I agree that CDR needs a separate discussion. I'm not too keen on "negcarbon" or "CDR" since air CO2 can be managed/decreased by reducing natural emissions as well as increasing air CO2 removal. Something like "Air CO2 Management" might be OK, but then I don't think we want to include things like CCS.
So am supportive, if we have a critical mass and can compete with existing e-discussions e.g. biochar and geo. Greg >________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; RAU greg <[email protected]> >Cc: Geoengineering <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 9:25 AM >Subject: RE: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered > > > >Andrew, Greg, Ron, > > >Any of you game to start a "[email protected]"? > > >It appears we need to create a firewall (canyon, mountain, ocean, big >obstacle) between "geo- and climate-engineering" and CDR, Negative Carbon >Technologies, or whatever we call them. We don't want people hearing or >seeing mentions of CDR in the same paragraph with climate-engineering (the >SRM, clouds, mirrors, OIF, etc.) > > >Better if most mentions of NegCarbon are in paragraphs and articles discussing >mitigation or adaptation. > > >On our part, concerning any mention of any CDR, we should do as my mom would >say about gossip: "Don't say anything, unless you can say something nice." >That might be BECCS with geologic storage of CO2, or biochar, or Ocean Forests >with some silicate mineral storage of bio-CO2 and BECCS geologic storage of >the combusted bio-CH4. > > >There is plenty of CO2 to go around. "Mistakes" that are discovered after a >few billion tons of CO2 are stored with a certain technology will not affect >the big picture. We take the Campbell Soup approach. Campbell Soup >advertised "Soup is good food" even though that slogan increased sales of >competitors canned soups. > > >Mark > > >Mark E. Capron, PE >Ventura, California >www.PODenergy.org > > > >-------- Original Message -------- >>Subject: Re: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered >>From: "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]> >>Date: Thu, January 16, 2014 10:29 pm >>To: RAU greg <[email protected]> >>Cc: Geoengineering <[email protected]> >> >> >>Greg and list: >> >> >> Three points: >> >> >>a. My interpretation of the Reuters news today (repeated below) was that it >>was only about CDR. I didn’t catch a statement there (and I’ve looked) about >>SRM. Gore is primarily talking SRM. In several books he speaks favorable >>about biochar (and maybe other CDR - probably afforestation) >> >> >>b. The article by Query had a graphic that apparently came from Climate >>Central. They need to update it to be in accord with Mr. Gore’s views. >> >> >>c. We have the same continuing problem of not knowing who means what when >>they use the term “geoengineering.” >> >> >>Ron >> >> >> >>On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Al Gore weighs in on the IPCC's new change of heart: Geoengineering 'Insane, >>Utterly Mad and Delusional'. >>>http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/16 >>> >>>Don't sugar coat it, Al. On the other hand Nature will perform her own >>>geoengineering over the next 100 kyrs in consuming all of the CO2 we end up >>>emitting. How delusional is it to think we might able to "engineer" a >>>speedup of this process and alleviate at least some of the suffering in the >>>interim? Call me mad, but considering how well cap and trade, the Kyoto >>>Protocol, and the COP process have gone, it would seem rather reckless to >>>dismiss the possibility/necessity of post-emissions remediation of the CO2 >>>problem without further study. >>>Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>________________________________ >>>>From: "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> >>>>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:18 AM >>>>Subject: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>This is apparently from the upcoming IPCC Mitigation volume, or something >>>>else? CDRer's mount up? >>>>Greg >>>>http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html >>>>Sucking CO2 from atmosphere may be only way to meet climate goals, UN >>>>report says >>>>Published: January 16, 2014 - 5:51AM >>>>Advertisement >>>>Governments may have to extract vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the >>>>air by 2100 to achieve a target for limiting global warming, backed by >>>>trillion-dollar shifts towards clean energy, a draft U.N. report showed on >>>>Wednesday. >>>> >>>>A 29-page summary for policymakers, seen by Reuters, says most scenarios >>>>show that rising world emissions will have to plunge by 40 to 70 per cent >>>>between 2010 and 2050 to give a good chance of restricting warming to U.N. >>>>targets. >>>> >>>>The report, outlining solutions to climate change, is due to be published >>>>in Germany in April after editing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate >>>>Change (IPCC). It will be the third in a series by the IPCC, updating >>>>science from 2007. >>>> >>>>It says the world is doing too little to achieve a goal agreed in 2010 of >>>>limiting warming to below 2 degrees above pre-industrial times, seen as a >>>>threshold for dangerous floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels. >>>> >>>>To get on track, governments may have to turn ever more to technologies for >>>>"carbon dioxide removal" (CDR) from the air, ranging from capturing and >>>>burying emissions from coal-fired power plants to planting more forests >>>>that use carbon to grow. >>>> >>>>Most projects for capturing carbon dioxide from power plants are >>>>experimental. Among big projects, Saskatchewan Power in Canada is >>>>overhauling its Boundary Dam power plant to capture a million tonnes of >>>>carbon dioxide a year. >>>> >>>>And, if the world overshoots concentrations of greenhouse gases in the >>>>atmosphere consistent with the 2C goal, most scenarios for getting back on >>>>track "deploy CDRtechnologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide >>>>emissions become negative" before 2100, it says. >>>> >>>>Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C since the Industrial Revolution. >>>> >>>>Bioenergy >>>> >>>>To limit warming, the report estimates the world would have to invest an >>>>extra $US147 billion ($164 billion) a year in low-carbon energies, such as >>>>wind, solar or nuclear power from 2010 to 2029. >>>> >>>>At the same time, investments in fossil fuel energy would have to be >>>>reduced by $US30 billion annually. And several hundred billion dollars a >>>>year would have to go on energy efficiency in major sectors such as >>>>transport, buildings and industry. >>>> >>>>By contrast, it said that global annual investments in the energy system >>>>are now about $US1.2 trillion. >>>> >>>>And it says there are huge opportunities for cleaning up, for instance by >>>>building cities that use less energy for a rising world population. "Most >>>>of the world's urban areas have yet to be constructed," it says. >>>> >>>>Overall, the report estimates that the costs of combating global warming >>>>would reduce global consumption of goods and services by between 1 and 4 >>>>per cent in 2030, 2-6 per cent in 2050 and 2-12 per cent in 2100, compared >>>>to no action. >>>> >>>>The IPCC said in September that it is at least 95 per cent probable that >>>>human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant >>>>cause of global warming since the 1950s, up from 90 per cent in a 2007 >>>>assessment. >>>> >>>>The world has agreed to work out a global U.N. deal by the end of 2015, >>>>entering into force from 2020, to fight climate change. But progress has >>>>been sluggish. >>>> >>>>"Global greenhouse gases have risen more rapidly between 2000 and 2010," >>>>the draft says, with greater reliance on coal than in previous decades. >>>>China, the United States and the European Union are the top emitters. >>>> >>>>The IPCC cautioned that the findings in the draft, dated Dec. 17, were >>>>subject to change. "This is a work in progress which will be discussed and >>>>revised in April," said Jonathan Lynn, spokesman for the IPCC in Geneva. >>>> >>>>The report adds many details to earlier drafts. The IPCC's credibility >>>>suffered in 2007 after one of its reports wrongly said that Himalayan >>>>glaciers could all melt by 2035, centuries earlier than experts reckon. >>>> >>>>The draft says that only the most radical curbs outlined in an IPCC report >>>>in September would give a better than 66 per cent chance of keeping >>>>temperature rises below 2C. The scenario corresponds to greenhouse gas >>>>concentrations of 430 to 480 parts per million in the atmosphere - up from >>>>about 400 now. >>>> >>>>Reuters >>>>This story was found at: >>>>http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html-- >>>> >>>>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 [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. >> -- >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.
