In my mind, the question of what is CDR and what is not, is a matter of scale and intent. There may not be any clear line in many cases, but the question of intent is important, as is the level of technological intervention that is involved. I would say a deliberate attempt to enhance natural sinks is by definition CDR, though the line is particularly fuzzy with afforestation (which has generally positive impacts on various ecosystem services and biodiversity, as well as promoting carbon storage and sequestration).
I am not categorically opposed to all CDR proposals (though I admit I am to some). I just think that decreasing emissions themselves has to be our first priority, and that everything else is second-order in importance. I also think it is too early still to say that mitigation efforts have failed or are doomed to failure. Yes, global emissions continue to increase (as does atmospheric CO2), largely, I would say, due to a failure to deal adequately with international disparities in wealth and development needs -- but human societies are highly non-linear (unlike the climate system!) and there is still room for rapid change and progress on this front. -Damon On 2013-07-05, at 2:03 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks Damon. To clarify, if as you say natural CO2 uptake processes are not CDR, are attempts to increase/enhance such processes to be viewed as CDR? There also seems to be an assumption in your argument against CDR that the application of emissions reduction technology is now resource limited, and if only more resources were available for emissions reduction our problem would be solved. An obvious but unlikely experiment would be to inject a few $T into emissions reduction and see what happens to the Keeling curve. My guess is that we have already cumulatively injected $1T into efficiency, renewable energy, and CCS, and the results, re air CO2 concentration, speak for themselves. Then there are the policy failure arguments as to why emission reduction isn't working. But for whatever reason, conventional approaches clearly are not sufficiently working now and, under the circumstances, there should be growing concern about if they will ever adequately work and in the time frame required. With it's effectiveness proven by nature, enhancing/modifying natural CDR (or less likely, inventing new methods) provides a possible backup plan that should be viewed as a potentially valuable ally not as a threat or distraction to stabilizing air CO2 concentration if not reducing it. Note to Andrew and geo list: For some reason my response to Andrew's July 4 post (second and third notes below) did not make it on the geo posting. So there they are below (assuming that this current posting works). Also, Andrew mentioned to me that the links I provided in my original post (bottom below) are paywalled (I guess to non-AAAS members?). So hopefully attached in all of their glory is the letter and the Matthews and Solomon response. Further comments invited. Greg From: H. Damon Matthews <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Greg Rau <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; "R. D. Schuiling, (Olaf)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; H. Damon Matthews <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] CRD: "not very relevant" and a "distraction" Hi Greg, I guess I may as well weigh in on this … my intent in writing our reply to your letter was not to label CDRers as a menace to the planet. However, I do think there is a risk of distraction from the (not easy!) task of decreasing emissions. CDR is *not* the same as natural carbons dioxide uptake by sinks -- it is a deliberate human intervention that requires both effort and the investment of time and money. Given that these are limited resources, there will always be a danger of diverting these resources from other priorities to which they could have been applied. Incidentally, I was also aiming for optimism in writing our Perspective -- that future warming is not predetermined by past emissions is a more optimistic view than the alternative. And I do think promoting optimism is important, since the alternative (despair?) is both paralyzing and likely to promote bad decision-making. -Damon On 2013-07-04, at 2:29 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Andrew, Natural CDR is what is saving the planet right now. Without the "free", natural air capture of about 55% of our emissions annually, our situation would be much graver. Or shall we try to also kill this CDR because it is "distracting us from reducing our CO2 emission"? I don't think so. So an important task should be to figure out how to safely and cost-effectively augment this uptake, most logically building on the methods Nature already very successfully employs, rather than assuming that CDR is some novel, exotic, new thing that has to reinvented from the ground up (by the usual and very influential suspects). Then there is the argument that this is too big a task and especially that we can never dream of actually reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, only just help to stabilize it. I would remind you that atmospheric CO2 concentration already significantly declines on a daily and annual basis, thanks to existing CDR. Unfortunately, nearly all of the CO2 removed subsequently leaks back to the atmosphere - thanks primarily to leaky biology. But this presents an opening for us: why not figure out how to slow or eliminate such leaks (respiration) by modifying or burying the biomass (biochar, CROPS, and probably other ways yet to be thought