While evaluating the status of the technical issues is likely best tackled separately, it seems to me there are a number of policy and governance issues that are common‹most important perhaps the public perception that ties all such ideas together. The Asilomar Conference presentations/discussion raised a number of others, as have other meetings on governance and other matters.
I also think that IPCC is likely to need to have an even broader scope on what is covered. For example, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-disco vered-create-downpours-desert.html describes what many people perceive as affecting the climate, or at least the impacts that climate change is or might cause. Granted, it is only over a quite limited domain, but such approaches (not that I agree they work) could be done in many locations. Thus, SRM might be too narrowly conceived‹it might need to be expanded to include additional ways to alter the energy balance (vertically mixing the ocean to potentially moderate tropical being another example‹and there are other such ideas). Mike MacCracken On 1/3/11 12:31 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I agree. I think it makes little sense to combine an SRM meeting with a > CDR meeting and have made this point of view known to the IPCC Technical > Support Units. > > It is too late to change this. I am now arguing that, at a minimum, there be > at least two separate streams that run in parallel through the meeting so it > is more like 2 (or 3) meetings held simultaneously. > > I would suggest that distributed CDR methods, especially those that involve > biological processes, have few issues in common with centralized CDR methods > that deploy chemical engineering approaches, and that therefore this meeting > should have three streams running largely in parallel, coming together largely > to report progress and discuss the few cross-cutting issues that do exist > across these very different approaches. > > 1. SRM > 2. CDR - distributed (or biological approaches) > 3. CDR - centralized (or chemical approaches) > > The odd ducks out in these things are typically > > (a) spreading alkaline materials around on land (distributed, but chemical) > and > > (b) ocean fertilization (distributed, biological) and spreading alkaline > materials in the ocean (distributed, chemical) because these impinge on a > global commons and therefore have some issues in common with SRM. > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> David and list: >> >> I have read the short description of the Peru meeting at >> http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/index.html#6 >> and the proposal at >> >> http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/files/doc05-p32 >> -proposal-EM-on-geoengineering.pdf >> >> I mostly can endorse the need for and value of this meeting. However, I >> do not see an indication that SRM and CDR will be analyzed differently >> (better two meetings?), or is this still to be determined? >> >> As a proponent of Biochar, I am concerned that none of the (proposed, still >> 40?) experts at the Peru meeting will have been active in Biochar analysis - >> which may be the newest CDR approach, but possibly the most active, and seems >> to be the only one with out-year and non-climate benefits. >> >> How can one find who the invited biochar experts will be, if any? Have >> the 25 (?) monitors from developing countries been selected yet?. >> >> Thanks in advance for any more information now available. >> >> Ron >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Keith" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected], [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2011 6:33:11 AM >> Subject: RE: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the >> Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts >> >> I am on the organizing committee for the IPCC interworking group meeting on >> geoengineering in Peru this summer. >> >> The possibility of a special report will no doubt be discussed at some length >> at that meeting. >> >> My views are pretty well aligned with Ken's here. There are lots of summary >> reports written in more in the works, what is lacking is sufficient serious >> analysis of the various methods, their potential, risks and uncertainties. >> >> -D >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira >> >> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:35 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the >> Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts >> >> It is not clear to me that doing an IPCC report on geoengineering would be an >> effective use of everybody's time. People are already starting to plan the >> treatment of geoengineering in AR5 with a meeting coming up in Peru in June. >> These IPCC processes are notoriously time consuming. >> >> >> There really is not that much research going on because funding in this area >> is extremely limited. My own sense is that at this point most scientists >> involved in this area could benefit by spending more time in their labs and >> offices doing science and less time going to meetings talking about >> non-science. >> >> Geoengineering is an area where the ratio of talk to actual new facts is >> startlingly high. >> >> We recently had the Royal Society report. How much has changed since then? >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Emily <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I proposed to Yvo DeBoer in 1008 that he might like to request the IPCC to >> complete a rapid special report on Active mitigation options such as >> geo-engineering. This might follow the report series the IPCC have done on >> renewables etc. >> >> At that point Yvo felt that the IPCC coverage of geo-eng in the AR4 would >> cover it. >> >> Perhaps we could make a stronger case for IPCC to do something useful on >> geo-eng. The new UNFCCC leadership and also the post Copenhagen / Cancun >> context may help gain an IPCC review of options and secure greater dialogue >> and inclusion in the UNFCCC texts, such as in the KP, LCA, REDD or CDM text. >> >> where would it best be in the UNFCCC text and what would it need to say. >> >> The KP and LCA text already talks about 'reduction of emissions and removal >> by sinks' How can this be explored further? >> >> best, >> >> Emily. >> >> >> On 30/12/2010 14:22, John Nissen wrote: >> Thanks, John for these reduction requirements. They are clearly impossible >> to achieve, but even if they could be achieved would not guarantee keeping >> within 2 degrees this century. And 2 degrees is far from safe. We have no >> option but to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR) at an increasing rate >> until the removal is faster than the addition from emissions. But what's the >> timescale? Is global warming the most immediate threat? >> >> Ocean acidification is proceeding at an alarming rate. It will soon reach a >> level in the Arctic where shells cannot form and the marine food chain is >> affected [1] [2]. Thus we have only a decade or two to reduce CO2 levels >> below 350 ppm. CO2 removal becomes imperative, and has to