On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com<mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation. I find the characterization of CDR as "mitigation" as both inaccurate and ill-advised in the context of discussion of geoengineering as a climate policy option. A working definition of the term mitigation, from the UNFCCC Secretariat, is "efforts to reduce or prevent emission of greenhouse gases;" CDR approaches do not, by definition, reduce or prevent GHG emissions; rather, they attempt to sequester emissions once they are released. The consequences of this create a fundamentally different situation on the ground than processes that prevent release of emissions. For example, the work of Tim Searchinger and others demonstrate that production of feedstock for BECCS may simply result in displacement of other carbon reservoirs to compensate for the loss of food and forest stocks to meet bioenergy demands. As a consequence, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may not decrease, or might even increase. That's a far different result than what would occur in terms of true mitigation approaches, such as fuel-switching, or a rapid transition to renewables. Moreover, BECCS could require 20-25% of net primary productivity to be operationalized on a large-scale. Additionally, the fact that CDR approaches don't "mitigate" emissions means that said emissions have to be sequestered, which has potentially serious implications in terms of things e.g. groundwater integrity, or the CO2 may be utilized for enhanced oil recovery, potentially, according to the EPA, producing 3x as much oil as current U.S. reserves. This could result in carbon lock-in for decades to come. This isn't "mitigation" in even the most extremely attenuated conception of the term. Don't get me wrong; given our feckless response to climate change, I support CDR research, and potentially, deployment. However, I think it's unfortunate that we portray this as "mitigation." Therein lies the creation of the bugaboo that we know as "moral hazard." While simply characterizing climate geoengineering as a "bridge" to a decarbonized future may not create such a hazard, characterizing geoengineering as actual "mitigation" assuredly could. Dr. Wil Burns Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment A Scholarly Initiative of the School of International Service, American University 2650 Haste Street, Towle Hall #G07 Berkeley, CA 94720 650.281.9126 (Phone) http://www.dcgeoconsortium.org<http://www.dcgeoconsortium.org/> [cid:image003.png@01D1D753.0CE70860] Blog: Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy, http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org<http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org/> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wil_burns Skype ID: Wil.Burns View my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
