Hello Maggie, Andrew,
from a purely earth science perspective, comparing SRM to CDR is
essentially the same problem as extending GHG metrics to short-lived
pollutants (eg black carbon, other aerosols, ozone). It is of course
possible to compute equivalences for a given metric. There is a whole
lot of literature on the subject, which basically says there is no
unique answer, and the answer depends- a lot- on what climate goal
you're pursuing. Then there are other things to be considered, and
indeed I agree with Maggie that it may not be the right way of
presenting things. I once read an estimate that painting xx square
meters of roof in white was equivalent to mitigating yy tons of CO2, but
I certainly disagree with such a simple equivalence.
Cheers,
Olivier
Hi Andrew,
Firstly, there is no sound answer to the question posed in terms of
physics /earth science, exactly because SRM is not a true substitute
of removing carbon, it does not confer the same effect in terms of
duration of effect, and effect on many other aspects of the earth
system other than the reduction of heat while the aerosol is in the
air. So it is scientifically flawed to ignore all of that, in order
to render a carbon credit equivalent so as to be able to monitize SRM,
just like everything else is driven to be monitized under the insane
capitalist system.
Secondly, in a non-voluntary system that requires carbon credits in
order to emit GHGs, SRM generated credits will simply add to the
annual emissions cap, which is what I pointed out in my last email.
In a voluntary system where people/corporations simply purchase
carbon credits to feel better or use as a PR tool, SRM generated
credits allow them to justify their emissions which they otherwise
would be under greater pressure to reduce, and for those emissions
outside of their direct control, SRM generated credits won't help
reduce anyway. In fact they would feel even less responsible to
change agricultural emissions (advocating for better agri practices,
etc), or what their government is doing in their name.
It's amusing, if not also sad, that you considered what I discussed in
the last email as from a "political angle", i.e., not "science
proper". I'd suggest that what I discussed there is simply science as
applied to the physical reality of this earth, not some abstract
concept that draws an artificial equivalence of SRM = C removal.
Peace.
Maggie Zhou, PhD
https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 7:00 PM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected]> wrote:
Maggie (and list),
Thanks for your response. However, there are a couple of problems with
the stance you take.
Firstly, I'm simply looking to answer a physics / earth science
question. The answer will be true whether we want it to be, or not.
The world deals with many other distasteful comparisons, such as how
much is a life worth in cost-benefit analyses.
Secondly, even if we engage with the political angle you discuss, your
logic doesn't necessarily bear scrutiny. People may choose to offset
only the components of their emissions they have no control over, eg
agriculture, government sector, etc. I'd suggest that those buying
carbon credits are probably more prone to taking mitigation action
than demographically matched controls.
I'd welcome further dialogue.
Thanks
Andrew Lockley
On 20 Aug 2015 23:49, "Maggie Zhou" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
"How many carbon credits is a tonne of SRM worth?"
Seriously? This is precisely what geoengineering proponents
promised that it won't be used for - as a substitute in any way,
shape or form to carbon emission mitigation. To get acceptance
for the idea of even funding research into SRM or other
geoengineering schemes in response to global warming, the repeated
promise was that it is not meant to replace emission reductions,
only a backup to buy us some time...
Using SRM to generate carbon credits is EXACTLY to generate EXTRA
carbon emissions allowances - even though all SRM could do, at
best, is masking the true impact of the current GHG levels on
warming while the spraying is ongoing, without ever removing a
single atom of carbon from the atmosphere for which it's to claim
carbon credit. In short, SRM will lead to even MORE emissions,
not less, and due to the masking and the lack of public awareness
that it's the masking that's keeping the temperatures from
shooting up even higher even quicker, it just helps keeping
business-as-usual longer, on top of ocean acidification, acid
rain, potential disruption of regional climate patterns, etc etc.
Maggie Zhou, PhD
https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:15 AM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
How many carbon credits is a tonne of SRM worth?
We could work this out as watts cooling or weight sulphur for
weight carbon. Doesn't really matter.
Thanks
Andrew
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
