To John and group, There is, as you describe, a logical progression in the direction of carbon sequestration, and I believe soil is the sink of first choice. The methods to put that carbon in the soil vary enormously with the physical and biological features of landscapes that are in need of that carbon. Those variables make it difficult to predict the success of any policy that could be proposed from the top down. Isn't that why soil carbon doesn't receive the advocacy of geoengineers?
Biochar as a global proposal for CDR is far more quantifiable, but the real long-term benefits of biochar come from the "multiplier effect" when it supports and stimulates biological activity. Here again, the restoration process happens from the bottom up. So I'd emphasize that the engineering tendency to prescribe only big technical fixes on the assumption that social change is impossible wastes the best and most hopeful avenues for sequestration. By not even mentioning soil carbon, geoengineers allow "CDR" to be construed as primarily another set of expensive and risky technologies. I don't pretend to know the best remedy for the Arctic crisis, but I hope geoengineers will be mindful of the many hopeful actions that can be taken on the ground by fully empowering the public and supporting ecological restoration. Brian On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:53:39 PM UTC-5, John Nissen wrote: > > Brian, > > I absolutely agree with you. We need agitation for CDR with improved food > production: from land, lakes and sea. > > The current wisdom is one track mentality. But it is moving closer to > reality, step by step: > (1) "Reduce CO2 emissions - by each of us reducing our carbon footprint - > and all will be well", > (2) "Reduce CO2 emissions, but even if we manage, it will not be > sufficient to prevent climate change, so we will all have to adapt to > this. Then we'll be OK." > (3) "Reduce CO2 emissions, but, even in the best scenario, there will be > at least 4 degrees warming. We must learn to adapt to this. It will be > tough. Inevitably poor countries will suffer." > > Then your read Mark Lynas "Six degrees", and you watch Wasdell's video, > and you read from AR5 about the carbon budget which excludes significant > feedbacks. And you realise we are in a heck of a crisis. > > What the current wisdom is lacking is wisdom. It is wise (actually plain > common sense) to be reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, because > even 2 degrees global warming may be extremely dangerous for all of us. We > cannot afford to wait for this to be proved. We must give the best chance > of future generations having a hospitable planet to enjoy. > > (4) "Reduce CO2 emissions drastically and drawdown CO2 on a grand scale at > the same time. Then there's a chance of avoiding dangerous climate change > and ocean acidification." > > Then you read about what's happening in the Arctic, and you realise that > it is heading for meltdown, and there seems nothing to do about it. Arctic > warming is already causing climate disruption. Meltdown would mean a > massive sea level rise and the release of masses of methane. So the crisis > is even worse that you could have possibly imagined. But you must remember > there is always SRM. Fortunately several SRM techniques could together > provide enough cooling power. > > (5) "Reduce CO2 emissions drastically and drawdown CO2 on a grand scale. > At the same time, and with even greater urgency, cool the Arctic using the > best possible mix of SRM cooling techniques, to give best possible chance > of saving the sea ice and preventing further meltdown." > > Geoengineering to the rescue! > > Cheers, > > John > -- 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.
