Robert and list
The purpose of this note is to follow up on my, your, and list interest in the
Lima meeting.
In the spirit of focusing and saving space, I have selectively cut the
following to emphasize that problems seem to remain in how Geoengineering
technologies are evaluated - especially within IPCC/UNFCCC processes.
My concerns were raised upon reading today this recent news release about the
Lima meeting::
http://www.bitsofscience.org/ipcc-geoengineering-science-1865/
This led me to an incomplete set of abstracts for Lima, some by list members
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57920959/Joint-IPCC-expert-meeting-on-geoengineering-keynote-abstracts
My concern is that it appears (I hope I am wrong) that the word "Biochar" might
not have appeared at the Lima meeting (I could find NO references provided),
and no one presenting who I recognize as publishing about Biochar. Below I
include a few more comments to put this new concern in the context of recent
list dialog.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Socolow" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:57:14 PM
Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Ron, Ken, and others:
Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything
aside to write answers to Ron’s questions. I am speaking only for myself.
1. <snip, emphasis added next>
Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to do
some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, biochar ,
BECS – maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be critical to
understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is cheap and could
have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering is entailed if one
aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per year for a hundred years
– negative carbon on a monumental scale?
[RWL: I include this above to couple to the "b" question I asked, which is
given below. I support Robert's answer. However, I would expand his above "some
group"recommendation to include several groups, when a technology is as complex
as Biochar. Biochar requires expertise in energy, climate sequestration topics,
and especially soil-science.
3. < more snip, then Prof. Socolow said>
RS: We should be suspicious of distractions, and, to my mind, direct air
capture is one of these. Air capture is a close neighbor of post-combustion
capture at coal and gas power plants, a much cheaper mitigation strategy. This
simple fact about technological neighbors tells is to be very careful always to
state that near the top of the mitigation agenda for several decades is
decarbonizing the global power system. There is something grotesque about
pulling CO2 our of the air at one place while pouring it into the air at
four-hundred times greater concentration at another place. First things first.
[RWL: With apologies, I retain this last paragraph as we have heard no response
from air-capture proponents to the term "grotesque". This dialog needs to
continue further - as air capture apparently was a big part of the Lima
discussions - which discussions I am concentrating on in this message. Was the
APS comment seriously discussed?
<snip again, then Prof Socolow said>
[RS : I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency
strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of
1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the
margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment?
Rob
[RWL: And I would like this thought expanded beyond SRM to include CDR -
especially as the Lima group may (hope I am wrong) have left with no idea that
Biochar exists. I find it incredible that the Biochar topics may not have a
single refereed citation to appear in a report as influential as that of
IPCC-5. Is there any other part of the IPCC-5 process where this omission can
be rectified (if I am correct)?
In the next (my) message to Robert, I again save (with inserts) only the part
related to the Lima meeting .
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:03 PM
To: Robert Socolow
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Robert and ccs
1. <snip>..... Two questions for you, based on my concerns (as at what may
happen in Lima, for instance)
a. Do you feel that the air capture experts were given adequate time to present
to your panel - or might you now do something different procedurally?
[ RWL: Well answered already (with a strong "yes"). I kept this also to put the
next in context.]
b. Are you aware of any other similar (highly technical, multiple and
presumably un-biased panelists) technology assessment in the works (by
professional societies or anyone) for any of the other field(s) of
geoengineering?
[RWL: Maybe not obvious, but my reference to "Lima" and to how Prof. Socolow
handled (well) the process of technology assessment is pertinent to the point
of this note. Here, I was wondering how Biochar was going to be covered at Lima
(and am still hoping to hear how it was). One can never get a fair assessment
of any technology without hearing from those active in and publishing (both pro
and con) on that technology. Above, in his response, Prof. Socolow reported we
do not have any other examples like that which he carried out. In part this is
to hope this list can further analyses such as he led.
At least in one keynote and abstract, Professor Socolow's view on Air Capture
was heard and cited - (but probably without using "grotesque"?). But, to
repeat, I cannot find any evidence that Biochar was even discussed - despite
its very high rating in the NERC assessment (albeit slightly behind Air Capture
(!), but WELL ahead of most every other Geoenegineering approach Although not
suitable for the IPCC-5, for those who have not yet done so, I recommend this
NERC comparative report, which is at:
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-evaluation-report.pdf
The NERC study was nowhere near as thorough as the study Robert led for the APS
- but at least there was more time for dialog and question-answering than any
other comparative study I have seen. It can't possibly be in agreement with the
four-part technology comparisons of the Royal Society - which is widely cited.
(The four parts being Effectiveness, Affordability, Timeliness, and Safety.) I
would not be raising this issue if, as apparently the same in Lima, one or more
of the dozen Royal Society experts had published in the Biochar literature.
I am emphasizing that we should avoid giving professional society or
international group judgements without hearing from those close to the topic -
as apparently happened very well in the APS study.. I hope someone can assure
me that Biochar (and every technology in both the SRM and CDR worlds) was
represented at the Lima meeting by those actively publishing in their
respective fields, and that representative refereed articles will make it into
the IPCC-5 reports. For any information base as important as IPCC-5, not
showing important references and information sources is as harmful as giving
the wrong ones
I am not saying that the NERC report should be cited. I am saying that Biochar
has quite a few and growing number of supporters - and that one or more should
have been invited to the Lima meeting. I would be very surprised if any other
CDR or SRM technology besides Biochar is seeing a refereed technical article
every 3 or 4 days. Maybe I can include every topic covered by the IPCC in this
ranking of new literature..
The basic problem is that the Biochar community does not associate itself with
Geoengineering - nor do those writing about Geoengineering associate themselves
with soil science. There is a similar split for Biochar with the carbon-neutral
world of renewable energy, even though half of Biochar's input carbon is going
that way..
To sum up, I feel it very important that IPCC-5 has a good indication of the
literature about Biochar and its current new position as (at least in part) a
CDR approach. I hope someone active in IPCC processes can suggest a way out of
this dilemma - or assure me there is no problem..
Ron
<The end; snip several earlier messages not related to this present issue of
assessing geoengineering (or any) technologies.>
--
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.
