FYI, the first sector-specific protocol, Panda Standard Sectoral Specification for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (PS-AFOLU), would explicitly include biochar as a project type under Cropland Management. See http://www.pandastandard.org/downloads/PS-AFOLU_Sectoral_Specification_-_Public_Comment_V1.pdf
Josh On Apr 14, 8:16 am, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-... > > [5]http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/03/record-breaking-winter-arctic-l... > > [6]http://soa.arcus.org/abstracts/evidence-vast-methane-release-over-eas... > > [7]http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7a... > > --- > > 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=X3oDMTJndjMzMT...> > > (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=X3oDMTJlbTRiMDJqBF9...> > > | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | > > Unsubscribe > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> > > > __,_._,___- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
