Thanks, Mike. Of course I agree with you, emissions reductions are
critical, zero as quickly as possible. No part of the problem can
get a free pass.
But the emissions voice has been heard for the past twenty-five
years, and will continue to get louder and louder; it's a familiar
conversation, one we're all comfortable with, it requires continuing
efforts but it's a fundamental climate reflex among those of us who
have some understanding of the situation.
The soil-carbon conversation, on the other hand, is still barely a
whisper. Yet it is every bit as urgent right now, especially
because of its rapid potential (in biological cycle times, not
geological ones) for removing legacy carbon from the atmosphere.
We're talking about photosynthetic sequestration in soils of ongoing
emissions and current atmospheric burdens, not just annual
fossil fuel contributions.
Is it possible? Nobody really knows at this point. The dominance of
the physical sciences in the conversation has not yet made room for
biology as a restorative driver of climate. There are good reasons
to believe that Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming is
possible, and that's what the conference is designed to explore.
Furthermore, there are so many benefits and so little downside and
risk that we may come to realize that climate-targeted
eco-restoration should move forward with all possible resources and
haste.
First, however, we have to start being focused and serious about
having that conversation.
Best,
Adam
On 11/2/2014 10:16 AM, Mike MacCracken
wrote:
On this
issue of the progress we can or cannot make, there is lots
that can readily be done, and we can’t give up pressing hard
for it to happen rapidly:
- 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%.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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, let’s 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 “moral hazard” 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 (“CDR”)
approaches for this very reason merits greater analysis.
The “moral hazard” argument against CDR goes something
like this: CDR could be a “Trojan horse” 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 we’ll have
the CDR techniques to remove these present-day
emissions).The key problem with this “moral hazard”
argument is the hypothesis that “cost-effective, proven,
scaleable CDR solutions” 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 “moral hazard” argument
against developing CDR solutions?
For this “moral hazard” 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 doesn’t seem particularly
plausible. This is because the technologies that have the
“steepest” 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 “moral hazard” 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 didn’t need
negative emissions as a society. But if we find that
negative emissions are necessary in a few decades, and we
haven’t 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, it’s simply not worth worrying about a
“moral hazard” problem that we won’t 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.
|
