Instead of embedding a new group inside a bloated agency, seems best to start a task force.
Given my experience with DARPA, they'd work for specific goals on a milestone basis with the clock running. They studied geoengineering the Arctic years ago, acting under the DOD determination that such effects are a national security issue. The best run group that could do strato aerosols is plainly the US Air Force, which flies the KC-10 Extenders we would need, and has a half century of experience. BTW, on CDR, why no ocean sequestration a la CROPS? This we know how to do right now. Gregory Benford On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > List, cc John, Ken, Josh: > > 1. Apologies in advance for a too-long note. I think that how best > to accelerate R&D on CDR is a topic that needs to be continued on this > list. It needs to have an international side as well as a US (NASA, NOAA, > etc) side. t needs an SRM component as well. But below, I restrict > myself mostly to just US agencies and CDR > > 2. John's tale of NOAA is very sad. But I believe they should still > be involved in CDR RD&D activities - the only subject raised by Josh in > reporting the paper by Jim Hartung. > Is there agreement that the same agency should not be in charge of > both SRM and CDR? I have come to that conclusion - and the following is > only on CDR - and only on the comments by Hartung at > > http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung > > 3. The next question for me is whether is whether one present > existing US agency can or should handle the three main CDR approaches > listed by Hartung: > a. "... causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, > b. "...expanding practices and technologies in farming and > forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and > c. "...fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants > that consume and sequester CO2. > > 4. Hartung earlier also talks of 10-20 possibilities - and I have > seen lists that get about that long. Notably missing are artificial trees > (coupled with CCS) But note that part "b" has at least four major > subsets: afforestation/reforestation, reduced tillage and similar Ag > practices, BECCS, and biochar. Biochar has potential important > interactions with all three others, as well as the weatherization and ocean > topics, but that is getting too detailed for this note. > > 5. For biochar, the only US Federal agency doing much work now is > the ARS part of USDA. I read of a small amount of satellite surveillance > by NASA that can be helpful.. But I think the US biochar community would > be much happier with USDA leading a crash effort than NASA. But we are > talking here of something larger than biochar, which I only use as an > example. > > 6. US federal agencies besides NASA and USDA and that have a > potential role in biochar accelerated development are (alphabetically) > DoC (international trade, rural economic development) > DoD (military interest especially in biofuels, but also in > hostility minimization) > DoE (biochar should always have an energy production side; > biomass now viewed mostly as biofuel source; numerous skilled national > labs), > DoI (already helping wind and solar placement; large land > manager) > EPA (with responsibility on licensing - and possibly on revenue > collections) > NCAR (a lead agency on the CO2 problem) > NOAA (since ocean biomass can feed biochar) > USGS (water and fire responsibilities) > > (Not intended as an exhaustive list. I am intentionally leaving > outNSF, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban > Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasuryand some > others. Maybe too quick a cut on some of these?) > > 7. So I conclude, for reasons of speed and the complexities of CDR > that President Obama shouldn't choose a single existing agency - even > NASA. He has to either create a new agency or a task force. I doubt the > former is possible any time soon, given the US political stalemate. > > 8. So I suggest his only near-time choice is a task force, with > some newly assigned "Czar". Despite my reluctance to endorse NASA, I > think Jim Hansen would bring the right background to this task. > Alternatively, maybe John Holdren? There could be at least a thousand > existing Federal employees "seconded" volunteers . Not working n the same > building(s). > The funding doesn't have to be proportional to where the new staff > comes from. But they might need a million or so each (on average) of > budgets (mostly from DoD?), but mostly staying, at least at first, within > their existing agencies. A billion dollars in year 1, much for outside > contracting - largely for in-place CDR research - not paper studies, would > be a nice first year goal. The annual funding could largely come from > removing existing fossil fuel tax breaks (about $4 billion per year, I see > in one place). The funding for each CDR approach should not be equal - but > rather be proportionate to present status towards rapid implementation. > This could/should have a much more aggressive time schedule that > that proposed by.Mr. Hartung. > > Again, sorry I got carried away. I just don't think we should let > this CDR-advancement subject drop and am anxious to hear the views of > others. I am perfectly fine with a similar (but not under one umbrella) > program for SRM. Perhaps a single agency could handle SRM - but that is > not the topic that Mr. Hartung and Josh have raised. > > Ron > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"John Nissen" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Cc: *[email protected], [email protected], "John > Nissen" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:03:53 AM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort > > > > Hi Ken, > > I was present at the launch of the NOAA updated report on the state of the > Arctic at AGU in December*. > > NOAA has singularly failed in its mission: > > To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, > To share that knowledge and information with others, and > To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. > > It has failed to predict changes in the Arctic as regards sea ice, > temperature and climate, and it has failed to predict the effect of Arctic > amplification on polar jet stream behaviour, weather extremes and hence the > climate of the Northern Hemisphere. They seem to have lacked understanding > of the force and progression of the vicious cycle of warming, retreat of > snow and sea ice with a reduction of albedo leading to further warming. > > If they do have this understanding, they have failed to share that > knowledge with others. > > They have neither taken action or recommended action to cool the Arctic as > required to preserve the Arctic coastal and marine ecosystem, which are > threatened by the virtual disappearance of the sea ice at the end of summer > during this decade, as can be determined from a simple extrapolation of sea > ice volume. > > They have ignored the advice of arguably the world's top sea ice expert, > Professor Peter Wadhams, on the above matters. > > Cheers, > > John > > * At the press launch, a question was raised whether there was anybody in > the room who knew about a proposal for geoengineering to cool the > Arctic. I started to answer, but was told to shut up and was ushered out > of the room! Thus NOAA are guilty of