Open Letter to the World Science Summit on Climate Engineering
Greetings, The World Science Summit on Climate Engineering (WSSCE) forum is a major opportunity to advance the consensus on key issues surrounding Climate Engineering (CE). The Summit’s goal, to “take the next critical step of defining what is and is not acceptable for scientists to pursue as members of the scientific community. We will create a set of guiding principles for climate engineering research.…” is highly welcomed by many in the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) field of study. Also, it is strongly hoped that the above guiding principles will establish research funding priorities at the global scale. To date, the overriding and clear perception of many observers is that geoengineering/climate engineering has been defined primarily as Solar Radiation Management, and in particularly, that of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). CDR was recognised in the Fifth IPCC report in 2013 with the comment that “A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period.”Such large scale and timely removal of CO2 is entirely feasible, and should be the main focus of the climate engineering discussion. It is past time that the quiet rationale of CDR become the technical and political focus of the CE debate. It is widely believed by many who study CDR, and CE in general, that the most significant limiting factor within the overall CDR field of investigation is that the STEM/policy/economic issues are not considered even remotely controversial by the scientific or media communities. The hyperbolic angst generated by SAI, and upon which much of the media is currently feeding, is, at a minimum, counterproductive or distracting from far more practical solutions and, at the most, is robbing us of critical time and funding factors. Also, all CDR solutions are primarily mitigation and adaptations applied on a grand scale. Any global scale CDR program is thus currently being equated, in the minds of many, as being CE. It is believed by many CDR investigators that the CE tag has prevented philanthropic and government investment in CDR and thus it is important to defend and clarify the efficaciousness of CDR at the CE level. At a minimum, the WSSCE should consider the implications of doing 1) SRM only, 2) CDR only, 3) doing neither, or 4) doing both. From a scientific view, this approach to the discussion is highly supportable. Some examples of current global scale CDR work includes: 1. Olivine: Using olivine to react with and sequester CO2 from the air: as replenishment sand on beaches, to boost geothermal energy production, quenching forest fires, mining nickel with hyperaccumulator plants, growing diatoms for energy and fertilizer, etc.. The work of Dr. Schuiling, R.D <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-3485-y> et. al. is extensive and highly qualitative on the CDR benefits of using olivine. 2. Marine Agronomy <http://marineagronomy.org/>: Ocean forests, which are sustained by recycling 100% of the seaweed nutrients, separated from the carbon molecules, which are used for energy to replace fossil fuels. Marine Agronomy, which is similar to ocean forests, but employed in areas of excess nutrients where the ecosystem benefits by exporting nutrients as food, feed, fertilizer, etc.. The Ocean Forester Group <http://oceanforesters.org/UrgentOpportunity_2.html>, along with organizations such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, have amassed an depth knowledge base of this form of global scale CDR. 3. Biochar <http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar>: The list of climate change mitigation benefits of biochar is extensive and the use of biochar, differing from Afforestation and Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) by having long-term favorable out-year soil-related impacts, is a prefered mitigation method within the IPCC WG 3 <http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report>. Further, just as we find in A and B, there is a robust and in-depth knowledge base upon which to base objective scientific assessments upon the efficacy of biochar within the climate change mitigation arena. The city of Stockholm has recently received a major grant based mostly on an expressed favorable citizen desire for biochar. 4. The Intergovernmental Marine Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (IMBECS) Protocol <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit> is an early stage attempt at synthesizing many of the technical advantages found within A, B and C. with some attention to the overall governance issues. The list of logic points for using the gyres for vast scale CDR efforts are 1) the subtropical convergence zones (STCZ) are largely biologically isolated, 2) the STCZ have a significant need for wide area surface cooling <http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/media/news/polovinaetal_Feb08.php>, 3) they offer an abundance of nutrients, raw renewable energy for cultivation/processing energy needs, 4) the STCZ are large enough to accommodate the bio-fuel energy needs of all nations, not