Please note that I did not make this statement, I leave it to Ron to address ...
Josh On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Ken Caldeira < [email protected]> wrote: > The inclusion of the word "only" renders Josh's statement false: > > In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than > requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year > climate benefits. > > Biomass energy combined with carbon capture and geologic storage (BECC) is > a CDR approach that could also provide energy and "out-year" climate > benefits. > > > ___________________________________________________ > 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, May 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Josh: >> >> I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal >> (CDR) myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the report. >> Thanks for pointing that paragraph out. >> >> Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad >> nauseum - with apologies) that the word Geoengineering should be replaced by >> Solar Radiation Management (SRM) when the latter is all that is being >> discussed. >> >> CDR and SRM have a few things in common - but they are very different. >> In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than >> requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year >> climate benefits. When Jim Hansen proposes 100 GtC of a new forestry carbon >> sink - I believe he is thinking much more of mitigation than of >> Geoengineering. To repeat, Biochar can couple exceedingly well with this >> new sink (and how to pay for either has not been established). I think this >> list would benefit from a discussion of whether planting a new 100GtC of >> forest is Geoenegineering. >> >> Ron >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Josh Horton" <[email protected]> >> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:35:03 AM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Vatican Report >> >> Ron, >> >> Note the following on p. 4: "Nations should also avoid removal of >> carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon >> sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop >> and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the >> atmosphere." >> >> I would also be interested in learning more about the working group >> dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance. >> >> Josh Horton >> [email protected] >> >> >> On May 7, 7:03 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> > 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 athttp:// >> www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/.<http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/> >> .. >> > >> > 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.. >> Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop. >> .. >> > >> > 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 [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. >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- 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.
