Just a note that I added a second comment (assuming moderator posts it) on his blog, and included below:
A couple of comments: 1. While the NRC report is helpful in better explaining the need for CDR research, the notion that CDR implementation can make much of a difference while global emissions are of order 10 PgC/year and growing seems to me to be imagining far too much capacity for CDR. Also, in terms of optimal expenditure of funds to do something, efficiency provides by far the most cost-effective action now, and in many places solar and wind (and other alternative technologies) are (or are nearly) competitive with fossil fuels, especially if any account is given to external costs, and cutting emissions of short-lived species would have strong near-term effects and have many, many co-benefits. Thus, in terms of government policies, most of the implementation effort really needs to go to broad-based mitigation. Once one gets the emission trajectory headed down at a reasonable rate, CDR has a very important role to play in determining how low below a 75% or so cut in global emissions is needed (although many of us would say going back to 350 ppm CO2 would be desirable. 2. I want to take strong exception to your little comments in the table about albedo modification. To suggest that the new (physical/environmental) uncertainties from albedo modification are "very negative" while the benefits of avoiding sharp, unprecedented global warming are only "positive" makes no sense at all. The impacts of unconstrained global warming are horrendous and avoiding and slowing them would be hugely positive. Also, this notion that the uncertainties associated with climate change with albedo modification are somehow much greater than the uncertainties associated with climate change without albedo modification just does not seem defensible to me, and that is before there is virtually any research on plausible implementation strategies (e.g., gradual implementation). And that governance issues would be worse than we currently have is also, it seems to me quite arguable. What I do think is that for albedo modification to have any chance of being practically applied, we have to get on a strongly downward emissions trend and then be thinking about albedo modification as a way to shave off the worst impacts and peak warming, for it sure seems likely to be a good bit above 2 C (and I'm worried about being over .5-1 C). So, let's all agree with the NRC's first recommendation that strong mitigation is critical--if we can get on that path, then both CDR and albedo modification have, in my view the potential to be helpful if the needed research is done, with albedo modification (and I'd start by being focused on moderating the worst impacts, so regionally, before going global) phased in early and phased out as CDR can take over. To my mind, thinking about a coordinated, comprehensive strategy and effort makes much more sense than this touting of one over the other--we are so far along past addressing the issue responsibly that we need all the approaches that we have available if we want to increase likelihood of a soft landing. Mike MacCracken On 2/12/15, 12:21 AM, "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> wrote: > Noah Deich provides a good summary of the CDR report at Recap and Commentary: > National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal > <https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- > academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/> > > I have made a comment at his blog. > > Robert Tulip > > > > <https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- > academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/> > > > > > > Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences ... > <https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- > academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/> Earlier today, the National > Academy of Sciences (³NAS²) released a comprehensive study dedicated to carbon > dioxide removal (³CDR²). To date, CDR has largely been ... > View on carbonremoval.wordp... > <https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- > academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/> > Preview by Yahoo > > > > > > > > > From: "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015, 6:31 > Subject: Re: [geo] National Academies reports > > > > Also this: > http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-su > ggests-thinking-carefully-first/ > To quote: > "In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into carbon > removal technology. "Overall, there is much to be gained and very low risk in > pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies that > demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more > cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term," it > concludes. "In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are > currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues > rather than direct costs." > But beyond the research programs, it's clear that neither of these approaches > is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that either of them can ever be > made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation of what would have been the > US' largest carbon capture experiment > <http://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/ > > . That's in sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology > is already mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those > of fossil fuels." > Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential approaches > and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of the > latter. > Greg > > > > From: "J.L. Reynolds" <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM > To: geoengineering <[email protected]> > Subject: [geo] National Academies reports > > Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume > report on climate engineering. They are available here > > http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-c > ool-earth > > http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-a > nd-reliable-sequestration > > One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. > > > > The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the > Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and > NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US > came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned > Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental > Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying > degrees of caution expressed). > > http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-interventi > on-reports/ > > http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release- > of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ > > > > The press conference was webcast. Some people ³live tweeted² it. See > > https://twitter.com/elikint > > https://twitter.com/janieflegal > > https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink > > https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc <https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc> > > > > Cheers > > Jesse > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD > > Postdoctoral researcher > > Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate > > European and International Public Law > > Tilburg Sustainability Center > > Tilburg University, The Netherlands > > Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology > > email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ <http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/> > > > -- 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.
