for "biosequestration"; the word
"bioengineering" was spoken for long ago.) In the Venn diagram sense,
Biochar and tree planting retain the "mitigation" meaning. Fortunately,
they also are solution-parts of other major Venn development "circles"
such as food/hunger, jobs/rural economic development, national security,
etc - most of which are potential problem areas for SRM.
Any votes for the proposed new third term "bio=biosequestration" to help
clarify what "geoengineering" means? I am afraid it is too late to
remove the biosequestration aspect from the geoengineering umbrella and
CDR just doesn't capture the carbon-negativity facets that are possible
within the broader "geoengineering".
*
Ron
Josh wrote:
I agree, this is an excellent paper. I would draw your attention to
its conclusion:
"the Arctic Eight must be prepared to respond to the consequences of
failure in the mitigation strategy. It is therefore time that the
Arctic Council placed all facets of geoengineering high on its
research agenda. Only through comprehensive, candid and rigorous
research can we close the knowledge gaps and reduce the uncertainty
surrounding geoengineering, which is a significant source of current
skepticism."
Josh
On Apr 16, 4:33 pm, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote:
This is an excellent paper. And it says, "It makes little sense that
only eight countries—even if they include both the largest country on
the planet, and the most powerful one—should dictate the climate of our
planet. Quite the contrary: we argue that these countries have a
fundamental responsibility to address the biophysical foundations of
climate change through mitigation." and "If there are benefits to
placing aerosol injection in an Arctic country, the Council has good
reason to become involved. But atmospheric particles know no bounds:
they habitually and indiscriminately violate other countries’ airspace,
so geoengineering anywhere in the northern hemisphere will have a direct
bearing on the Arctic."
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
On 4/16/2010 3:31 PM, Bjornar Egede-Nissen wrote:
There is, in fact, a preliminary paper about issues surrounding
geoengineering and the Arctic Council, published by IISD, available at
http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=1162
Cheers,
Bjornar
On Apr 15, 9:56 pm, Joshua Horton<[email protected]> wrote:
<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.