of or publicized). Then there is the argument that the anthro CO2 reservoir in the ocean has to be dealt with; as we remove CO2 from the air, more CO2 will simply degass from the ocean to the air. Another opening - rather than remove excess CO2 from air why not remove excess CO2 from the ocean, especially in upwelling regions that contribute >300 GT CO2/yr to the atmosphere. This can be done by modifying ocean chemistry, biology, and/or physics, but for reasons previously stated, chemistry makes the most sense to me. Bottom line: While currently engaged in a losing battle, CDR is already mitigating the full impact of our CO2 emissions. Given our ongoing failure to sufficiently rein in our CO2 emissions and consequently our rather dire circumstances, wouldn't it make sense to promote the idea of enhancing/modifying the planet's existing, successful CDR capabilities, rather than paint CDR as either impotent or some sort of dangerous, new, sci-fi threat to the planet (or at least to "conventional" wisdom aka the oh-so-effective CCS, renewable energy, and energy efficiency lobbies)? -Greg "It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." Machiavelli, The Prince (1513) ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "R. D. Schuiling, (Olaf)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:21 AM Subject: RE: [geo] CRD: "not very relevant" and a "distraction" I don't think CDR makes any real sense until we stop using fossil fuels at scale. The costs of adding CDR generally exceed that of renewable energy. Therefore, when envisaging future CDR, we have to consider the risks of falling CO2 - which are non trivial. Better the climate devil you know... A On Jul 4, 2013 8:41 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Well, here is a list of papers (Dutch and Russian titles omitted). > > This is at least harder evidence than the common “belief” that enhanced > weathering is too slow. Papers like the paper by Hangx and Spiers that > weathering of olivine sand would take 700 to 2300 years unless very finely > ground are widely quoted, but when I showed that they omitted the most > important factor, namely the fact that sand grains on beaches abrade each > other, and that even after ten days there is already very significant > reaction this is ignored. > > > > Schuiling, R.D. and Krijgsman, P. (2006) Enhanced weathering; an effective > and cheap tool to sequester CO2 . Climatic Change, 74, nrs 1-3, p.349-354. > > Schuiing, R.D. (2006) Mineral sequestration of CO2 and recovery of the heat > of reaction. Chapter 2 in “Macro-engineering, a challenge for the future”. > Eds. V.Badescu, R.B.Cathcart and R.D.Schuiling. Springer > > Schuiling, R.D. (2007) Let the Earth help us to save the Earth. Poster > presented at the Shell International Science Symposium, Rijswijk 2007. > > Schuiling, R.D. (2008) Let the Earth help us to save the Earth. Current > Science 95, no 8, 999256.. > > Schuiling, R.D. (2009) Real geological storage of CO2. Greenhouse Issues no > 93, March 2009, 17-18 > > Schuiling, R.D.(2009) Olivine for Mineral Carbonation. 5 variations on a > theme. Abstr. Third Int.Conf. Geologica Belgica, 46-47 > > Schuiling, R.D,and Tickell, O. (2009) Olivine against climate change and > ocean acidification. Abstr.Int. Symposium on Carbon Management. 25-27 > november, Hyderabad, p.15. > > Schuiling, R.D. (2009) Olivine, some future developments.. Abstr.Int. > Symposium on Carbon Management. 25-27 november, Hyderabad, p.21 > > Schuiling, R.D. (2010) Every cloud has a silver lining – even an ash cloud. > Greenhouse Issues, March 2010, p.10 > > Schuiling, R.D. and de Boer, P.L. (2010) Coastal spreading of olivine to > control atmospheric CO2 concentrations; A critical analysis of viability. > Comment: Nature and laboratory experiments are different. Short Comm. > Int.J.Greenhouse Gas Control, 4, p.855-856. > > Schuiling, R.D. and Tickell, O. (2010). Enhanced weathering of olivine to > capture CO2. J. of Applied Geochemistry. V.12, No. 4, PP.510-519. > > Schuiling, R.D. (2010). Olivine, Some future developments. J. of Applied > Geochemistry. V. 12, No. 4, PP. 545-548 > > Schuiling, R.D. (2010) Possible mitigation measures for Greenhouse-related > threats to coral islands. Abstract Euro ISRS symposium 2010, Reefs in a > changing environment, p.204. > > Schuiling, R.D. and Praagman, E.(2011) Olivine Hills: mineral water against > climate change. Chapter 122 in Engineering Earth: the impact of > megaengineering projects. pp 2201-2206. Ed.Stanley Brunn, Springer. > > Schuiling, R.D., Tickell, O. and Wilson, S.A.(2011) Enhanced silicate > weathering is not limited by silicic acid saturation. Letter, PNAS, 28 > february 2011. > > Schuiling, R.D (2011).: LANCELOT (Lake Nyos Carbon Emission Lowering by > Olivine Treatment) Natural Hazards Volume 56, Issue 3. p 559-563 > > Schuiling, R.D.(2011) Ocean Acidification: back to basic(s). Abstract > AvH7-33, seventh EGUAlexander von Humboldt Int.Conf. on Ocean Acidification > > Schuiling, R.D. (2011) Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Two problems, > one solution. Abstr.ICAM Conference, Trondheim, 1-5 August. (Keynote lecture) > > Schuiling, R.D., Tickell, O. , Wilson, S.A.(2011) Climate Change and the KISS > principle. Poster Goldschmidt Conference Prague, August 14-19. > > Schuiling, R.D. and deBoer, P.L. (2011) Rolling stones; fast weathering of > olivine in shallow seas for cost-effective CO2 capture and mitigation of > global warming and ocean acidification, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 2, > 551-568, doi:10.5194/esdd-2-551-2011 > > Schuiling, R.D. (2012) Potential applications of olivine in Oman. Abstract > Volume, Int.Conf.on the Geology of the Arabian plate and the Oman Mountains. > 224-226 > > Schuiling, R.D.