Prof. Robock (with ccs)
1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a report
(" Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene"), where you are listed as a
co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable at
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_050511_final.pdf
2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be influential.
My question is how the dialog went within your fellow co-authors (any others
knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering. More specifically can you
say anything on the differences discussed between CDR and SRM? The first
Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest that Biochar (clearly a CDR
technique) should not be considered a "Mitigation" measure (which I consider it
to be)
3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent just
before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct parts (CDR
and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can you explain why
this discrepancy?
4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has (for
the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 gigatons
carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I believe
qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for Biochar.
Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing this substantial
new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr.. See
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf
Ron
(The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short that I
include it all here)
Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are Required
Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are many
questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, and of
the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before geoengineering could
be responsibly considered. There has not been a dedicated international
assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a broadly representative,
multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the highest standards, based for
example on the IPCC model. The foundation for such an assessment has to be much
broader with deeper scientific study than there has been a chance to carry out
thus far.
It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and catastrophic
climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and adaptation. A governance
system for balancing the risks and benefits of geoengineering, and a
transparent, broadly consultative consensus decision-making process to
determine what risks are acceptable must be developed before any action can be
taken.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
