With luck, CDR capacity will begin to expand dramatically not too long
after the renewables transition is really in full swing. There are major
socioeconomic and political uncertainties of course, but the underlying
technological advances driving progress on renewables are also likely drive
progress on CDR.
See my 2016 paper in *Anthropocene* ("The Impact Pulse and Restoration
Curves") for more details on how we might think about scenarios that
incorporate CDR into the decarbonization transition.
- Adam
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Yes I agree this paper is based on a dubious premise. In all likelihood
> the doubling rate of renewables will be the controlling factor.
>
> There's going to be a slow start, a rapid transition, but then a
> tailing-off - as hard-to-switch uses (eg intercontinental flight) become
> dominant in carbon budgets
>
> Andrew
>
> On 24 Mar 2017 17:06, "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269/tab-pdf
>>
>> "...we propose framing the decarbonization challenge in terms of a global
>> decadal roadmap based on a simple heuristic—a “carbon law”—of halving gross
>> anthropogenic carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions every decade. Complemented by
>> immediately instigated, scalable carbon removal and efforts to ramp down
>> land-use CO2 emissions, this can lead to net-zero emissions around
>> mid-century, a path necessary to limit warming to well below 2°C."
>>
>> "We need urgent research to ascertain the resilience of remaining
>> biosphere carbon sinks (10). Strong financial impetus must be provided for
>> afforestation of degraded land and for establishment of no-regret
>> approaches to net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere—such as the
>> combination of second- and third-generation bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or
>> direct air CCS (DACCS). Trials of sustainable sequestration schemes of the
>> order of 100 to 500 MtCO2/year should be well under way to resolve
>> deployment issues relating to food security, biodiversity preservation,
>> indigenous rights, and societal acceptance."
>>
>> GR - Seems unlikely we can halve emissions each decade, or that AR, BECSS
>> and DAC alone can take up the slack. So given the task and the risk of
>> failing, how is it that we have the luxury to ignore enhancing the sink
>> potential of the ocean - 70% of the Earth surface, half of the bio C cycle,
>> and half of the annual CO2 sink? Wouldn't this help "resolve [CDR]
>> deployment issues relating to food security, biodiversity preservation,
>> indigenous rights, and societal acceptance." See attached.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
