Just to clarify, my view is that CCS is too expensive whether it's FFCCS or BECCS. There are cheaper ways to capture and store point source CO2, and those are what we should be discussing in the context of C-negative BE, not perpetuating the myth that expensively making concentrated CO2 and putting it in the ground is our only option. Yes, there can be co-benefits of C-negative BE, my favorite being generation of ocean alkalinity, as you've heard before. Greg
>________________________________ > From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]> >To: Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]>; Robert >Tulip <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >[email protected]; [email protected]; geoengineering ><[email protected]>; Ronal Larson <[email protected]>; >"Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]>; Andrew Revkin ><[email protected]>; nathan currier <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 7:55 PM >Subject: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep >decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink > > > >Hi Folks, > > >This email is related to the geoengineering group discussion thread found >here. Those who are not current list members have been CC'ed due to your >potential interest in the subject(s) found within the thread. As we find many >times within that forum, the initial starting point of the discussion often >gives rise to a wide spectrum of relevant subjects. After all, the subject of >geoengineering, itself, should take into consideration virtually every aspect >of life on this planet. > > >On the subject thread of CDR/Moral Hazard/Soil Carbon/Combined Land and Marine >BECCS/Funding and Governance: My views. > > >1) The CRD Moral Hazard Red Herring: > > >The specious argument of a 'moral hazard' issue, within the specter of CDR >based mitigation, is seemingly no more than a useless reductionist distraction >(i.e. red herring). In that, the concept of carbon negative biofuels (i.e. >BECCS) is one concept, among a few, which simply makes the entire issue of a >moral hazard moot, as it relates to CDR. > > >The soil based CDR approaches (i.e. biochar, olivine, pasture cropping etc.) >also renders the issue of a moral hazard moot due to the many out-year C >sequestration benefits as well as the significant reduction in agro FF and >chemical uses. Also, it is important to keep in mind that many of these soil >based CDR approaches are adaptable to the BECCS regiment, in that they are >compatible technologies. > > >2) BECCS efficaciousness at the practical and ethical levels: > > >Greg puts forth the premise that BECCS (i.e. carbon negative biofuel) is too >expensive. Yet, one has to ask the basic question of; Relative to what? The >most fundamental premise of BECCS (per IPCC WG 3) is that it must be >profitable at all stages and thus offers one of the few mitigation concepts >which can actually earn its own keep. In fact, not employing BECCS/carbon >negative biofuel, in our current situation, is actually a true and significant >moral hazard, in of itself, due to the multiple benefits of; > > > >1) replacing FFs while utilizing/sequestering carbon > > >2) supporting important ancillary biotic processes beyond BECCS > > >3) providing far greater equitable distribution of the economic and >environmental benefits than non-BECCS related options > > >Even PV does not achieve this important blend of technical, policy, profit, >ethical advantages. Due to the robust list of benefits offered by BECCS >related operations,not employing BECCS operations is seemingly as unethical as >the un-abated continuation of FF use. > > >3) Energy First with Carbon Utilization/Sequestration Being the Other First: > > >Mike's opinion of "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." is >achievable once we adopt the broadest possible holistic view of the potential >solutions. One important example of the benefits of taking such a broad view >is found through the lens of working simultaneously within the marine and land >biocapacity arenas. > > >In that, engineered carbon uptake within the marine environment (vis-a-vis >vast scale maricuture which can include olivine use) can eventually dwarf land >carbon uptake simply due to the vast scale of the marine resources available >to work with. Further, a vast scale marine bio-production effort will >significantly reduce agro protein production pressures and thus help preserve >the land resources and land biodiversity. > > >This synergistic cascade of benefits can be extended through utilizing some of >the marine bio-production stream of biomass for use as biochar and organic >fertilizer to support increased land vegetable/grain bio-production. Also, the >potential vast scale of freshwater production of marine bio-production >operations would also be