On this issue of the progress we can or cannot make, there is lots that can readily be done, and we can¹t give up pressing hard for it to happen rapidly:
1. In the US, at least, the estimate is still something like that efficiency improvements with existing technologies having a payback period of 3 years or so could reduce emissions of CO2 about 30%. 2. As the UNEP-WMO study on black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone showed, a reasonable effort could cut the projected warming from the present to 2050 in half. EDF showed a new chart at a Capitol Hill briefing on Thursday indicating how much natural gas leakage in the US could be cut with cost effective (i.e., three year or fewer payback) technologies right now‹a huge number. That the US, at least, is hardly trying, is disgraceful. 3. I just learned that in the national statistics for electricity production, the reason the solar component looks low is that the national compilation only counts the utility solar installations‹all the rest going in does not show on their statistics. Well, there is a huge amount of rooftop solar going in and doing very well (my 10 kW rooftop system, for example is giving me something like a 9% guaranteed return and a bit more in actuality‹and it is such beneficial outcomes that are leading to rapid proliferation). 4. On a number of these issues, the lawyers are helping a lot, pushing for regulations, etc. I, for one, am working on a legal declaration for one lawsuit to come soon, and another lawyer contacted me about another one if coming regulation is not adequate‹we have to keep at this, hard. So, I am all for encouraging land uptake of carbon, but if we are not simultaneously pushing for cutting emissions sharply, it really degrades all the effort that needs to be put into land carbon buildup. So, once more, let¹s not circle the wagons and shoot in‹we need to be doing everything and not letting anyone off the hook on this. Best, Mike MacCracken On 11/2/14 9:42 AM, "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All - > > I agree with Greg here, and I would venture to say that we need to pay far > more attention to photosynthesis and restoring a healthy natural carbon cycle > (and accompanying water cycles) on over 12 billion acres of land worldwide. I > suggest that it's the best, safest, cheapest and most effective form of > "geo-engineering" that we could ever hope for. We, including the IPCC, all > know that emissions reductions are insufficient to avoid catastrophic > consequences of global warming, some of which are already playing out. And in > any case it's apparent, based on twenty-five years of experience, that serious > emissions reductions, despite important progress in non-carbon energy > generation, aren't going to happen in any reasonable time frame. > > In light of current circumstances, I encourage everyone who is able to attend > our upcoming ground-breaking conference, Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse > Global Warming <http://bio4climate.org/conference-2014> , on November 21-23, > 2014 at Tufts University in the Boston area. Please pass the word! We have a > remarkable roster of speakers including scientists, land managers and > activists in a weekend of discussions around the power and extraordinary > benefits of supporting nature's carbon-capture "technology" of photosynthesis. > We'll explore how living processes can bridge political climate conflicts, > return legacy atmospheric carbon to soils, reverse desertification and > drought, and revive local economies and food supplies worldwide. Collectively > we will make the case of how we've grossly underestimated soil-carbon storage > potentials and what to do about it. > > Come, learn, ask questions, bring your expertise, challenge us - together > let's work this out! Early bird rates through November 10th; student, > non-profit and other discounts as well as volunteer opportunities are > available. > > Please contact me if you have any questions, publicly or privately - I hope to > see you there! > > Cheers! > > Adam > > === > > Adam Sacks > Executive Director > Biodiversity for a Livable Climate <http://bio4climate.org> > > === > > On Saturday, November 1, 2014 5:14:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >> Poster's note : see images on Web >> >> https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/does-cdr-provide-morale-hazard >> -for-avoiding-deep-decarbonization-of-our-economy/ >> >> Everything and the Carbon Sink >> >> Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) >> >> Does CDR provide ³moral hazard² for avoiding deep decarbonization of our >> economy? >> >> OCTOBER 24, 2014 >> >> No. But the fact that some environmentalists question the value of developing >> Carbon Dioxide Removal (³CDR²) approaches for this very reason merits greater >> analysis. The ³moral hazard² argument against CDR goes something like this: >> CDR could be a ³Trojan horse² that fossil fuel interests will use to delay >> rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the >> prospect of cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse >> for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point >> in the future we¹ll have the CDR techniques to remove these present-day >> emissions).The key problem with this ³moral hazard² argument is the >> hypothesis that ³cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR solutions² are poised >> to proliferate at greater rates than GHG emission mitigation technologies >> (such as renewable energy and energy efficiency) that are required to >> decarbonize our economy. Today, CDR solutions remain largely in their >> infancy. Installed bio-CCS plants can be counted on one hand, for example, >> and not a single commercial-scale Direct Air Capture project has been built >> to date. Renewable energy, however, has had a considerable head start on CDR >> technologies on reducing costs. Take solar PV systems as an example. As the >> chart below shows, solar PV panels have dropped in cost from over $75/W to >> under $0.75/W over the past four decades. >> >> Source: Costofsolar.com >> >> This cost reduction in the price of solar PV panels happens to be exactly >> what economic theory would predict. Learning curve models show that that >> costs of energy technologies come down in a predictable fashion as cumulative >> installed capacity increases. The graph below shows learning curve estimates >> for a range of energy technologies. >> >> Source: http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Pages/ArticlesETD.htm >> >> So what does this mean for the ³moral hazard² argument against developing CDR >> solutions? >> >> For this ³moral hazard² argument to be valid, we would have to believe that >> CDR approaches will be able to not only catch up to other renewable >> technologies in cost within a short-time frame, but then continue to reduce >> costs more quickly. Otherwise, renewable technologies will continue their >> inevitable march down their cost curve, and will continue displacing fossil >> sources in our energy mix. >> >> Suggesting that CDR approaches will outpace other decarbonization >> technologies doesn¹t seem particularly plausible. This is because the >> technologies that have the ³steepest² learning curves are usually those that >> can be manufactured and installed in assembly-line type manners (like solar >> PV panels or fuel cells, for example). Most CDR technologies do not fit this >> mold ‹ for example, large scale bio-CCS projects frequently require many >> bespoke designs to fit particular plants/geographies. Direct air capture and >> small-scale biochar pyrolyzers fit this assembly-line model better, but there >> is no reason to expect these technologies to come down cost curves more >> quickly than their renewable complementors.In fact, this learning curve >> analysis would suggest that CDR faces the opposite of a ³moral hazard² >> problem ‹ because CDR remains so far behind other renewable technologies, we >> will keep building more and more renewables and neglect to develop CDR, which >> will seem expensive by comparison. Neglecting CDR in this fashion would be >> fine if we didn¹t need negative emissions as a society. But if we find that >> negative emissions are necessary in a few decades, and we haven¹t started >> developing CDR technologies? Then we are like to find that the initial CDR >> deployments are incredibly expensive and thus not politically viable. So >> there is a strong argument to be made for us to start developing CDR >> technologiestoday alongside renewable energy technologies, so that if/when we >> need to start removing carbon from the atmosphere, we have a suite of viable >> solutions to do so. >> >> In conclusion, it¹s simply not worth worrying about a ³moral hazard² problem >> that we won¹t have for at least decades, and are most likely to never have >> all ‹ especially when the problems of not developing CDR solutions today >> could be much more severe. -- 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.