just those with littoral waters. This final beneficial point is profoundly important within the ethical and equitable arenas within the overall climate engineering debate. Please keep in mind that the above list of CDR options is not exhaustive and all CDR methods can be deployed individually or in concert. The WSSCE can accomplish much more to reverse climate change if the Summit focuses on identifying what CE research Humanity should be funding. This would be in line with multiple relevant IPCC WG 3 <http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/> scientific products. A clear road map on CE funding priorities, which properly factors in the many CDR options, will offer the policy makers and common citizen alike hope for the future and will potentially lead to increased research funding for CDR related work. In brief summary, the overall objective of the WSSCE (" to bring new and innovative perspectives to the development of global principles and ethics – encompassing the potential social, ecological, and economic effects on climate engineering.") is relevant to many of the current CDR concepts and practices. The science, technology, engineering and mathematics for CDR already exists, and the priority should be the demonstration of, not test of, these CDR concepts at significant scale (per IPCC WG 3). Further, the potential for a global scale economic stimulus is present within the overall economic matrix found within the above CDR concepts; the ecological protection and global warming mitigation factors can not be devalued; the social society/jurisprudence/policy acceptance factors of CDR are clearly superior to that of SAI. Finally, the elevation of CDR to the top most tier, within the WSSCE funding recommendations, is critical in clarifying the importance of CDR at both the investment and policy levels. It is hoped that this letter influences the WSSCE to see the profoundly strong case for giving the highest priority to CDR methods in the deliberations of the World Science Summit on Climate Engineering forum. Best regards, Michael Hayes 360-708-4976 The IMBECS Protocol Draft <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub> Link to: The above letter to the WSSCE in Google Doc. form <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LTjVQvEJA4Yc1Bs0iWBD7xZr5KelmbsGw8coYk2Wt_w/pub> (Author’s note: It is my belief that the above communication is a fair reflection of the thoughts of a number of principal CDR investigators and some have offered important guidance on framing this message. Yet, any faults within the above message needs to be credited solely to me.) On Thursday, October 2, 2014 8:52:47 AM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: > > Dr. Bertsch, > Thanks for the kind invitation. Since I presume that the topic of interest > pertains only to SRM and not my field of endeavor, CDR, I will view events > from afar. I also have issues with statements like this: > "Climate engineering, just to mitigate against the temperature increases > predicted by the mid to late part of the current century, opens our planet > to many potentially hazardous and dangerous unknowns." > Given the present and growing CO2 problem, our planet is already facing > hazardous and dangerous KNOWNS. Climate engineering poses the possibility > of countering these. There are hazards and dangers of any action taken to > counter the CO2 problem, especially if those actions are ineffective as is > currently the case. So the important question is do the hazards and > dangers of SRM outweigh the benefits, how does this benefit/risk compare > with other potential actions, and under what future (dire) circumstances? > To answer such questions requires more research. In the meantime it would > seem highly speculative if not potentially hazardous and dangerous (given > what is at stake) to formulate CE governance and policy based on > "unknowns". > > In any case I look forward to learning the outcomes of the meeting. > > Regards, > Greg > > *From:* [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of > [email protected] [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 01, 2014 11:57 PM > *To:* Rau, Greg > *Subject:* Invitation to The World Science Summit on Climate Engineering > at the US National Academy of Sciences > > > > Dear Dr Rau > > > > Please find attached information about The World Science Summit on > Climate Engineering, to be held from 2-3 December 2014 at the US National > Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. Given your interest in this important > topic, the organising committee would like to bring this to your attention > and encourage your participation. > > > > You will find relevant registration details on the attached flyer. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Paul > > > > > > > *Dr Paul Bertsch *Deputy Director-Science > > Land and Water Flagship > > CSIRO > > Ecosciences Precinct > > GPO Box 2583 > > Brisbane QLD 4001 > Australia > *P* +61-7-3833 5922 > > *F* +61-7- 3833-5501 > > *M* 0477 356 192 > > [email protected] <javascript:> > > *W* www.csiro.au > > > -- 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.