suppression of knowledge as well as > the above failings! > > -- > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Ken Caldeira < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> NASA's mission is to "pioneer the future in space >> exploration<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exploration> >> , scientific discovery <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science> and >> aeronautics research." >> >> NOAA usually takes on operational tasks. They are typically not >> considered an operational agency. >> >> Of course, the mission of various agencies can be modified. >> >> >> PS. NOAA's misison is: >> >> To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and >> coasts, >> To share that knowledge and information with others, and >> To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* >> *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* >> >> Our YouTube videos<http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Josh Horton >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit >>> more obvious... >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung >>> >>> Can NASA Stop Global >>> Warming?<http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung> >>> >>> - >>> >>> - *30* >>> - *4* >>> - *8* >>> - *11* >>> >>> LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the >>> United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man >>> on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. >>> The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. >>> From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on >>> the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic >>> growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and >>> inspired people worldwide. >>> [image: This illustration is by Dean Rohrer and comes from <a >>> href="http://www.newsart.com";>NewsArt.com</a>, and is the property of the >>> NewsArt organization and of its artist. Reproducing this image is a >>> violation of copyright >>> law.]<http://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/63d5a3ba4ad86aa80fa43c0308d49e63.jpg>Illustration >>> by Dean Rohrer >>> >>> Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of >>> important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar >>> system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space >>> telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. >>> These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures. >>> >>> But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal >>> to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency >>> needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current >>> needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it. >>> >>> Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important >>> issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to >>> remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission >>> could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be >>> completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate >>> geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The >>> second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the >>> most promising technologies by 2025. >>> >>> Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last >>> half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from >>> roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up >>> the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, >>> the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per >>> million in roughly 25 years. >>> >>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this >>> increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) >>> over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this >>> threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate >>> change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the >>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>> >>> Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient >>> to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world >>> decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The *Massachusetts >>> Institute of Technology >>> estimates<http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf> >>> *that, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will >>> exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. >>> According to a report by the professional services firm >>> PricewaterhouseCoopers<http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/low-carbon-economy-index/assets/pwc-low-carbon-economy-index-2012.pdf>, >>> even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the >>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, >>> triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over >>> pre-industrial levels. >>> >>> So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor >>> of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is >>> needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to >>> develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the >>> atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from >>> fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several >>> reasons. >>> >>> Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system >>> aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended >>> consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will >>> require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of >>> planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring >>> capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide. >>> >>> In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering >>> experiment with unknown consequences. NASA’s international experience will >>> enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most >>> effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment’s risks. And >>> NASA’s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize >>> suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops – and >>> the associated risks. >>> >>> The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and >>> oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; >>> NASA’s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these >>> processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing >>> rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in >>> farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the >>> ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2. >>> >>> Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this >>> mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater >>> focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to >>> gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect >>> Earth’s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes >>> if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA’s greatest contribution >>> to the world. >>> >>> We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering >>> technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to >>> ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin >>> to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial >>> opportunity to curtail global warming. >>> >>> Read more at >>> http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung#Zga3mmzFMx8bcG38.99 >>> >>> -- >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
