Greg, cc List and Andrew.
The answer to your CDR question below is affirmative (with apologies
for needing to explain at length why I think so; about half of the following
are quotes from the ETC original).
I have hopes that ETC is now or will soon be endorsing some forms of
CDR. At least I hope they will use criteria similar to the 20-or-so (below)
they have used in the article cite that Andrew provided. I commend ETC’s use
of specific criteria. Below is my short-hand version to which I hope they
would comment. Here I mainly answer for biochar, as I don’t claim to be
current on any other form of CDR. I hope others will both critique my
biochar assertions and provide similar responses for other CDR forms. I am
intentionally staying away from the SRM topic.
ETC justifies their rejection of SRM in three parts. I repeat ONLY
their criteria with my own CDR-specific amendments. There are several other
positive biochar attributes not covered in this editing of their view of SRM
(for instance, providing carbon neutral energy, reducing/saving water
consumption, increasing rural job opportunities, increasing food supply, etc.)
Part A. A dozen specific ETC topic areas (only showing their topical areas):
Unequal negative impacts. (Biochar impacts would be equal and positive in
virtually ever country.)
Environmental risks. (Biochar risks would be minimum or nil.)
No turning back. (Biochar impacts would probably be larger in the future
than immediate.)
Not addressing root causes. (Biochar directly addresses CO2 (and CH4 and
N2O) root causes.)
Weaponization (Biochar cannot be used as a weapon.)
SRM is the perfect excuse for inaction. (Biochar is today being implemented
commercially.)
SRM is already under a moratorium (Biochar has already been tested in
thousands of locations.)
Lack of a democratic, transparent, multilateral mechanism for governance.
(Biochar implementation is occurring today with minimum governance.)
SRM could wreck the climate agreements. (Biochar is being encouraged in
climate agreements.)
Who decides what is an emergency? (Biochar is being encouraged for soil
emergency reasons by numerous international organizations.)
Politics and precaution first (Biochar has had minimum political
discussion; precaution is already encouraged/practiced - by always starting
small, with different soils and crops)
Trump administration (Biochar is being pursued most aggressively in
China, and likely to go faster because of Trump.)
Part B. A Summary Box labeled “Geoengineering promoters argue” as biochar
folks would modify:
Geoengineering CDR (including biochar) promoters argue:
1. That we will need SRM CDR to address climate change because even if GHG
emissions would be stopped now, the inertial lock-in emissions will continue
warming the planet.
2. While most promoters of geoengineering CDR options recognize that impacts of
SRM will CDR will not likely be bad and unevenly distributed, they claim the
impacts of
unchecked climate change will also be bad and SRM may CDR will not be the
lesser of two
evils.
3. Other interests, often oil-industry financed think tanks, do not argue that
SRM CDR
offers an efficient way to address climate change without having to
transform the fossil-fuel driven economy
All these arguments, in one form or another, distract from the real strategies
to
confront climate chaos: the need to make drastic and real GHG reductions at the
source; decarbonize the global economy; and the need to research and support
solutions that are sound, fair, decentralized and affordable, including, among
others,
agroecology, good mass transport and renewable energy systems.
Since no SRM many CDR proposals are ready for deployment at this time, the
emphasis now for geoengineering
CDR advocates is on the need to secure endorsement and public and
private funds to move into a phase of research, hardware development and
open-air
experiments. Immediate and large-scale deployment.
Part C. Five Reasons Why SRM CDR Experiments Are a Bad Good Idea
1. Experiments are NOT political acts
2. Experiments DO NOT create technical and political ‘lock-in’
3. Meaningful SRM CDR safety and efficacy “experiments” are not possible
4. Experiments DO NOT violate the UN CBD moratorium
5. Deviating resources from true solutions CANNOT OCCUR.
[RWL: I hope we can have a discussion on any of my changes in any of the three
ETC argument approaches - as well of course on their originals for the SRM part
of Geo. This mainly to take up Greg’s challenging CDR question via specifics.
Ron
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So CDR is OK?
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea
>> <http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea>
>>
>> ›
>> <>Why SRM experiments are a bad idea
>> Submitted on 28 March 2017
>> <http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/srm_diagram.jpg>
>> Solar Radiation Management (SRM) describes a set of geoengineering
>> techniques that aim to counter human-made climate change by artificially
>> increasing the reflection of heat from sunlight (solar radiation) back into
>> space. Some advocates have started using the term “solar geoengineering” –
>> but these techniques are not related to solar power production.
>> SRM encompasses a variety of techniques: using reflective “pollution” to
>> modify the atmosphere, covering deserts with reflective plastic, increasing
>> the whiteness of clouds or blocking incoming sunlight with “space shades.”
>> The most-promoted proposal is to create dust clouds that artificially mimic
>> “volcano clouds” by injecting layers of reflective particles, such as
>> sulfates, into a higher layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere.
>> This briefing
>> <http://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_briefing_why_srm_experiments_are_bad_idea_0.pdf>
>> outlines the ethical, political and environmental arguments against solar
>> radiation management (SRM), and explains why even SRM experiments are a bad
>> idea.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
>> <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]
> <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
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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.
