Dr. Seitz, list, adding Dr. Goreau
On Sep 21, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Russell Seitz <[email protected]> wrote:
1. I didn't find this BBC article below submitted by Drs. Goreau and
Seitz to be helpful.
For one, the article doesn't answer the hugely important BBC's headline
question "Ideas….cool...realistic?"
As for almost every article like this, there is a cursory listing of 3 SRM
and 7 CDR technologies. Then there is commentary by six knowledgeable Geo
researchers - but again - all ONLY talked about SRM - presumably because that
is all they were asked about. The reporter here is apparently new to this
topic. Glaringly missing are the opinions of a large number of CDR experts in
the UK. I am making no comment here on the opinions of the six interviewees.
They are all clearly qualified - and possibly even on CDR.
So, I am still looking for one paper - popular or technical - that
compares SRM and CDR quantitatively - in any manner. I don't believe the Royal
Society report did that.
2. This geo list could help by giving researchers, modelers, or other
reporters some ideas on HOW SRM and CDR might be quantitatively compared - to
answer the "Realistic?" question, . Personally I can't even think of one
suitable simple metric of comparability, although it is relatively
straightforward to compare with the separate SRM and CDR parts of
Geoengineering. That is: SRM and CDR appear to be apples and oranges. The
main big cost-component differences will be ocean acidification and assumptions
about fossil fuel use. For the same scenario, SRM and CDR can both address
ocean rise and similar far-off impacts. It is not clear to me even which can
have the more immediate impact (Jim Hansen presenting models getting back to
350 ppm pretty quickly - as fossil fuels are phased out ), so we need several
scenarios as well.
All the CDR approaches are interested in carbon negative wedges - Gt C/yr.
Not something that SRM even begins to address numerically, except through
discussions of long term "natural" carbon drawdown. Both SRM and CDR
approaches can include the costs of temperature-related impacts. In one
sense, the issue I am addressing is perhaps one of quantifying
"irreversibility".
3. So here are seven metric-related questions for the hoped-for comparison:
Q1: Energy How should carbon positivity and neutrality fit into the
comparison of CDR with SRM?
Within the seven CDRs listed, the first three have a present carbon
neutral (BECCS and biochar) or future (afforestation) energy-use metric. The
other seven and SRM all consume energy - are carbon positive. This is a
four-way question on a CO2 molecule: better to a) not insert, b) remove, c)
hide its visibility, or d) a-b-c are equal.
Q2. Non-carbon side benefits Should any non-CDR, non-energy benefit be
part of the comparison metric?
The biochar option (and no other) is now largely being analyzed for its
soil improvement benefits. This is 100% compatible with CDR, although in
competition with its (Q1) carbon neutral attributes. Perhaps there are other
CDR or SRM options with measurable similar side benefits, addressing major
societal issues.
Q3. Mainly total (not only carbon) costing? Is least cost overall
(including any non-geo attributes) the appropriate metric?
Assuming the the apples and oranges issue is solved through a long-term
cost-benefit analysis (CBA), should a CDR or SRM approach in that CBA
competition include monetary income streams additional to the assumed main
international financing (in the form of carbon credits or other),
Q4. Externalities Should externalities (not part of a usual CDR or SRM
CBA analysis) be part of a comparison metric?
Some approaches (SRM or CDR) could have other societal (non-marketed)
cost or benefits (externalities such as fire-prevention, health improvement,
ocean dead zone mitigation, etc) that are unlikely to receive international
carbon financing,
Q5 The time domain Should the same discount rate be applied to all ten
geo approaches?
The SRM approach clearly has to involve the time domain and discount
rates, with scenario assumptions needed on its introduction-timing (including
possible future rejection). Of the CDR options, only biochar seems to also
have out-year beneficial impacts (but for a near-term application, there are
few or no out-year costs). Some CDR approaches will have out-year costs
(monitoring, etc). All 7 CDR approaches can start immediately providing
benefits, but biochar alone (like SRM) also (unfortunately, adding complexity)
needs consideration both decades and centuries after introduction.
This not a question about what the exact DR should be. The DR can be a
scenario variable.
Q6. Urgency, Risk Should the issues of speed and "tipping point"
avoidance be an identifiable part of the comparison metric?
Unlike SRM, all seven CDR approaches are either in process, or can start
soon. Some may not require international governance,
Q7. Expert Disagreements on limits and costs For all ten options, how
should lack of agreement on physical limits and costs be handled?
This is NOT the same as the main question on how to compare SRM and CDR
- but rather on who should be the arbiter on cost methodology and cost ranges.
Examples of physical (non cost) limits that ail effect costs are land
availability, soil productivity (present and future), ore deposit availability
and lifetime, etc - where wide disagreement presently exists - independent of
present or future costs. See next.
Q8. Technology Assessment Methodology For all ten options, how should
input to policy makers be handled?
The discipline of Technology Assessment might suggest the main options
are: a) small panels of experts acting through major science or engineering
groups, or b) more like our present criminal system, with a "jury" of
non-experts, balancing the opinions of the 10 technology advocates/detractors.
The jury can involve "hundreds or thousands", the expert panels probably a
dozen or two at most. The IPCC is perhaps a third option.
Or should elected politicians and politics be the first and only group to
handle this?
Thoughts? Missing questions? Thanks again to Drs. Seitz and Goreau for
providing this chance to again comment on the press' (mis)handling of the term
"geongineering".
Ron
> Dr. Thomas J. Goreau, President, of the Global Coral Reef Alliance and
> Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small
> Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
> commends as 'fairly balanced' Melissa Hogeboom's new BBC article,
>
> Are ideas to cool the planet realistic?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24033772
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
