Let’s imagine we all agree on the importance of urgently addressing climate change - and in particular rapidly reducing emissions.
Along with CDR, in theory would you support regulations that required the 10% of global emitters responsible for approaching 50% of global emissions to reduce their carbon footprint to that of the typical EU citizen? Provided policies were in place to address various rebounds - this would deliver a cut in global emissions of at least 30%. If we are serious about climate change, presumably this could be delivered within a year. I think we all share a deep concern about the challenges we face and that the tone (and often the content) of the dominant mitigation discourse is too optimistic. Set against this upbeat rhetoric, developing policies that drive rapid lifestyle change amongst us high emitters is seldom if ever included in the portfolio of mitigation options. My concern now, is that the prospect of various CDR/NETs is further undermining opportunities for rapid social-engineering. In significant part, I think this arises from the uncomfortable fact that most of us working on climate change are in that 10%, if not the 1% - and ultimately any technical option to avoid addressing the huge asymmetry in CO2 emissions is innately appealing. Given Glen and I have repeatedly noted how R.D&D of CDR/NETs is something we support - I’m interested if the seriousness of climate change is sufficient for advocates of CDR/NETS to also call for governments to develop policies to drive deep, profound and immediate mitigation by us high emitters? I do not mean this to be a flippant and rhetorical question - I’m genuinely interested to know what level of effort and discomfort we think is acceptable in trying to delver on even a conservative reading of the Paris Agreement. Kind regards Kevin On 14 Nov 2016, at 23:05, John Nissen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear David, I think Klaus et al have the voice of realism. Global warming is far more serious than we have been led to believe, and without several rapid interventions, we are heading for many degrees of global warming this century. IPCC are guilty of two colossal blunders in their projections of global warming. The effect has been to lull the international community into a false sense of security. Rapid interventions are now required to avoid a lethal combination of climate change, ocean acidification and rising sea levels. Here are the facts: Blunder 1. IPCC has ignored the increasing loss of Arctic albedo, which is already contributing the equivalent of 30 ppm CO2 to the radiative budget, i.e. a quarter of the forcing from CO2. Blunder 2. IPCC has ignored the warming effect of accumulated CO2. They say that global temperature rise will be halted when net CO2 emissions have fallen to zero, ignoring the effect of accumulated CO2 and other forcing agents in the atmosphere. The first blunder is symptomatic of IPCC's treatment of the Arctic sea ice, where they refuse to accept the observations that it is in a death spiral, preferring to rely on models of proven inadequacy which predict that the sea ice will last for decades. You can read all about it in Peter Wadhams' new book "A Fairwell to Ice". The second blunder can be illustrated by AR5 WG1 figure 6-40 attached and available here [1]. The red curves are supposed to show the effect if net emissions were to suddenly fall to zero at 2050, when CO2 has reached about 500 ppm. The temperature (red curve in bottom diagram) should continue to rise as a result of the forcing from 500 ppm CO2; but instead the temperature flattens off as if the accumulated CO2 ceased to have a warming effect! It is absolutely astonishing and frightening that such a fundamental mistake can be made. If we want to halt global warming at any particular temperature, then we need to bring net forcing down to zero by the time that temperature has been reached. This involves bringing all GHGs down to their pre-industrial level and restoring Arctic albedo, unless their residual heating (positive forcing) is counteracted by an equal amount of cooling (negative forcing), e.g. from aerosols. CDR has to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than it is being emitted into the atmosphere, in order to bring the level down from over 400 ppm to pre-industrial 280 ppm. Methane emissions have to be suppressed (including fugitive emissions from coal, oil and gas extraction) in order to bring the level down from 1850 ppb to pre-industrial 750 ppb. The retreat of sea ice has to be halted and then Arctic albedo has to be restored to its level of at least thirty years ago. Thus our best chance to halt global warming is through CO2 emissions reduction (better than already committed) combined with several immediate and aggressive interventions: CDR, methane emissions reduction, and rapid cooling of the Arctic. As Klaus Lackner et al say in their comment, CDR is indeed like throwing a lifebelt to a drowning person. We need to start CDR as quickly as we can, to be as certain as we can be to save the planet. In parallel we must suppress methane and cool the Arctic before we lose any more albedo from snow and sea ice retreat. The ultimate objective must be to restore the Earth System to Holocene conditions of climate stability, ocean alkalinity and sea level constancy. Cheers, John [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2006/thumbnail/Fig6-40.jpg On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:55 PM, David Lewis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Anderson could maintain his stance as a voice for realism while adding his voice to those calling for research into all forms of geoengineering. He could compare the cost of reducing emissions to the current cost of removing them from the atmosphere, call for a vigorous program of further research, then state that it is still his opinion that civilization needs to urgently and fundamentally transform its social, economic, and political relations if it wants to continue to exist. Moral: Do not ignore or downplay potentially useful actions, especially if you have the time and resources to carefully evaluate them. ________________________________ From: Greg Rau <[email protected]> To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 4:50 PM Subject: [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life Preserver, and/or Moral Hazard? -- 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 . http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/714.1 GR: Disclaimer - I was a co-signer. -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. <IPCC Effect of CDR WGI_AR5_Fig6-40.jpg> -- 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.
