This roadmap paper is unrealistic. The numbers involved in its calculations are
not politically feasible, and have major technical and economic conceptual
weaknesses. The main value I would suggest in this roadmap is in enabling
discussion and debate about possible realistic strategies to achieve climate
stability. My view is that we need radical questioning of the dominant climate
language around decarbonisation and mitigation.
Expanding on Greg Rau's observation that the roadmap paper ignores ocean sinks,
its proposal for "pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by
2050" is too small and slow to materially affect climate change, let alone to
deliver climate stability, and the related decarbonisation proposals are
politically and economically impossible.
My view is that a possible roadmap should focus on ocean sinks. Industrial
algae factories on one percent of the world ocean could remove twenty cubic
kilometers of carbon from the air every year, a goal that can be called Carbon
Mining, funded mainly by conversion of CO2 to hydrocarbons. Twenty cubic
kilometers is double total emissions, and fifteen times the 5 gigatonnes of CO2
proposed in this paper.
Addressing ocean based methods of carbon mining can replace the need for
decarbonisation, mitigation and solar radiation management. The ocean is the
main new planetary frontier, with more than double the total area of the land,
and desert areas bigger than Australia. Using the ocean the world can mine
more carbon than we add, improving biodiversity in locations with no competing
spatial use, rapidly stabilising the climate and removing the need for
decarbonisation as a climate change goal.
Mitigation of emissions cannot lead a viable path to climate stability. In
fact, mitigation has glaring inadequacies. Mitigation is far too small and
slow to actually affect the climate. As the UN INDC 2015 Synthesis Paper noted,
total Paris commitments would still have emissions up to 52% above 1990 levels
over the next decade. Mitigation technology such as solar and wind crowds out
the real solutions of simple technology for carbon dioxide removal. Add to
those technical problems the powerful political hostility from the fossil fuel
industry and its allies, and it is clear that mitigation strategies need a
rethink.
I believe the thinking in the roadmap is constrained by failure to engage with
oceanic scale and energy. Using the ocean, climate stability could be achieved
with a practical roadmap, as a politically, economically and environmentally
sound and viable approach.
Robert Tulip
From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
To: RAU greg <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 2:19
Subject: Re: [geo] A roadmap for rapid decarbonization - Science
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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@ 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.
--
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.
