Greg and cc list No, I don't recall this paper (by Professor Meadowcroft) being discussed - only given in a list by Prof. Socolow several weeks ago. I did get something out of this paper, but I still have to reread it. I got stuck on one page - for his Table 1. The problem for me is that the author isn't (nor claims to be) expert in biochar - the only one of these eight CDR technologies where I have been working. There are only so many hours in a day. Prof. Meadowcroft is a Public Policy expert and can't possibly have enough time to become expert in any of the eight CDR technologies he compares, much less all of them. So I feel it is up to those who think they are a bit further along on one technology to pipe in (as I am about to do), using his Table 1 as a basis. I do so only for biochar, with the hope that others will do the same for the other 7 CDR technologies. I further hope all will comment on or object on anything I have written below. In Table 1, Prof. Meadowcroft has 48 entries in a 6 columns by 8 row matrix. The following are only for five columns for the fourth (biochar) row. Except for my personal RWL identifier, everything in bold, underlined and italics is quoted from row 3 (biochar) of this Table 1. Italics and underlining (without bolding) are from other rows (other CDR approaches) The following assumes the reader already knows biochar fundamentals. If not, first visit www.biochar-international.org . RWL Comments on Prof. Meadowcroft's Table 1 Column 1. " Potential difficulties: Quantifying removals; verifying permanence; land use impacts and conflicts" RWL: I disagree with all three statements; a) Quantifying CO2 removals (in the form of biochar) is straightforward on a sampling basis, especially if soil samples are saved from before and after biochar's application. Satellite observations seem likely soon. Soil scientists quantify soil carbon content all the time - with high accuracy.. b) Permanence can be verified also by returning to the field; subsidies/incentives can be based on permanence results c) Evidence is that farmers and land-owners are anxious to apply biochar, especially to poor soils. Conflicts can occur, but need not. But of course different potential difficulties exist and must be mentioned d) A peculiar potential difficulty is that any future biochar venture will have to concern itself with three income streams - rare in any business model. Besides the climate monetary stream of this article is an income for energy and an income for soil benefits. Even more complex is that the soil benefits continue for centuries if not millennia. An LCA (life cycle analysis) seems much harder here than for other CDR approaches, for these triple income and timing reasons. Not a problem it seems for any other CDR approach. e) There are a handful of small but active anti-biochar groups, based mainly on arguments made against biofuels. Biodiversity and indigenous peoples are prime. (and valid) concerns. A possibility of improper corporate behavior does not make a probability. Fortunately, these groups have not yet published any peer-reviewed publications re biochar. f) the mostly negative (certainly lukewarm) views on biochar in the 2009 Royal Society report on Geoengineering, and several others drawing on its several pronouncements. There were zero biochar experts voting on these rankings. Column 2. "Potential co-benefits : 1) Agricultural productivity; 2) bio-energy production" [RWL: Agree with both but need to add: a) From all four entries for Afforestation : "3) Livelihoods, 4) water management, 5) air quality, 6) biodiversity " b) Modify the entry for BECCS : " Linked to bio-energy pathways" BECCS apples primarily to electricity from large electric power plants replacing coal). Biochar can do that but also be a co-product with biofuels replacing also: fossil 7) oil and 8) gas, 9) (smaller) combined heat and power (CHP) systems and 10) most bomass-related energy systems in developing countries (where biomass and even charcoal remain the main form of energy). This especially applies to char-making cookstoves. c) Add important technical benefits in 11) food security, 12) significantly reduced need for fertilizers, 13) much lower release (50%?) of N2O and 14) retention of fertilizer release associated with ocean and lake dead zones d) Add important sociological characteristics: 15) applies everywhere (every continent and most latitudes, 16) is rapidly advancing in public participation/interest/involvement, and 17) has received considerable positive reception from both small and large business and numerous non-profits and governments e) Of the following five CDR technologies the only co-benefit listed is from the 7th row - on Ocean acidification . "Reducing ocean acidification " This applies (18) to all eight CDR approaches. For many, ocean acidification is the reason for an interest in CDR, and especially biochar. Biochar has the potential to also (19) utilize the ocean and coastal biomass resources. Column 3. "Other relevant characteristics: Very little research to date on this approach; many unknowns" RWL: Re the first statement. a). There is copious research appearing every week (actually about five times per week) - in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as many other avenues. The Meadowcroft article failed to cite any current main resource for following this research, such as the home site for Cornell Prof. Johannes Lehmann, the organization IBI (Intern