Thanks for the feedback. Let me address Ron's list of concerns. These comments are on behalf of myself only:
1. Yes, geoengineering as used by us does include CDR, but we should have devoted more than one sentence to explain that. Geoengineering, unfortunately, is often used to describe only SRM. It's unfortunate that both have been conflated under the label geoengineering. It seems we should have taken more care to make it clear that we were addressing only SRM, and perhaps used that moniker throughout the paper. 2. “Rapid” should have been defined here: sudden and disruptive climate change over the course of a few months to a couple of years. Biochar and SRM are rapid on different time scales, I believe. Clearly, in the case of a climate emergency, we need to rapidly ramp down emission levels, and if possible, ramp up CDR. Mitigation and CDR are the only sustainable ways of remediating climate change. Biochar is good in that respect because of its high carbon content, but it is not quick enough to counter the immediate climate effects of rapid global warming. For that, SRM may be the only option, and let me assure you, I have no love of it. 3. Agreed. We should have taken more care to make sure that we meant only SRM. Instead we used geoengineering as shorthand for SRM. While I do not excuse that slip, it _is_ common to conflate the two. As to it doing nothing to alleviate the real problem, SRM in itself only addresses the symptom (warming) while allowing the oceans to acidify. It could, however, buy time, and could arrest the thawing of permafrost, glaciers and ocean ice. That should be attractive to the Arctic Council (and the world at large). But without vigorous mitigation, it is worth nothing. 4. Absolutely. “All facets” of geoengineering includes CDR and we could have been more explicit. 5. We understand that CDR is a mitigation technology. It was certainly not our wish to give fuel (metaphorically speaking) to biochar detractors. 6. Agreed, apologies for the confusion. I hope we can separate the debate about SRM from CDR; they are very different, and will require different governance and decision making mechanisms. SRM was all this paper was about (p 14), as it addressed geoengineering (SRM) as a response tool for abrupt climate change. So clearly we need to talk more about nomenclature. It’s become a bit fudged up, and there are more terms beside SRM (albedo enhancement, shortwave climate engineering). Biosequestration rests very uncomfortably in the geoengineering camp. I shall use this term explicitly in my future work. But bioseq. (I hesitate to shorten it to BS...) is a form of CDR, so I’m not sure if a third group is warranted. Ocean fertilisation too is a form of bioseq (in theory, when it works), only by more dramatic and artificial means. Should we instead make a distinction between artificial and natural (albeit on an industrialised scale) CDR? Thank you very much for your response, I hope I cleared up a few things. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Regards, Bjornar On Apr 17, 11:48 pm, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > athttp://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=en.
