Nils, cc List:
See below.
On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Motoko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> it's Nils writing from google account. Thanks for your interest and your
> comments!
>
> ad 1. Andrew already mailed the paper. The PPT can also be found at
> http://www.sts.aau.at/ias/Media/Dateien/Downloads-IFZ/IAS-STS/IAS-STS-Conference/STS-Conference-2014/Towards-Low-Carbon-Energy-Systems/Matzner_PPT
> the paper at
> http://www.sts.aau.at/ias/Media/Dateien/Downloads-IFZ/IAS-STS/IAS-STS-Conference/STS-Conference-2014/Towards-Low-Carbon-Energy-Systems/Matzner_paper
>
> ad 2. To be honest, I am not sure what you are referring to. The first slide
> (page 2) is about the project I am working on.
> http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/CE-SciPol.html
> Could you help me out with your reference?
>
[RWL: The very last slide is of interest to me - in part because it is
quantitative (a range from 1 to 1000?). For instance, I wonder about
Bedrohung (threat) at the lower level is small and has no arrow to "Poli".
Other arrows have a meaning (lower right) from 1 to >4. How were these
significances determined? I don't see the term CDR here, much less "Biochar".
Where would they fit? Etc.
There are 9 amoeba-like shapes. Do their size, colors and location
have meaning?
I am unable to copy this specific last slide. If you could send this
single slide (in a form that can be copied) to the full list with a little more
background, I believe many would find it interesting.
>
> ad 3. On the one hand I would agree. Not all CE technologies - such as
> biochar and afforestation - would need transnational governance in order to
> prevent conflicts. On the other hand a local and small scale implementation
> of those technologies (but that is not CE) would probably be of low risk.
> However, the irrigation of North African and Australian deserts carries known
> side effects that makes it a less attractive option as David Keller at al.
> (DOI 10.1038/ncomms4304) pointed out. In case of high risks several actors
> would probably call for responsibility.
>
[RWL: This article is no-fee at
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4304/pdf/ncomms4304.pdf and
well worth looking at. Unfortunately it does not address biochar (but does
include afforrestation, though the latter has essentially no soil or energy
benefits, and no out-year benefits.) The afforestation data doesn't seem to
have any relationship to the biochar scenarios I have in mind - since they are
taking place (Sahara and mid Australia) where I think few biochar designers
have been proposing anything. Still I see nothing wrong with this study - but
just a very different CDR scenario. Thanks for pointing Keller out. I agree
that the Keller type of afforestation definitely should have an international
type of prior approval. But I don't believe anything likely to be done in the
next score of years needs such. China is the world leader (by far) in
a/reforestation and I have heard only praise for what they have done.
>
>
> ad 4. I have the feeling that there are no exemptions (or silver bullets) in
> CE technologies as comparative studies (e.g. Keller) show. There might be
> some land use conflicts even in local areas but small scale implementation is
> not as challenging as the CE scenarios that discussed in current studies.
> Maybe it would be a good idea to separate the non-CE-use and CE-use of those
> few technologies, possibly by naming them "afforestation" and "afforestation
> (CE)". - However, in my opinion a-/reforestation should be done in many areas
> with robust forest management and political concepts.
>
[RWL: I believe the whole ball game is over if we assume the high
future fossil release of Keller etal. So I don't find it surprising that he
comes up with a negative conclusion on the promise of CDR. I'd like to see
additional modeling with a more hopeful future replacement of fossils by RE and
afforestation as assumed by Jim Hansen - and then adding an aggressive biochar
program (but on all continents - not just present-day deserts which obviously
are going to have very high costs).
To me, this dialog exemplifies our global failure to communicate
amongst ourselves on which technologies should logically be in models of this
type.
Again thanks. I look forward to further "political" dialog.
Ron
>
>
> As a political scientists (and STS scholar) I have to agree that Political
> Science is important besides other disciplines.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Nils
>
>
>
> Am 06.08.2014 01:46, schrieb Ronal W. Larson:
>> Andrew, list, adding the author, Nils (short bio at
>> http://www.sts.aau.at/eng/Team/Researchers/Matzner-Nils)
>>
>> 1. I found a wide range of mostly PPts (a few papers such as that cited by
>> Andrew) at this STS conference site:
>>
>> http://www.sts.aau.at/ias/IAS-STS/Publications/Proceedings-STS-Conference-Graz-2014
>> This conference looked interesting, but not to many papers on CE-related
>> topics.
>>
>> 2. Nils' Ppt has a specific cite that I couldn't copy, but anyone wishing
>> to see his Ppt can find it about 1 page down at the above cite. I thought
>> his Ppt to also be well done and ask Nils to post an address for the PPt.
>> Also send us the last slide so I can ask a few further questions. This is
>> an interesting slide I have not seen before. His Ppt includes the words
>> "afforestation" and "biochar" on a different slide.
>>
>> 3. The rest is to bring Nils work (with his valuable Political Science
>> perspective) more into this list's discussion on governance, as I want to
>> ask about a few suggested modifications - such as these three of his
>> sentences:
>> a. "Furthermore CE needs transnational modes of governments ,"
>>
>> "Furthermore at this time, most but not all CE needs transnational
>> modes of governments ,"
>>
>> b. "For citizens side effects of CE will remain dangerous but not risky."
>>
>> "For citizens, at this time most but not all side effects of CE will remain
>> dangerous but not risky."
>> c. "Responsibility and governance are important to be discussed
>> immediately"".
>>
>> Responsibility and governance at this time, most but not all CE are
>> important to be discussed immediately."
>>
>>
>> 4. Nils (and others): can you concur that some CE approaches can allow
>> the exemptions I am trying to bring into the thought processes behind your
>> paper and Ppt? In particular, I am thinking of afforestation, reforestation
>> and biochar. All three are now happening widely, mostly on privately held
>> land, and no obvious negative impact obviously important to neighboring
>> countries, much less even counties. And plentiful positive impacts. And
>> they have histories over milennia.
>> I have included a time element because all three approaches obviously could
>> take out more CO2 than would be wise, and at least biochar be justified by
>> individual farmers/foresters for its soil improvement and renewable energy
>> economic values. Decades from now, when it might appear we will blast past
>> 350 (or other) ppm, slowing CDR/NET down obviously should be a reason for
>> international discussion. But I feel it would be unwise to wait for such a
>> political discussion now, when we are unlikely to see a peak CO2 level for
>> many decades, even under the most aggressive CDR/NET program imaginable.
>> Time is short.
>>
>> Admission/disclosure: I think Political Science to be a most important
>> discipline - having worked for the US. Congress and worked in local politics
>> as well.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Matzner, Nils (2014): Responsibility and Governance of Climate Engineering
>>>
>>> Attached
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>> <Matzner_paper.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
