Ken et al. Perhaps the difference between fossil CCS and BE CCS is intent(?)
If BE already exists and CCS is added, then that's CO2 mitigation(?) If BECCS
is installed specifically to generate C negative energy, then that's CDR
restoration or remediation(?)
While on the subject of semantics, how do you classify CDR methods that reduce
natural, non-anthro CO2 emissions? For example, if I install CCS on a
semi-dormant volcano to reduce it's CO2 emissions, am I doing mitigation,
restoration, remediation, or what? Ditto for reducing CO2 emissions from
natural upwelling areas in the ocean? Etc? It would seem the the overarching
theme here is methods of atmospheric CO2 management, and we can quibble over
the sub categories, hopefully not to the detriment of actually doing something
where the benefits outweigh the risks and costs.
Greg
From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] CDR as Mitigation
CDR reduces net emissions.
What is the difference between a coal plant with CCS and a bio energy facility
without CCS versus a coal plant without CCS and a bio energy facility with CCS?
Why should the addition of CCS be considered mitigation in the first case but
not in the second case?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:12 Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> 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 BurnsCo-Executive Director,
Forum for Climate Engineering AssessmentA Scholarly Initiative of the School of
International Service, American University2650 Haste Street, Towle Hall
#G07Berkeley, CA 94720650.281.9126 (Phone)http://www.dcgeoconsortium.org Blog:
Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy, http://www.teachingclimatelaw.orgTwitter:
https://twitter.com/wil_burnsSkype ID: Wil.BurnsView 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