reach the rate of >> emissions within a decade so that the CO2 level starts falling. >> >> On top of these problems we have the Arctic sea ice retreat, which has to be >> halted to avoid massive methane discharge from permafrost otherwise all plans >> to halt global warming would be trashed. CO2 reduction will not have any >> appreciable effect in the timescales - so we have to cool the Arctic quickly >> [3]. We have no option but use solar radiation management (SRM), possibly >> supplemented by other more specific measures to retain the sea ice. >> >> My sincere hope for 2011 is that the necessity for these urgent actions - >> both CDR and SRM types of geoengineering - will finally be recognised in >> international negotiations, to put our global society on a new safe path >> towards a successful future [4]. Please help in lobbying for this. >> >> Best wishes for the New Year, >> >> John >> >> [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603092018.htm >> >> [2] http://www.bitsofscience.org/ocean-acidification-faster-438/ >> >> [3] http://www.catlin.com/cgl/media/press_releases/pr_2009/209-10-15/ >> >> [4] >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succee>> d >> >> See especially Chapter 14 "Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?" >> >> --- >> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Gorman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Emily, for finding this FoE report >> The report (1) looks at the emissions from each country now, and >> projections for 2020 and 2050. I did the same,from a different >> perspective, for my document "Why Copenhagen Failed" (2) so I have >> checked their calculations and they are correct. >> These are the reductions that would be required from the largest >> eight emitters by 2020 in order to keep within the 2 degree C >> rise;(in alphabetical order) >> Canada 80% reduction by 2020 >> China 20% reduction by 2020 >> Germany 63% reduction by 2020 >> India 63% /increase/ by 2020 >> Japan 65% reduction by 2020 >> Russia 80% reduction by 2020 >> UK 57%reduction by 2020 >> USA 80% reduction by 2020 >> Notes >> -These figures contain no fudges like "emissions intensity" or >> basing reductions on 1990. Reductions are from now -and real. >> -The 20% reduction for China is just as impossible as the 80% for >> the USA. China expects 300 million people to move from subsistence >> agriculture to the towns by 2030 and predicted 100% increase. >> -The increase allowed to India is due to the very low per capita >> emission now but is still far less than their post Copenhagen >> prediction of 100% increase.(3) >> The obvious impossibility of achieving these reductions is the >> central argument for geoengineering research -now. >> John Gorman >> (1) >> >> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/15/Carbo >> nBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf >> >> <http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/15/Carb >> onBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf> >> >> (2) http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm >> <http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm> >> (3)Last page of letter to Chris Huhne UK Minister for Energy at >> http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm >> <http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Emily" < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> To: "geo-engineering grp" < [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:37 PM >> Subject: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report >> urges very >> deep and rapid emission cuts >> >> >> Hi, >> >> please read the last sentence in particular: FoE now join WWF in >> accepting the possible need for geo-engineering. I agree with this >> analysis. >> >> I am trying to track down a link tot he report - if you have one, >> please >> circulate. >> manyt hanks and Best wishes, >> Emily. >> >> RECKLESS GAMBLERS >> key conclusions.. >> >> >> € Recent climate science and risk analysis >> >> show that there is now a >> >> very small remaining safe level of >> >> greenhouse gas emissions compatible >> >> with preventing dangerous climate >> >> change. >> >> € A 2 degrees temperature rise can >> >> no longer be considered ³safe²; even >> >> 1.5 degrees carries with it major risks. >> >> € Even a Global Carbon Budget of >> >> 1100 Gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent >> >> from now to 2050, which would >> >> give a 75% chance of exceeding >> >> 1.5 degrees, and a 30% chance of >> >> exceeding 2 degrees, would require >> >> unprecedented emissions reductions >> >> which go far beyond those currently >> >> contemplated by politicians. Reducing >> >> risks further would require even >> >> tougher action. >> >> € If dangerous climate change is to >> >> be averted it will require immediate >> >> and significant changes to how we >> >> fuel our economies in virtually all >> >> countries, it will require systemic >> >> action across all sectors of the >> >> economies of all countries. >> >> € As leaders of countries with large >> >> historical and current emissions, >> >> politicians in developed countries must >> >> shoulder the blame for increasing >> >> the risk of dangerous climate >> >> change. They will need to make deep >> >> emissions reductions and provide >> >> hundreds of billions of dollars for >> >> developing countries to grow without >> >> carbon-intensive energy. >> >> >> € Living within the small remaining >> >> global carbon budget, if shared out >> >> on an equal per capita basis between >> >> 2010 and 2050, would require >> >> reductions in emissions in developed >> >> countries of around 8-15 per cent >> >> per annum, immediate emissions >> >> reductions in some developing >> >> countries, an early peak and decline >> >> in emissions in others, and some >> >> countries would be able to continue >> >> to increase emissions from their very >> >> low baseline. These are just illustrative >> >> figures, not prescriptions but if one >> >> group of countries emits more than >> >> these amounts, it would require >> >> corresponding reductions in what >> >> other countries emit and the scope for >> >> this is now very limited. Achieving cuts >> >> in developing countries will require >> >> substantial financial and technology >> >> transfers from developed countries. >> >> € Urgent research and debate needs >> >> to be carried out - alongside urgent >> >> action to reduce emissions - to identify >> >> exactly how to share out the remaining >> >> global carbon budget and whether >> >> these reductions are technically >> >> possible and, if not, whether >> >> approaches using negative emissions >> >> or even geo-engineering are possible >> >> or acceptable. >> >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> . >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> > . >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en >> <http://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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> >. >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://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.