transformative to land based bio-production including >large scale engineered desert afforestation operations. > > >The large scale use of land/marine hybrid technologies, such as aquaponics use >either at sea or on land, can be economic game changers. > > >In brief, viewing the global bio-capacity of the combined marine and land >areas, as opposed to the current restricted view of primarily that of land use >only, provides us with the fullest spectrum and scale of global carbon >management tools along with a robust list of food/energy security means and >methods. > > >4) What exactly do we mean by ' Sustainability': > > >The recent WWF 'Living Planet Report 2014' "measures one key dimension of >sustainability: the extent to which the Earth's reproductive ecosystems have >sufficient regenerative capacity to keep up with humanity's consumptive >demands" (page 152 section 9). The combined regenerative capacity of land and >marine environments, utilizing coordinated engineered BECCS methods as >outlined in the IMBECS Protocol Draft, offers a level of sustainability >capable of meeting current and trans-generational anthropogenic mitigation >needs as well as many of our critical commodity needs. Such a combined >approach to mitigation and commodity needs would also possibly stimulate the >development of a robust global circular economy. > > >5) Dealing with 900 lb Gorillas: > > >It is not the technology nor the natural resources which we lack. As we all >know, it is the lack of political and corporate level will to take actions >which address that which threatens us, our descendants and the vast majority >of species on this planet. And, the primary impediment to opening up a virtual >flood of well thought-out and appropriate methods/actions is found within the >needs of the FF industry. > > >Obviously, the FF industry can not be summarily shut down for multiple >reasons. Converting that industry over to biofuel will be something of a blend >between force feeding and weaning. Yet, through establishing a strong combined >marine/terrestrial and internationally coordinated BECCS effort, which can >supply the large scale commercial quantities of bio-products, the current >network of FF pipelines, tanker ships/trains and storage depots can start to >be compelled into utilizing low cost carbon negative biofuels and thus begin >the global weaning phase of our FF dependency. > > >This force feeding biofuel into the FF distribution sector is not as difficult >as it may first seem. So long as the fuels are of equal and or better value >and all other aspects are equal, the distribution sector (and consumer) will >care less if it is carbon negative biofuel or tar sands oil moving along the >distribution network...in the vast majority of cases. > > >6) Getting to a Coordinated International BECCS Effort and Governance Policy: >Something of a conclusion. > > >Robert's position that "... if CO2 is converted to algae, and the algae is >then held in large fabric bags at the bottom of the sea, we have an enduring >resource, a carbon bank." may have technical merit yet storing the excess >carbon within the soil through the production and use of marine derived >biochar and organic fertilizer would seem to be far more productive. Yet, both >paths should be explored at the overall systems level. There is even a divide >of opinions between the relative benefits between micro and macro algal >cultivation and utilization. > >As the above difference of opinions illustrates, unless we can find common >grounds on a full suite of energy/food security and climate change mitigation >technologies, the probability of CDR/BECCS/biofuel/soil carbon etc. developing >a strong enough market presence to substantially contribute to a stable future >will be low. > >In conclusion and to Mike MacCracken's encouragement to "not circle the wagons >and shoot in—we need to be doing everything and not letting anyone off the >hook on this", I would like to add the suggestion that we find convergence on >an overall meta concept, which utilizes both marine and land based CDR, energy >and food security methods, and build a funding alliance which can provide seed >capital for a wide spectrum of benefit corporation (B-Corp) start-ups that >can, once matured, provide the tools we need for a truly sustainable future. > > >The primary benefit of building such a broad, technically speaking, funding >alliance is the potential ability of such an alliance to properly govern such >a technically divergent yet interwoven and synergistic suite of solutions. The >overall governance approach is being developed within theIMBECS Protocol >Draft. Any suggestions or comments would be highly welcomed. > > >Best regards, > > > > > >Michael Hayes >360-708-4976 >The IMBECS Protocol Draft > > -- >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.
