Ron, I agree with your assessment, this report is a solid handbook for policymakers that lays out the basic issues without oversimplifying them. The five "geoengineering scenarios" (No Geoengineering, Safe CDR Only, Technology Transformation, Insurance Policy, Needed Soon) are a useful way to map the evolving debate. Some of the recommendations seem loosely connected to the report content--for example, "Do not allow geoengineering to be used as a source of carbon offsets, because this would divert effort from emissions reduction" (p. 42) is pretty sweeping and requires much more elaboration. All in all, though, this is a very helpful document that I hope makes the rounds inside the beltway.
Josh On Nov 11, 7:02 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: > Dr. Rau and cc's (including the author, R. Olson, of the Wilson Center report) > > This is mainly to thank you for the lead to the report identified below and > to urge others to take this report seriously. It has done a better job of > summarizing a lot of SRM policy issues than anything I know of earlier (eg > Royal Society, NAS, etc - all referenced). > > It is well written - little repetition. It contains a minimum of technical > material on each of the SRM and CDR approaches, but enough. The emphasis is > on SRM. I found only a few cases where it was unclear whether > "Geoengineereing" really meant "SRM". I am left with the impression that CDR > will be involved in decisions on SRM policy - but the CDR policy issues can > be thought of very differently. They are not much covered and don't seem to > be needing much new policy > > There were two new CDR approaches I have not seen anywhere else. One is the > last on p 12 in Table 2 - called Magnetic levitation of CO2, saying about it: > " Using Earth’s magnetic field, given a helping hand by lasers and microwave > beams, as a conveyor belt that vents CO2 molecules into space ." Reference is > given to the 2009 Lenton-Vaughn article, but I don't think it is mentioned > there. Googling got me to a UCLA emeritus Professor Alfred Wong, Dr. Olson is > not in any way endorsing this approach, but I wonder if any list member can > affirm that this is deserving of being included in a list of CDR approaches. > It doesn't seem to have any active proponents. > > The other was closely to my own interest. On page 4, Box 1, we have: > > Unders t anding this leads to recognition that const r ucti v e approa c hes > m a y appear laterally from ma n y parts of the whole socio-te c hnical e n > vironment, and that the best approa c hes will usually h av e beneficial e f > f ects across a wide range of problems and potential oppor t unities. F or e > xample, emerging methods to produce “cul t ured” or “in vitr o ” meat from > stem cells in f actories m a y h av e the potential to h av e large climatic > impacts as w ell as being healthie r , less polluting and more humane than co > nv entional meat production methods. F at content could easily be controlled. > T he incidence of f ood-borne disease could be dramatical - ly reduced, > thanks to strict quali t y control r ules that are impossible to introduce in > modern animal f arms, slaughterhouses and meat pa c king plants. T he use of > hormones and antibiotics w ould be unnecessa r y . Methane releases from li v > esto c k – a major contributor to climate c hange – could be eliminated, > along with pollution from confined animal- f eeding operations and c hemical > use in gr o wing f eed crops. Demands f or w ate r , energy and other > resources could be cut sharpl y . Large land areas could be freed to plant v > ege t a tion that is mu c h more e f f ecti v e than f ood crops in cap t > uring and storing carbon. 9 T his strategy w ould not be recogni z ed as > “geoengineering” as the w ord is usually defined tod a y . But gi v en its > impact on methane emissions, carbon storage, land use, w ater c y cles and > other Earth s y stems, this is arguably a more com prehensi v e > “geoengineering” strategy than a n y te c hnologies listed in the traditional > litera t ure. > > [RWL: Should this replace Prof. Wong's approach in the CDR category? Are > there any other Geoengineering technologies we are missing? > > A few more comments coming later - but I wonder if others had the same > positive feelings about a well-done report addressed to the right group - > Policy Makers. > > Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Rau" <r...@llnl.gov> > To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > > Cc: "david rejeski" <david.reje...@wilsoncenter.org>, bol...@altfutures.com, > perso...@gao.gov, "Jane Long" <janecsl...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:09:47 AM > Subject: [geo] Advice to GE "decision makers": More BAU? > > Advice to GE "decision makers": More BAU? “It [the report*] recommends that > policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, "to use only if > clearly needed." > Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense > of research and development of energy efficiency measures, carbon-free energy > sources, climate science research or adaptation efforts, the report says.” > *http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/report-release-geoengineering-for-d... > > Given that energy efficiency, carbon-free energy sources, and climate > research (as a mitigation strategy?) have clearly failed to stabilize CO2 > (despite many $B’s in investment in these technologies, emission rate up a > record 6% last > yearhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-ri...) > and will likely continue to fail > (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2011sum.pdf), how about hedging our bet > and fund CDR and SRM R&D equally with the preceding approaches? Otherwise, > might it be a wee bit risky to wait on R&D until GE becomes “clearly needed”? > And who is going to decide this? If “... decisionmakers later in the century > could find themselves in a situation where geoengineering is the only > recourse to truly dangerous climate change", then why should we now > deliberately throttle GE research if it might ultimately prove essential in > preserving earth habitability? > -Greg Rau > > TECHNOLOGY: > Geoengineering may now be required as a 'Plan B' for climate change -- study > Lauren Morello, E&E reporter > Published: Thursday, November 10, 2011 > Faced with the risk that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions may not > succeed in staving off dangerous climate change, governments should begin > research now to determine whether geoengineering approaches are a viable > "Plan B," argues a new report from the Woodrow Wilson International Center > for Scholars. > > "Several of the best climate studies suggest that stabilizing the amount of > carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases below the level that risk dangerous > climate change will require a social mobilization and technological > transformation at a speed and scale that has few if any peacetime > precedents," says the analysis, released today. > > "If correct ... decisionmakers later in the century could find themselves in > a situation where geoengineering is the only recourse to truly dangerous > climate change." > > The report echoes similar recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center, > the Government Accountability Office, the U.K. Royal Society, the U.S. > National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the House > Science, Space and Technology Committee. > > But it places a sharper emphasis on the idea that geoengineering should not > be considered a substitute for emissions reductions or a primary strategy to > fight climate change. > > "Always consider geoengineering issues in a broader contact of climate change > management, which includes emissions reduction as the primary strategy and > adaptation strategy as the secondary strategy," the Wilson Center report says. > > It recommends that policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, > "to use only if clearly needed." > > Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense > of research and development of energy efficiency measures, carbon-free energy > sources, climate science research or adaptation efforts, the report says. > > -- > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- 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 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.
