Actually, working input from an advisory committee organized by V. Ramanathan and on which I served, the Gold Standard Foundation (which certifies projects) has promulgated a new standard for BC, etc. from cookstoves (basically, what one would need to do to be a certified project) and it uses the GWP-20 for BC and other species. There is also an effort underway trying to figure out how best to create a market for credits from such projects (and possibly other short-lived species projects). That limiting short-lived species has so many co-benefits (indeed, health effects may be the main reason for cutting BC and climate change is a co-benefit of that), so it may be that if some countries use a permit system type approach to improve air quality, it might well be that a market could be developed.
Also, the new lifecycle assessment approach being developed for ANSI consideration also is set up for using GWPs with shorter time durations other than 100 years, basically set for the time period from emission to some fixed date (so, say 2050‹one just integrates the same equations out over the period of interest)--so what one gets out are relative contributions out to the time. This choice does mean that effects of these species after that time don¹t count in the rankings, and so is best used for considering how to get a response in the near-term. For the long-term, CO2 overwhelms everything else, so to limit long-term change the focus has to be to cut CO2 emissions (something well-know and the roles of other species just aren¹t all that important). I¹d also note that to be complete, all forcings need to be accounted for, so, for example, tropospheric sulfate is included as a cooling influence in the ANSI draft, and so cutting its emissions as coal use is cut does count as a warming influence (if one accounts only for the Kyoto basket of long-lived GHGs, that is just not an adequate approximation to how models would respond to the change‹remember that GWPs are only approximations of what is done by models, models don¹t use GWPs). So, conceptually, it would be possible to include SRM in the set of forcings, but one also has to consider another change in this new type of analysis, and that is not to be looking at results for a unit emission in just one year, but to be looking at operations out over time, so one focuses on what is causing what change, etc. So, one would not look at some unit SRM for one year, but at the relative influence of a planned implementation of SRM over some time period. I¹d also note that what matters about SRM is more than the temperature response (e.g., changes in precipitation patterns), so just treating its temperature aspects would be pretty limited [again, remember, all this GWP formalism is merely a way to approximate what full model simulations would provide as a result‹and for an intervention scenario, I would think one would really want to get beyond just an approximation of the temperature response]. So, there is movement on all of this, but ... Mike MacCracken On 8/21/15, 10:43 AM, "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with David and Olivier. Let's also remember that black carbon etc are > not part of carbon credit schemes exactly because they're not GHGs, even > though they have effect on global warming, and there are scientifically valid > reasons for calculating some kind of equivalence like GWP for some purposes, > awarding SRM with carbon credit is completely wrong. > > As to the possible, if temporary, negative feedback on terrestrial carbon > emission from SRM, since fossil fuel carbon emissions and required carbon > credits are never computed with consideration of their subsequent positive > feedback on the earth system in terms of warming and further emissions, any > secondary effect of SRM, even if real and long lasting, could not come into > carbon credit computation either. > > > Maggie Zhou, PhD > https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543 > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 9:39 AM, David Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Andrew, > > I take it that you're thinking about the recent research showing that SRM > could actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the > amount of carbon released from (or not absorbed by) terrestrial sinks. (At > least, I think that's the mechanism people find in the simulations -- if not, > someone please correct me!). > > I agree with Olivier that there's no straightforward answer to the question > about how much carbon a "unit" of SRM removes/keeps out of the atmosphere, > both for the reason Olivier cited and because I take it the magnitude of the > carbon reduction depends on background conditions (e.g., atmospheric > concentrations and temperatures), which would evolve over time -- especially > at the time scales needed to say that SRM has actually prevented carbon > release, rather than delaying it. > > I also agree with Maggie that this isn't just a physics/earth science > question. A carbon credit is a social creation. SRM isn't worth any carbon > credits unless the relevant decision-making bodies say it is. And I think it > would be a very bad idea for them to say so. > > So, in short, I'd say the answer to your question is: Currently, SRM is not > worth any carbon credits; and it should stay that way, regardless of SRM's > effects on atmospheric carbon concentrations. > > David > > > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 7:47:40 PM UTC-4, Maggie Zhou wrote: >> 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 >> <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]> 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 >>> <https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:15 AM, Andrew Lockley >>> <[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]. 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.
