On the oft-mentioned point about CDR (or any form of geoengineering, really) resulting in less effort put into mitigation, I think it's quite obvious that that's exactly what would happen. As soon as any form of geoengineering was seen to be having a significant effect, that would lessen the incentive to reduce emissions. I can hear the deniers/delayers howling about why should we sacrifice any GDP whatsoever when "geoengineering is already fixing the problem", etc. And I have zero doubt that politicians would leap at the chance to justify taking an easier (and more fossil fuel campaign fund friendly) path.
Any geoengineering technology has to be tied to mitigation, or it will merely delay the inevitable, i.e. deep and permanent emissions cuts. On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:39:22 PM UTC-4, kcaldeira wrote: > > Folks, > > These broad categories CDR and SRM have become increasingly unuseful. > > Most rational people might support reforestation; most rational people > might oppose large-scale ocean iron fertilization. > > We should be talking about which activities are good to do and which > activities are likely bad to do. Broad categories like 'SRM' and 'CDR' are > of little help here. The discussion should be around which activities are > good to do under which circumstances (and which are bad to do under which > circumstances) and how to get people to do the good and avoid the bad. > > I think the opposition to CDR comes from two principle sources: > > 1. Fears that people will see CDR as a substitute for emissions reductions. > 2. Fears that CDR will produce larger environmental problems (cf. ocean > iron fertilization). > > Both of these fears are well founded. > > We should not be talking about whether we support or oppose CDR. We should > be talking about whether we support research into (and deployment of) > specific CDR approaches in specific circumstances. > > Best, > > Ken > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <javascript:> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > Assistant: Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu <javascript:>> > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Thanks David. It would help if they would enunciated these "anxieties" in >> black and white so that their assumptions of CDR risks, negative >> environmental impacts, societal disruption, etc were transparently laid >> out for all to discuss and test. Esp do these real or imagined negatives >> apply to all CDR approaches and do these risks truly outweigh those we are >> committing ourselves by steadfastly assuming that emissions will be >> sufficiently and quickly reduced? At the end of the day and given our >> current dire situation it would seem that IPPC and others are not doing the >> world a favor by working to exclude whole classes of climate/CO2 >> management options until the comparative risk/benefits of those options are >> better understood and a consensus reached as to their potential value. What >> is to be gained by circumventing this reasoned approach that I thought IPCC >> advocated? >> Greg >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "Hawkins, Dave" <dhaw...@nrdc.org <javascript:>> >> *To:* "<gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>" >> <gh...@sbcglobal.net<javascript:>> >> >> *Cc:* "andrew....@gmail.com <javascript:>" >> <andrew....@gmail.com<javascript:>>; >> geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>; " >> ado...@reuters.com <javascript:>" <ado...@reuters.com <javascript:>> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 9, 2014 3:41 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Many nations wary of extracting carbon from air to >> fix climate | Reuters >> >> Greg, >> I think these comments reflect a couple of anxieties: >> 1) that CDR will be pursued instead of reducing fossil fuel emissions; >> 2) that commercial agro-business projects will be allowed to pursue >> carbon retention objectives at the expense of habitat and biodiversity >> values. >> >> Perhaps some high-level statements from diverse players setting forth CDR >> code of conduct principles could help lower these anxieties. >> David >> >> Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. >> >> >> On Apr 9, 2014, at 6:18 PM, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:> >> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>> wrote: >> >> "China, the European Union, Japan and Russia were among nations saying >> the draft, to be published on Sunday, should do more to stress >> uncertainties about technologies that the report says could be used to >> extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it below ground to >> limit warming." >> >> GR - Natural CDR already consume 55% of our emissions from the >> atmosphere, and is (so far) the only thing staving off planetary climate >> disaster. Any "uncertainty" here? If CDR is so "uncertain", shall we turn >> off natural CDR and see what happens? >> >> "Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) "technologies are currently not available >> and would be associated with high risks and adverse side-effects," the >> German government said in a comment on the draft by the Intergovernmental >> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). >> >> GR - Guess the Germans didn't get the memo that Mother Nature is already >> performing CDR. Anyone want to ponder the "risks and adverse side-effects" >> of turning off this existing CDR? >> >> "There are no CDR technologies by now," Russia said. The technologies >> would go far beyond the