Andrew: I very much appreciate your management of the geoengineering google group. Let me remove all mystery regarding the Special Issue on CDR in Climatic Change.
This special issue was edited by Massimo Tavoni (FEEM, Milan) and me. It has ten papers. A paper version of the special issue will appear, as I understand it, in May. Already, nine of the ten articles are posted on the Climatic Change website; the exception is Massimo's and my introductory article, which should be posted this week. All ten will be in front of the paywall, thanks to a commitment from all the authors that this is important to do when the audience extends beyond the academic community in "Western" countries. The list below has hyperlinks to the nine articles already available. The special issue arose from a meeting on CDR in Venice hosted by FEEM in 2011. Most of the ten papers are highly reworked versions of talks presented there. I will send a link to Massimo's and my article as soon as it is posted. Robert Socolow CDR special issue of Climatic Change: Hyperlinks to papers 1. CLIM-D-12-00647 Modeling meets science and technology: An introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions. Tavoni and Socolow. 2. CLIM-D-12-00193 The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2°C - Insights from Integrated Assessment Modelling. van Vuuren et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0680-5 3. CLIM-D-12-00108R1 Can Radiative Forcing Be Limited to 2.6 Wm-2 Without Negative Emissions From Bioenergy and CO2 Capture and Storage? Edmonds et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0678-z 4. CLIM-D-12-00194R1 Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4 5. CLIM-D-12-00181R2 Direct Air Capture of CO2 and Climate Stabilization: A Model Based Assessment. Chen and Tavoni. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0714-7 6. CLIM-D-12-00115R1 Optimal mitigation strategies with negative emission technologies and carbon sinks under uncertainty. Fuss et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0676-1 7. CLIM-D-12-00243 Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Smith and Torn. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0682-3 8. CLIM-D-12-00179R1 Adjustment of the natural carbon cycle to negative emission rates. Vichi et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0677-0 9. CLIM-D-12-00190R1 Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide-carbonate system using a countercurrent air-liquid contactor. Mazzotti et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0679-y 10. CLIM-D-12-00234 Exploring negative territory: Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Meadowcroft. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0684-1 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:08 PM To: andrew lockley Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change Andrew etal: 1. Again, thanks for your key citation by Kriegler, etal, which (repeating) is: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4; 'Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?" Elmar Kriegler1 <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4/fulltext.html#ContactOfAuthor1> , Ottmar Edenhofer1, Lena Reuster1, Gunnar Luderer1 and David Klein1 I was a tad disappointed and surprised that an article on BECCS would not once mention the word "biochar". But since the resource and CDR are in common, there may be some value to the biochar community in this article, especially as it is NOT behind the usual paywall. 2. The full pdf shows this is part of a (presumably) forthcoming special issue of Climatic Change (CC) devoted only to CDR. I could not find it as being already out and therefore could not find a full Table of Contents. But by searching at the CC site under the name of one of the special edition's editors, I came up with quite a few more - most also free. They can be found by going to the general CC website and doing a search. My search finding these below was: http://link.springer.com/search?facet-publication-title=%22Climatic+Change%22&query=socolow&search-within=Journal&sortOrder=newestFirst The other articles I found and give here to save others' time are (not in any logical order): a. ."Adjustment of the natural ocean carbon cycle to negative emission rates"; M. Vichi1, 2 <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0677-0/fulltext.html#ContactOfAuthor1> , A. Navarra1, 2 and P. G. Fogli1 b. "Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: A model based assessment"; Chen Chen1, 2 <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0714-7/fulltext.html#ContactOfAuthor1> and Massimo Tavoni1, 2 c. "The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C--insights from integrated assessment modelling"; Detlef P. van Vuuren1, 2, 4 <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0680-5/fulltext.html#ContactOfAuthor1> , Sebastiaan Deetman1, Jasper van Vliet1, Maarten van den Berg1, Bas J. van Ruijven3 and Barbara Koelbl2 d. "Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal" ;Lydia J. Smith1, 2 and Margaret S. Torn1, 2 e. " Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives"; James Meadowcrof<http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22James+Meadowcroft%22>6. ; f. "Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm-2 without negative emissions from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage? "; James Edmonds & Patrick Luckow & Katherine Calvin & Marshall Wise & Jim Dooley & Page Kyle & Son H. Kim & Pralit Patel & Leon Clarke g. "Optimal mitigation strategies with negative emission technologies and carbon sinks under uncertainty"; Sabine Fuss &Wolf Heinrich Reuter & Jana Szolgayová & Michael Obersteiner 3 Not free, but in same future special issue: "Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a countercurrent air-liquid contactor ": Marco Mazzotti<http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22Marco+Mazzotti%22>, Renato Baciocchi<http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22Renato+Baciocchi%22>, Michael J. Desmond<http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22Michael+J.+Desmond%22>, Robert H. Socolow<http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22Robert+H.+Socolow%22> (Not AT ALL encouraging) 4. I haven't read any of these, but a few briefly mention biochar and/or make a case for CDR. I will try to identify those later. Andrew - again thanks for this important (but somewhat disappointing) CDR lead. Ron ________________________________ From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:17:48 AM Subject: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0681-4 Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Elmar Kriegler, Ottmar Edenhofer, Lena Reuster, Gunnar Luderer, David Klein Abstract The ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor. We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions. -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
