Regarding the phrase: ³2) Implementing highly untested and risky solar radiation management geoengineering techniques (such as injecting sulfates into the atmosphere)²
it would sure be nice to have authors saying ³risky² (or is it ³highly risk²) versus what‹proceeding with climate change without SRM? In that the approaches draw from processes going on in the world now (e.g., volcanic eruptions, sulfate brightening of clouds) so there are some rough analogs and the intent is to keep close to present conditions, how is it that this is more risky than unconstrained climate change. Fine to say it may be more risky than various (though perhaps not al) of the CDR approaches, but given that the risk of unconstrained (or barely constrained given plans and actions to date) human-induced climate change is seen as so risky that we should be giving up the global fossil fuel energy system, it is a bit hard to fathom how SRM is more risky. Yes, right now uncertainties and it is untested, and there will be some unintended consequences, and there are governance, social, and equity issues as well (issues that we also have with the CO2 emissions), but in terms of risk and considering SRM as a complement and not a replacement for mitigation, etc., dismissing it as being risky does not seem convincing to me. Mike On 12/12/14 5:19 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2169321/are-negative-emissions-myth > > Are Negative Emissions a "Myth?" > > In a recent column for Project Syndicate, Lili Fuhr and Niclas Hallstrom rail > against carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal > (CDR) technologies, counting them among the group of ³ineffective or > impossible² solutions to climate change. > > The sad reality is that today, Fuhr and Hallstrom¹s conclusion is not that far > from the truth for most most CDR solutions, which are not cost-competitive > and/or technically-proven compared to other GHG abatement approaches. By far > the best way to deal with climate change would be to follow Fuhr and > Hallstrom¹s recommendation ³to reduce emissions fast, while developing > alternative energy sources that allow us to leave fossil fuels in the ground.² > > But while ³this imperative is almost shockingly straightforward,² the reality > of the situation is that we are not reducing emissions nearly fast enough: > > So what happens in the event that we don¹t follow Fuhr and Hallstrom¹s > prescription for preventing climate change? Or even worse, what happens if it > turns out thatwe need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere even further than > we thought to avoid dangerous climate change? The only three options we would > be left with are: > > 1) Failing to prevent climate change > > 2) Implementing highly untested and risky solar radiation management > geoengineering techniques (such as injecting sulfates into the atmosphere) > > 3) Developing cost-effective and sustainable CDR systems to remove carbon from > the atmosphere in addition to decarbonizing our economy. > > None of these options sound great, but option 3 (deploying CDR technologies at > scale) is the only one that a) prevents climate change by dealing with its > root cause, and b) doesn¹t introduce completely novel risks to our society in > the process. > > So while CDR solutions might be ineffective today, CDR solutions could prove > to be an absolutely criticaloption to preventing climate change in the future. > Fuhr and Hallstrom are also right that some CDR approaches like biomass energy > with CCS (bio-CCS) could ³have enormous development implications, provoking > large-scale land, most likely from relatively poor people.² But Fuhr and > Hallstrom are wrong that these negative consequences definitely ³would² > happen, especially if a large portfolio of CDR approaches (spanning not just > bio-CCS but also biochar, direct air capture, reforestation/ecosystem > restoration, land management, and enhanced mineral weathering) were pursued to > provide negative emissions.Instead of stridently arguing against CDR > deployments, then, I would recommend that Fuhr and Hallstrom advocate for > appropriate research on how to do CDR effectively and sustainably alongside > broader decarbonization of the economy. Because the one thing I¹m sure of is > this: the reality of our current political situation makes it a > distinct probability that we don¹t decarbonize quickly enough to prevent > climate change. And given this reality, investing today in an appropriate > amount of R&D to develop effective CDR solutions makes a lot of sense -- 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.