atonal Biochar Initiative) or important national biochar networks (CSIRO) in Australia (which is already supplying carbon credits for biochar) or the UK. Globally, there are at least three dozen national and sub-national biochar groups - most loosely connected to IBI. Last week there was a first joint meeting of German and Chinese biochar groups (China has at least three biochar organizations). China has the capital and motivation to be the world leader. There must be just as many excellent biochar-only web sites and discussion lists. All of them regularly discuss research. b) Yes on the second "unknowns" characteristics, yes on "many", but "no" on showstoppers. The main biochar "unknown", I believe, is how to optimally match a particular char (its attributes of pH, CEC, surface area, H2 and O2 content, etc ) to a particular soil, climate, and plant species to best achieve increased productivity.. A potential user can easily avoid a problem with simple prior test pot testing before application to a field. Insurance is un-needed.. c) Counterbalancing comment 1d) on the problems of having three income streams, is the positive one of possibly not needing any or much funding for the CDR part of geoengineering being discussed in this paper. We know that there were thousands of years of biochar success over a large area in Brazilian Amazon - with zero concern over carbon credit incentives. d) Like Afforestation, biochar has the trained farmers and foresters to begin implementation almost immediately. Manpower availability is a non-issue. Moving manpower back to the countryside would be seen as a plus by many. e) Charcoal is already available worldwide - and at ridiculously low costs (because many sales are illegal). Modern production costs are beginning to be known. There is a supply shortage for the biochar type of char. Biochar can solve this serious cause of forest degradation - in part because biochar, unlike ordinary char, can be made from ag and forestry waste streams. Column 4. " Suggested policy stance: " Encourage research and small scale experiments" [RWL : a) The biochar certainly would concur with these two "stances", but I think more aggressive policy is warranted. b) I suggest that biochar can go, and already is going, further - as stated for BECCS : "Encourage research; practical experiments and demonstration ". Much of biochar activity is already at the demonstration stage - and ahead of BECCS. c) I also endorse the three policy stances proposed for Afforestation: " Continue to actively develop policy frameworks; integrate into mitigation portfolio; be alert for collateral damage " All of these three have happened and continue to happen for biochar. I would welcome suggestions on how to accelerate the mitigation portfolio topic d) Lastly, I - like all interested in Geoengineering, would have liked to see a recommendation for cost reduction as appeared for the DAC (Direct Air Capture) row: "Encourage research to prove technologies and reduce costs " Column 5. Current deployment priority: "Medium/low (unknown costs, but favorable co-benefits and risk profile) " a. Obviously this "medium/low" priority for biochar does not reflect my outlook. I expect others writing similarly on the other seven approaches will argue for a more aggressive policy. Costs and (almost 20) benefits are discussed earlier. b I would have preferred to have seen for biochar the author's recommendation for Afforestation: " High" Such a priority seems already justified, given the urgency of our climate situation. If society places any emphasis at all on speed, biochar seems as ready to proceed as Afforestation, especially with limited funding. THE END. Looking forward to comments. Ron On May 6, 2013, at 11:27 AM, "Rau, Greg" < [email protected] > wrote: Already discussed? - Greg Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives James Meadowcroft Received: 21 May 2012 /Accepted: 23 December 2012 /Published online: 18 January 2013 # The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Over the last five years there has been increased scientific interest in the role carbon dioxide removal (CDR), or ‘ negative carbon dioxide emissions ’ , might play in addressing anthro- pogenic climate change. CDR is typically understood to include approaches such as large scale afforestation and reforestation, biomass energy based carbon capture and storage, direct air capture, ocean fertilization, and enhanced weathering. Each of these could remove emissions from the atmosphere, slowing (or perhaps ultimately reversing) the accumulation of carbon dioxide contributing to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Along with solar radiation management (SRM), CDR has been presented as a prospective avenue for ‘ geoengineer- ing ’— the deliberate attempt to modify the global environment, in this case to counteract harm associated with human induced climate change (Royal Society 2009 ). This article engages with these issues, considering the significance of CDR approaches for climate policy. It is organized in three sections: the first provides a brief introduction to CDR; the second explores its possible place in long term climate policy; the third considers nearer term policy issues. -- 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 . <blockquote> <Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives 10.1007_s10584-012-0684-1.pdf> </blockquote> -- 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.
