Agree this is a fascinating exchange of posts – and very informative! Two comments for what they are worth.
1. Differentiation between GHGs "The Paris agreement in respect of negative emissions failed to differentiate between those associated with reinstatement/maintenance of carbon stocks, and addressing the additional burden of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels" Might I suggest that IPCC also fail to make the same differentiation in respect of positive emissions. A failure which actually mitigates against beneficial and corrective action being taken and indeed promotes the opposite. For instance, in respect of agricultural emissions – nitrous oxide from legumes - part of the natural nitrogen cycle and essential for the maintenance of grassland and woodland ecosystems, are counted as the same as the nitrous oxide arising from anthropogenic nitrogen from inorganic fertilisers which are an additional burden contributing to global warming and also disrupting natural cycles. Similarly methane emissions from ruminants that are only reared by extensive grazing – grass fed only – and essential part of building soil fertility (low or no fossil fuel inputs), and whose emissions are offset by methanotrophic bacteria in the soils and carbon sequestration to soils, are counted the same as those that are intensively reared and grain fed promoting further deforestation of the Amazon et cetera and high input arable systems – fossil fuel intensive. The result is that IPCC GHG methodology currently mitigates against food production systems that are broadly in line with (agro)ecological processes (i.e. organic farming, 100 percent grass fed livestock) and reinstating carbon stocks in soils, in favour of further intensification of arable and livestock production – and increased fossil fuel use. 2. Energy and Gross Domestic Product. Our economic system, politicians, pension schemes, debt, multinationals -and most of us – are all totally committed to increasing GDP. Explaining what GDP actually is, how and what it measures is itself a fascinating possibly a relevant topic. For instance here in the UK a couple years back we counted in prostitution and drug dealing to keep GDP on the up. What is very clear is the correlation between global GDP and global energy consumption. Whilst having regard for the fact we all know what an exajoule/KWH is using the dollar as a unit of measurement is a bit more problematical. Todays value, yesterdays, 10 years ago? Which ever way – increasing GDP means increasing energy consumption. 80% ++ of which is fossil fuel. So – quote from Robert: "Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and no politicians are going to support ‘deep, profound and immediate’ restructuring of the global energy system that will threaten current patterns of energy consumption." Amend the last two words to read "economic growth!" And in my opinion one begins to understand the real size of the challenge we face. Before we get around to discussing Geo engineering? Or simultaneously with. However there are solutions. > Tread lightly! > > Regards > > Dave > > Dave Stanley > Holly House > Camp Lane, > Grimley, > Worcester, WR26LX > 01905 641529 > [email protected] > http://www.tochallengethethinking.co.uk > http://www.pastureforlife.org/ > On 17 Nov 2016, at 12:44, Robert Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > > Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and no politicians are going to support > ‘deep, profound and immediate’ restructuring of the global energy system that > will threaten current patterns of energy consumption. -- 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.
