I just want to emphasize the distinction, that "incentive" does not equal
"carbon credit". I have no objection per se to using incentives as a possible
policy tool to encourage increasing albedo of the built environment - if there
is strong evidence for benefit and little potential harm (environmental
toxicity of paint material?), but "carbon credits" have a very specific
meaning, and consequence: In a mandatory carbon market, using SRM to create
carbon credits enables more carbon emissions beyond what was set under the
"cap" of a cap-and-trade scheme (a very ineffective scheme in itself that
benefits Wall Street, not much the climate).
Similarly, it's one thing to use a permit system to reduce black carbon
emissions (which is great), quite another to "create a market for credits from
such projects". I wish that scientists involved in these research and
implementation projects can get over the idea that somehow everything needs to
work through a market - please realize that it's really only the Wall Street
who benefits from and are intensely interested in commodifying everything,
creating a market for everything, and they don't have the best interest of the
planet in mind.
Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 4:09 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>
wrote:
Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon creditsActually, 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 don’t 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 aren’t all that important).
I’d 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 don’t 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. I’d 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.
--
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.
