Hi Ron,
I want to pick up on the importance of China - but first an apology for
not replying to your message sooner.
I tend to alternate, week by week, between focussing on the principal
types of geoengineering: SRM and CDR (solar radiation management and
carbon dioxide removal) to rescue the planet for human enjoyment in the
future. Last week I was at the EGU meeting (European Geosciences Union)
in Vienna, presenting my model of the temperature control of the
planet. Thus I was in SRM mode (though also on the lookout for CDR
possibities) . The normal state of the planet for the past 2.5 million
years has been violent oscillations, followed by an entirely anomolous
8000 years of remarkable stability - stability which has been crucial
for the emergence of our current civilisation and industrial society.
The natural control mechanism of the planet only allows such stability
by pure chance, and it seems that humankind has provided just enough CO2
and methane emissions to counter natural changes in temperature and keep
the global temperature stable! This is known as the Ruddiman hypothesis
[1].
There appears to be an extremely strong human instinct, derived from our
hunter-gatherer forebears, not to interfere with nature. This
"biophilia" [2] has allowed humans to avoid the "tragedy of the commons"
[3] and develop community spirit of cooperation and sharing. But our
period of extraordinary climate stability is ending. The end-summer sea
ice _volume_ has been declining dramatically over the past decade, and
the trend is towards the first zero volume (ice-free Arctic ocean) for
end summer 2015 or 2016 [4]. There are signs that this trend will
continue this year [5].
It is also apparent that there is a vast store of carbon in the Arctic,
trapped by permafrost, which is liable to be emitted as methane. Some
of this carbon is trapped as organic material by permafrost on land, and
some of it is trapped as methane hydrate by permafrost in the East
Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) below the shallow sea [6]. There were a
number of posters at the EGU dealing with research on both types of
permafrost entrapment.
If only 1% of this carbon were emitted as methane, that could be enough
to start a chain reaction of Arctic warming and accelerated methane
release. I have calculated that, if 10% were emitted by methane over
twenty years, it would be enough to multiply current global warming by a
factor of about 40. There are signs that methane levels in the Arctic
are on the increase, and there is enough methane hydrate in ESAS in a
critical state to trigger accelerated warming, especially with the
retreat of the sea ice.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions cannot halt the retreat of the sea ice
- models suggest that even if emissions of GHGs were reduced to zero
overnight, global warming would continue this century.
Only SRM geoengineering can produce the rapid effect required to halt
the sea ice retreat. Thus we now have to rely on geoengineering to "save
our bacon" [7].
Who would support such action? It seems that Obama is powerless in his
current political environment. The UK media is still uncertain about
whether global warming is a fact. And UK environmentalists are very
much against any form or intereference with the climate system - perhaps
driven by a strong sense of biophilia. The Royal Society has come out
against geoengineering in a hurry. But what we need is _speed of
action_. We should be aiming to have full-scale geoengineering up and
running in two years, i.e. by spring 2013, or earlier if humanly
possible. As you say in your email, Ron, the Chinese can act fast and
decisively, e.g. on energy:
/I've been following Chinese energy activities pretty closely. They are
now already the world leaders in wind, PV, solar thermal, and tree
planting (maybe more). They have money available from their rapidly
growing economy to make carbon negativity happen./
So I am coming to think that only the Chinese could make SRM happen fast
enough to give a reasonable chance of saving the Arctic sea ice.
Perhaps an approach from European and US scientists and engineers is
required.
At the same time, we should be pressing the Chinese to further promote
CO2 removal. If the more pessimistic predictions about the effects of
ocean acidification prove correct, then we should be aiming for bring
the atmospheric CO2 level back to 350 ppm within two or three decades.
Biochar could have an important contribution to producing that result.
Please let me know privately if you could help with an approach to the
Chinese leadership, e.g. if you know influencial people who would listen
to our case for SRM and CDR, but SRM most urgently. We have no time to
lose.
Cheers,
John
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis
[3]
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/cd/18_3_inpress/vanvugt.pdf
[4]
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
[5]
http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/03/record-breaking-winter-arctic-lowest-sea-ice-extent/
[6]
http://soa.arcus.org/abstracts/evidence-vast-methane-release-over-east-siberian-arctic-shelf
[7]
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7aacb0974aa56941
---
On 09/04/2011 04:08, [email protected] wrote:
List:
1. I believe there is a new ("Panda") CO2 incentive program in
China - that appears to me might/should/could include Biochar. Some
(not complete) details are at:
http://www.pandastandard.org/downloads/PandaStandard_v1ENGLISH.pdf
2. The new-to-me details are
a. Most (all?) documents like this only talk about reducing
emissions. Everywhere that phrase appears here. there is a also a
phrase on removing emissions. Biochar should certainly fit here (I hope).
b. There are also time limits for actions - very rapid (20 days
here , 10 days there, etc)
c. There are 7 mandatory characteristics:
Real
Additional
Measurable, reportable and verifiable
Unique
Permanent
Demonstrate Ancillary Benefits
Unambiguously Owned
I think the 6th of these (ancillary benefits) is new and ought to
help Biochar hugely. Anyone seen this requirement earlier?
d. The consulting group putting this together looks pretty
impressive in terms of knowing what is going on in this world (two
Chinese and two American).
e. I've been following Chinese energy activities pretty closely.
They are now already the world leaders in wind, PV, solar thermal,
and tree planting (maybe more). They have money available from their
rapidly growing economy to make carbon negativity happen. I would bet
on China to be the first to start Biochar aggressively - even if this
package does not for some reason.
f. Here's hoping Robert Flanagan (doing Biochar in China) is
listening and tell us of anything new from his perspective as this may
or may not help Biochar projects in China that he may be working on.
Ron
Ron
Ron
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJndjMzMTVrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDkwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMzAyMzE4NTQw>
(Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
| Switch to Fully Featured
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured>
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbTRiMDJqBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDkwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTMwMjMxODU0MA-->
| Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> |
Unsubscribe
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
__,_._,___
--
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.
