Greg et al
COP 21 is waiting for the biggest laggard of them all - the USA. In 2
hours, we can hear in a webinar on this from Marcia McNutt and Ken Caldeira.
>
> Topic: GUIRR Webinar: Approaches to Climate Intervention
> Host: Jessica Rasmussen
> Date and Time:
> Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York,
> GMT-04:00)
> Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco,
> GMT-07:00)
> Event number: 665 030 442
> Event password: guirr1
> Registration ID: This event does not require an enrollment ID
Ron
On Aug 18, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150803/ncomms8958/pdf/ncomms8958.pdf
>
> Abstract: To limit global warming to o2 °C we must reduce the net amount of
> CO2 we release into the atmosphere, either by producing less CO2
> (conventional mitigation) or by capturing more CO2 (negative emissions).
> Here, using state-of-the-art carbon–climate models, we quantify the trade-off
> between these two options in RCP2.6: an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change scenario likely to limit global warming below 2°C. In our best-case
> illustrative assumption of conventional mitigation, negative emissions of
> 0.5–3Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) per year and storage capacity of 50–250 Gt C
> are required. In our worst case, those requirements are 7–11Gt C per year and
> 1,000–1,600Gt C, respectively. Because these figures have not been shown to
> be feasible, we conclude that development of negative emission technologies
> should be accelerated, but also that conventional mitigation must remain a
> substantial part of any climate policy aiming at the
> 2-°C target.
>
> GR - I'd quibble with the comment "that these figures have not been shown to
> be feasible". In fact 55% of our emissions or 10 x 0.55 = 5.5 Gt CO2 /yr are
> currently removed from the atmosphere by natural CDR. Granted much of this
> CDR is leakily stored and there are negative consequences to the ocean
> (acidification), but there are ideas out there as to how this can be
> improved. So what are we waiting for - some emission reduction policy miracle
> from COP 21?
>
> --
> 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.
