* Bjornar. I agree with what you have written.
Re rapidity in my question #2, I will report a preliminary more-detailed
personal estimate at a Biochar conference in Ames late June. I hope to
show it possible to have at least one tenth of a US-only 1 GtC/yr (a US
"wedge") carbon sequestration capability by maybe 2040 About ten time
this goal worldwide and one-tenth as much by 2010. Not easy, not likely,
but not impossible. I don't think any other CDR or mitigation approach
can match that schedule, **and would love to hear thoughts of others*
*Re categorization in topic #6: I am glad you like the possible
**"biosequestration" term within the CDR portion of geoengineering **.
But that term misses the cost-beneficial soils and energy aspects of
Biochar. I think we will have to use different descriptors in different
policy arenas, ** but would love to hear of a single descriptor that
covers the three main Biochar monetary flows. "Bioremediation" implies
soil improvement maybe - but nothing about energy. Probably no one
descriptive term is possible. It is not entirely positive to have these
multiple attributes.
Your last query is on using the terms "artificial" and "natural". This
is perhaps an appropriate and useful distinction, but I'd rather focus
on characteristics like economics, timing, and risks. I presume Biochar
falls in your "natural" category, while the word "artificial" carries
negative connotations that some technology proponents presumably will
not like.
**
** Thanks for the full reply.*
*
Ron
*
Bjornar Egede-Nissen wrote:
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
<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.