(2012) Olivine, the green solution against climate change and > ocean acidification. Abstract 12th GCGW, Istanbul, p.181 > > Schuiling, R.D. (2012) Hot CO2 emissions; how to use them. Abstr, VOLSAM > conference 2012, p.38-39. > > Schuiling, R.D., Hoogesteger, A.W. and Praagman, E. (2012) From Spa to > Corinth a Road for CO2 Sequestration. Int.J.Earth Sciences and Engineering, > Vol 05, no 6 > > Schuiling. R.D. (2013) Weathering approaches to CO2 sequestration. > Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, Volume 3, pp. > 1909-1927, edited by Robert A. Meyers, ISBN 978-0-387-89469-0. > > Schuiling, R.D. (2013) Farming nickel from non-ore deposits, combined with > CO2 sequestration. Natural Science 5, no 4 > > Schuiling, R.D. (2013) Nickel Mining…or Nickel Farming? Poster presented at > the IMCET conference, Antalya, April 16-19. > > > > There will always be many people who prefer to continue believing in opinions > instead of in facts, but don’t tell me that I should start publishing about > olivine weathering, Olaf > > > > > > > > From: Andrew Lockley > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: woensdag 3 juli 2013 9:45 > To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) > Cc: Michael Hayes > Subject: RE: [geo] CRD: "not very relevant" and a "distraction" > > > > If you believe the 'facts' are that CDR using your method can (at realistic > cost) attenuate all future temperature rise, then I encourage you to publish > your results asap (or post a citation to an existing reference). > > A > > On Jul 3, 2013 8:40 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The blog by Hayes has probably passed through your hands, but without my > cookery book that he mentions. It is a pity that you state that CDR is too > slow, without knowing the facts, but probably based on what others believe, > also without knowing the facts. Grains of olivine of 100 micron (fine sand) > weather in appr. 5 years, and there is thousands of times more olivine near > the Earth surface than we will ever need to solve out CO2 problems at a cost > of 10 to 20 euro per ton of CO2 sequestered. Olivine on beaches may go even > faster, as our experiments have shown that after ten days gentle rotation of > these grains in a beaker with seawater the water has become opaque from all > the olivine slivers. Even in that short time, part of the olivine has already > transformed to brucite (Mg(OH)2, and, as we know from the work on white > smokers, brucite is transformed rapidly into carbonates in sea water. Olaf > Schuiling > > Remember: The surf is the biggest ball-mill on Earth, and is free of charge! > > > > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley > Sent: dinsdag 2 juli 2013 22:19 > To: Greg Rau > Cc: geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] CRD: "not very relevant" and a "distraction" > > > > I think a better argument against CDR is that it's so slow to act that you > probably wouldn't want to pull down the temperature once it's been high for > so long. > > Would we really want to go right back to pre industrial temperatures today? > If not, why should we assume that future generations will want to go back to > today's climate? Why will they want to go back at all? > > Prevention of rises is preferable to facilitating falls. CDR can't do that, > in practice. > > A > > On Jul 2, 2013 8:43 PM, "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Klaus Lackner and I tried to inject some hope and optimism into the earlier > climate change mitigation discussion by Matthews and Solomon: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1522.2.full > > > > M&S reply: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1523.1.full > > > > They summarize: > > "In a discussion of the potential for immediate or near-future action to slow > the growth of atmospheric CO2, we suggest that consideration of carbon > dioxide removal (or other geoengineering) technologies would at best be not > very relevant, and at worst could distract from the imperative of decreasing > investment in energy technologies that lead to large CO2 emissions." > > > > Message to CRDer's: Put down those pencils and back away from the black board > - you are distracting the geniuses who are going to reduce CO2 emissions and > you are a potential menace to the planet. That goes double for SRMer's. > > > > Greg > > -- > 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:geoengineering%[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. > 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:geoengineering%[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. > 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Damon Matthews Associate Professor Geography, Planning and Environment Concordia University Hall Building, Room 1255-39 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 (514) 848-2424 ext 2064 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.gpe.concordia.ca/faculty-and-staff/dmatthews/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <Rau and Lackner 2013.pdf> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Damon Matthews Associate Professor Geography, Planning and Environment Concordia University Hall Building, Room 1255-39 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 (514) 848-2424 ext 2064 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.gpe.concordia.ca/faculty-and-staff/dmatthews/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
