The article which Andrew posted was from http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog/2015/9/7/reduce-recycle-and-clean-up-what-waste-management-can-teach-us-about-controlling-carbon-emissions and my previous comment was posted there briefly last weekend but all comments have now been removed.
Attached graphic is from the same article, which I referred to in my comment. It is derived from the familiar "reduce - reuse - recycle" which I see as a milestone on the way to what is now called a "circular economy". Noah Deich's analogy between managing solid waste and managing the CO2 in the atmosphere is instructive but my point is that his cycle is not a cycle: just as burying the residue of solid waste is a dead-end, so is burying CO2. I see no persuasive case made that putting CO2 in underground pressurized storage is either safe or, as importantly, a sensible destination for a valuable resource. The roster of carbon removal solutions on offer at centerforcarbonremoval.org includes passing reference to soil sequestration, but the catch-phrase "carbon landfilling" tips us off that earth's natural carbon cycle is not being taken seriously. Brian On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:11:52 AM UTC-4, Brian Cartwright wrote: > > Posted this morning in response: > > You accept without question the status quo approach to “trash”: > "1) reduce waste production, > 2) recycle as much of the remaining waste as possible, and > 3) remove the rest in sealed landfills that protect the environment from > the consequences of this pollution." > The reason I put “trash” in quotes is that I don’t accept that a material > is valueless by virtue of being discarded. All three phases of the 3 R’s > you list represent our failure to manage our material resources wisely, and > the wholesale removal of those resources also has negative consequences as > many of those resources become scarce. > > So this is not the basis for a good analogy to managing atmospheric > carbon, although it is more or less the approach being taken in the growing > “carbon landfilling” industry. Since the carbon which you seek to discard > is not yet diminishing from efforts at source reduction, let’s look at step > two: recycling. I would suggest that the top three lines in your 3 R’s > graphic under “Remove” are in fact excellent modes of carbon recycling: > “ecosystem restoration, reforestation and carbon farming”. With enormous > ancillary benefits beyond the task of “removing” carbon, these are methods > proven to restore carbon to soil from which it has been severely depleted. > Underground storage, by contrast, has no ecological benefits and long-term > risks: when we should be keeping elemental carbon cycling in living > ecosystems, why would we prefer to pressurize and bury the relatively > larger CO2 molecule, representing a leakage threat in perpetuity? The logic > of bypassing our natural carbon cycle in favor of such schemes can only > perhaps be explained by the leverage of vested interests of the fossil fuel > industry. > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
