Professor Socolow, List and several ccs 

1. Thanks for the added follow-up to my note of yesterday (which [along with 
Andrew's starting note] I have excised to save space - since yours is more 
clear). 

2. I googled for FEEM and eventually decided they were the host and not 
particularly active in the conference CDR topic. True? Rather, apparently it 
was Princeton (probably mostly yourself) and the two Italian groups CCCM and 
ICCG. Could you describe a little more on the way these groups did and may 
still be cooperating on the CDR topic? 

3. Googling turned up one (excellent) PPt, and after some more googlng I found 
the full agenda. There were plenty of pdfs (a lot more than the ten in the 
forthcoming special issue) available at 
http://www.iccgov.org/EventDetails.aspx?IDEvento=51&IDSM=59&IDM=76&Past=&Lan=en-US
 

It will take some time to comment on these, but for those on this list 
interested n CDR, I recommend this site - and thank Professor Socolow and 
others for putting this conference and the special issue together. 

4. I may be wrong, because I haven't had time to look at these Ppts, but it 
appears that none on these newly found resources were presented by persons 
working on biochar. This is not so surprising when reading a conference 
advertising blurb, that similarly failed to mention biochar:: 
"All the main CDR technologies will be considered, including afforestation, 
biomass with CCS, management of bio-stock, chemical direct air capture, 
enhanced weathering, and ocean fertilization" 

5. One question is whether this last sentence was written before or after 
trying to get a biochar representative to attend? Few biochar 
scientists/analysts are working to become part of the CDR community, but I 
think most would still think of themselves as being a "main" CDR approach. Or 
perhaps, being the only CDR approach that both provides energy and has 
centuries or millennia of out-year economic and CDR value, maybe it is in a 
category by itself? Can you (and anyone, but especially the ccs) help me 
understand where the conference organizers both did and would now place biochar 
within the CDR arena? 

6. I find this important, because biochar would seem certain to be "voted" very 
low in this group's ranking of the CDR options - a vote with which I obviously 
do not concur, and which would be certain to harm biochar's future (now 
virtually non-existent) funding . 

Ron 


From: "Robert H. Socolow" <[email protected]> 
To: [email protected], "andrew lockley" <[email protected]> 
Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, "massimo tavoni" 
<[email protected]>, "Prof. Carlo Carraro" <[email protected]>, 
"Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Gary Yohe 
([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Michael Oppenheimer" 
<[email protected]> 
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 5:09:35 AM 
Subject: RE: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for 
climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change 




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 

<snip> 

-- 
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.


Reply via email to