Thanks, John. Happy to take that 2% of renewable's R&D budget for CDR (and maybe a little for SRM ;-)), which according to one source would amount to $13B/yr x 2% = $260M. That would be a big improvement over the $0 currently allocated. Where do I apply? And yes that fraction should be larger. By giving 98% of available resources to renewables you are implying that we are 98% sure this will solve the CO2 problem and do so IN TIME. By one calculation this requires that we install 1GW of CO2 free energy PER DAY for the next fifty years to stay below 2 deg C warming and still meet energy demands. That seems unlikely to happen - currently we install <1 GW/month(?). So what is your Plan B, and whatever you propose, doesn't it warrant more than 2% of our investment and attention given present dire circumstances?
Yes, CE is batting 0 for 4 on politics, economics, technology, and understood impacts. So did fire, electricity and the wheel at one time. Thank goodness someone researched these and brought them to market anyway. But this time we don't have a thousand years to get it right. We therefore need to invest more than a small fraction of our R&D to incentivize outside the box thinking and careful evaluation of alternative, CO2/climate management schemes in case any exist. Or we could continue to give it all to non-fossil energy and, in my opinion, lessen our chances. A rapidly warming and acidifying planet awaits your decision. Regards, Greg >________________________________ > From: John Harte <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:48 PM >Subject: Re: [geo] Fact or Fiction?: Geoengineering Can Solve Global Warming - >Scientific American > > > >I find the putative symmetry implicit in GR's argument to be suspect. >Some forms of renewable power are already cost competitive with fossil >electricity and the trend in the cost ratio is downward. >The impacts of most forms of renewables have been well studied and while they >are not zero they are fairly well characterized. >The constraints on rapid expansion of renewables are largely political, not >technological nor economic (although the politics is certainly influenced by >the role of corporate wealth) > > > >None of those statements can be said for geoengineering, which is, so far, "0 >for 4" when it comes to politics, economics, technology, and understood >impacts. > > >This is not an argument to stop research in geoengineering, but rather an >argument against the putative symmetry. >Having to choose, I'd bet 98% on renewables, 2% on geoengineering, including >carbon capture, and invest accordingly, but I can understand why some might >pick slightly more even odds. > > > > > >John Harte >Professor of Ecosystem Sciences >ERG/ESPM >310 Barrows Hall >University of California >Berkeley, CA 94720 USA >[email protected] > > > > >On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > >To quote the article: >>"The fact that geoengineering cannot suffice is good news because it means >>that a viable form of climate engineering cannot undercut the urgency of >>making that switch [to non-fossil energy]. No form of climate engineering can >>solve global warming at present. To think so is science fiction." >> >> >>GR - On the other hand, it could be science fiction that that we will switch >>to non-fossil energy in time to avoid climate disasters. Does continued >>belief in a sufficiently rapid switch to non-fossil energy therefore undercut >>the the need to quickly and carefully solicit and evaluate >>additional/alternative strategies that might at least contribute to solving >>the problem? Are you willing to bet the planet on one strategy that continues >>to be undercut by forces far larger than any offered by GE - David? >> >> >>Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >>>To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:23 PM >>>Subject: [geo] Fact or Fiction?: Geoengineering Can Solve Global Warming - >>>Scientific American >>> >>> >>> >>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-geoengineering-can-solve-global-warming/ >>>Fact or Fiction?: Geoengineering Can Solve Global Warming >>>Neither blocking sunlight nor capturing carbon can stop climate change >>>December 12, 2014 >>>By David Biello >>>A global deal to combat climate change lurches toward reality in Lima, Peru, >>>this week—and yet any politically feasible agreement will be insufficient to >>>restrain continued warming of global average temperatures, perhaps >>>uncomfortably high. Although recent pledges by China, the 28 countries of >>>the European Union and the U.S. are the first signs of the possibility of >>>restraining the endless growth of greenhouse gas pollution on a long-term >>>basis, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have crossed the >>>threshold of 400 parts per million—and will reach 450 ppm in less than two >>>decades at present growth rates. The estimated one trillion metric tons of >>>carbon the atmosphere can absorb could be burned through in even less time, >>>particularly if India, as it develops, picks up where China leaves off by >>>burning coal without any attempt to capture the CO2 before the