traditional focus on cutting emissions from burning >> coal, oil or natural gas. >> >> GR- Yes, CDR does go beyond the tradition focus, but then how is that >> traditional focus working out, climate-wise? In contrast, CDR is what is >> saving our bacon right now. How about trying to improve upon what is >> already working to moderate climate while we wait for those traditional CO2 >> emissions reduction miracles? >> >> Truly breathtaking how the people in charge of setting climate/CO2 action >> policy that will affect the entire planet for millenia have no >> understanding how nature already does CO2 mitigation, and that maybe we >> might want to study, learn from, emulate, modify and/or improve upon these >> already highly effective processes just in case (less risky?) "traditional" >> approaches continue to fail us. >> >> Greg >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com <javascript:><mailto: >> andrew....@gmail.com <javascript:>>> >> To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:><mailto: >> geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:39 AM >> Subject: [geo] Many nations wary of extracting carbon from air to fix >> climate | Reuters >> >> http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/climate-un-idINL6N0N01JX20140408 >> *China, EU among those wanting stress on risks of technologies >> * Extracting carbon untested as climate fix, many say >> * U.N. panel meets to issue report on slowing climate change >> Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent >> OSLO, April 8 (Reuters) >> Many nations want a draft U.N. report to tone down prospects for sucking >> greenhouse gases from the air to help fix global warming, reckoning the >> technologies are risky, documents seen by Reuters show.Government officials >> and scientists are meeting in Berlin this week to edit the report, which >> says time is running out to keep warming below an agreed ceiling of 2 >> degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times.The study, >> focused on solutions to climate change, is meant to guide almost 200 >> governments in preparing a U.N. pact due by the end of 2015 to curb rising >> emissions and help limit heat waves, floods, droughts and rising >> seas.China, the European Union, Japan and Russia were among nations saying >> the draft, to be published on Sunday, should do more to stress >> uncertainties about technologies that the report says could be used to >> extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it below ground to >> limit warming.Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) "technologies are currently not >> available and would be associated with high risks and adverse >> side-effects," the German government said in a comment on the draft by the >> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."There are no CDR >> technologies by now," Russia said. The technologies would go far beyond the >> traditional focus on cutting emissions from burning coal, oil or natural >> gas. >> Several nations were especially sceptical about the draft's mention of >> stripping greenhouse gases from electricity-generating facilities burning >> biomass - wood or other plants - to bury them underground as a way to >> extract carbon from nature. >> Plants soak up carbon as they grow and release it when they rot or burn. >> Chemicals can extract carbon from the exhaust fumes from burning crop >> waste, for instance, or from fermentation of corn to make ethanol.Among >> projects, Archer Daniels Midland Co has a facility in Illinois to inject >> 333,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year into the ground from a factory >> producing ethanol from corn. Husky Energy in Canada produces carbon dioxide >> from ethanol for injection into oil wells. >> Many nations said that the draft should do more to mention drawbacks of >> bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), such as the amount of >> land needed to grow plants and risks that it would compete with food >> production.Internal IPCC documents show that China said BECCS "bears great >> uncertainties". Japan said that "considerations of trade-offs with water, >> land and biodiversity are crucial to avoid adverse effects" with CDR >> technologies. >> A sub-chapter of the report says that BECCS has the theoretical potential >> to extract up to 10 billion tonnes a year of carbon dioxide from nature - >> roughly equivalent to China's carbon emissions - but would cost between $60 >> and $250 a tonne. >> Other methods for extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere include >> simply planting trees or fertilising the oceans to promote the growth of >> algae, hoping that the tiny carbon-rich plants would fall to the seabed >> when they die.Among other debates in Berlin on Tuesday, delegates said that >> Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, objected to a line in the >> report pointing out that fossil fuels were the overwhelming cause of rising >> emissions in the past decade. (Reporting By Alister Doyle; Editing by Tom >> Heneghan) >> -- >> 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 geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com <javascript:><mailto: >> geoengineering+ <javascript:>unsub...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com <javascript:><mailto: >> geoengineering+ <javascript:>unsub...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com. <javascript:> >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengi...@googlegroups.com.<javascript:> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
