Brian and Adam, I'm all for biological methods "being at the table"*. By the same token we should not exclude abiotic methods or potential "technofixes"until they are PROVEN unneeded or unworthy. We need more information before deploying any of these at scale, and that means more research. In any case, there is no "table" (at least not in the US) at which such R&D investment decisions are being made, reflecting a serious policy vacuum. On can hope the forthcoming NAS weigh-in might change things, but I'm not holding my breath. Greg ps as for my "humorous" facebook page, I'm not sure my grand total of 25 "friends" would agree. There are more than a few Greg Rau's listed, so you might want to re-evaluate: https://www.facebook.com/greg.rau.73
* http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-5784-4_54 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1522.2.full pss at the risk of tossing another grenade on the fire, if (the abundance of) land plants play a major role in controlling air CO2, then why, as land plants were decimated during the last 12+ glacial periods, did CO2 decline, and why, as land plants rebounded and flourished during interglacials, did air CO2 dramatically rise? By this analogy more land plants = more CO2. I'm just say'n.... >________________________________ > From: Brian Cartwright <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 6:59 AM >Subject: Re: [geo] Reassessment of satellite-based estimate of aerosol climate >forcing - Ma - JGR Atmospheres - Wiley > > >To Greg, > >This is somewhat off the topic of categorizing geoengineering approaches, but >I need to respond to your warnings about considering biological remedies for >climate. The remedies being considered in this category are almost without >exception simply reversals of damage done by humans, so the alarm about >"massive restructuring" of landscapes is painfully ironic. Deforestation, >desertification, oxidation of soil by chemical agriculture - aren't those the >massive restructurings of land use that have gotten us here? > >Similar alarms have been raised about biochar use, a topic that gets some >traction on this list. The assertion that biochar could be scaled up to >accomplish substantial CDR led some to infer that there were giant plantations >being planned for feedstocks. Again this is ironic since the only giant land grabs that are succeeding are for projects such as palm oil. > >So I would urge this list to allow biological methods an equal place at the >table. As Adam points out, plants annually cycle massive amounts of carbon. >Enhancing abd assisting biological methods of CDR should not be dismissed >since photosynthesis is well understood and proven. > >Without plants we would have been cooked long ago. And if we let things go the >way they are going we may end up without plants. > >Brian > > >-- >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.