greenhouse >>>gas spews from smokestacks. The world may find itself in need of another alternative, such as geoengineering, if catastrophic climate change begins to manifest, whether in the form of even more deadly heat waves, more crop-killing droughts, more rapid rises in sea level or accelerating warming as natural stores of carbon—such as the ocean’s methane hydrates—melt down, releasing yet more greenhouse gases to drive yet more climate change. So maybe the answer is to genetically soup up plants so they can pull more CO2 out of the air and then bury them at the sea bottom? Or give the planet a giant sunshade, whether in the form of more clouds or a haze of light-reflecting sulfur bits floating in the stratosphere? "In a crisis the temptation will be to use the quick fix of geoengineering," argued economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University at a research symposium on CO2 capture technologies this spring. If civilization continues, the unplanned, undirected geoengineering of the climate via burning fossil fuels—whether coal in a power plant or oil sludge in a massive container ship steaming across the Pacific—then perhaps nations will need to plan for a directed attempt at geoengineering or the "deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment" as the U.K.'s Royal Society defines it. Still, scientists are starting to agree that geoengineering will prove insufficient for solving climate change. To understand this it helps to think of two distinct flavors of climate engineering: those that reduce greenhouse gases and those that block sunlight to keep the planet cool. The various sun-blocking schemes could be fast and cheap, like a fleet of airplanes spewingsulfur particles in the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions or an armada of ships brightening clouds by increasing the number of water droplets within them. On the other side, carbon removal schemes are slow and expensive, such as big air filters to suck CO2 out of the sky and bury it, turn it into fuel or otherwise keep it from trapping heat. Or the natural processes of rock weathering and plant growth that over geologic time constrain climate change could be sped up. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent comprehensive report suggested that one member of this set of ideas—burning plants paired with CO2 capture and burial, aka bioenergy with carbon and capture, or BECCS—might prove vital to restrain global warming. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided a $91-million loan guarantee in October to a company—Cool Planet—looking to build a kind of BECCS facility in Louisiana to make biofuels and biochar, a carbon-rich residual ash that can be used to improve soil fertility, keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere. But neither flavor of geoengineering can serve as a solution to climate change. >>>As outlined in the December Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society >>>A, sun-blocking schemes require continual refreshing and, at best, only buy >>>time for real solutions, such as cutting down on the amount of CO2 piling up >>>in the atmosphere as a result of fossil fuel burning, while failing to >>>account for other impacts such as the increasing acidity of the oceans. And >>>CO2 removal schemes could find themselves in a continuous game of catch-up >>>with the world's voluminous output of greenhouse gases—an ever-more onerous >>>burden if the world did nothing to restrain global warming pollution. >>>Geoengineering could play a role in coping with some of the impacts of >>>climate change, perhaps used to cool off the rapidly warming Arctic and save >>>summertime sea ice. Or "these strategies might be used throughout the period >>>required to replace fossil fuel burning with globally distributed clean >>>energy and even be continued while CO2 concentrations remain too high," as atmospheric scientists put it in an overview of the Philosophical Transactionsissue. Small-scale tests of such techniques are therefore warranted to assess the real risks, such as unexpected chemical reactions with the existing mix of atmospheric gases, for example. Of course, it took massive emissions of CO2 to detect human-caused global warming, suggesting small-scale tests may not reveal much. And even at a miniscule scale engineering the climate remains a radical step with consequences for both the climate and civilization that cannot be predicted in advance. There is no technological fix for global warming other than the hard work oftransforming a global energy system that relies on burning fossil fuels into one that relies on energy sources—the sun, Earth's heat, fission or, maybe some decade, fusion—that do not use the atmosphere as a dump. The fact that geoengineering cannot suffice is good news because it means that a viable form of climate engineering cannot undercut the urgency of making that switch. No form ofclimate engineering can solve global warming at present. To think so is science fiction. -- >>>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. >> > >-- >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.
