This report continues, without acknowledging, a fragile reliance on mistaken assumptions. To wit: 2 degrees as a goal refers to a goal that may not halt runaway warming; abating all emissions by mid-century (even if it could be achieved given the reliance of agriculture and cities on fossil inputs) would only afford a 10 to 30 percent chance of avoiding runaway. Holding to 1 degree and going to zero might afford a 50 percent chance. Would you get on an airplane if you had a 50 percent chance of crashing? I agree with the comment that direct air capture is likely impractical when EROI is factored and impossible in an era of sharp economic contraction. Only biochar - because of its ability to supplant expensive fertilizers and increase food production without additional subsidies - and agroforestry/aquaponics - because of greater food productivity while storing C - offer any hope of going beyond zero and into the new paradigm of net GHG sequestration from atmosphere (and ocean) to land. Redesigning civilization to accomplish this in a decade or two is the real challenge, and it is unlikely that reports such as this one will help move the discussion forward quickly enough for success in that regard.
-- 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/d/optout.
