Thanks, Ron. While I agree that ETC should be endorsing CDR, that's not the message they've sent in the past. E.g., from their Geopiracy screed http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf "What’s wrong with biochar?Even if biochar turns out to sequester carbon long-term,hundreds of millions of hectares of land would be required toproduce the amount of biomass that would need to be burnedin order to sequester a significant amount of carbon.79 Biocharwill be unsustainable for the same reason agrofuels areunsustainable: there simply is no spare land upon which“biochar crops” can be grown without causing harm. In arecent article published in Nature Communications, theauthors, who include the Chair and Vice-Chair of the IBI,suggest that 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions could be‘offset’ with biochar, requiring not just vast quantities of“residues” but also the conversion of 526 million hectares ofland to dedicated crops and trees for biochar.80 In addition,biochar processing (transportation, burning, ploughing intoland) would all require significant energy inputs. Depletingsoils and forests and converting vast areas of land to biocharcrop plantations will worsen climate change.Despite the grandiose claims for biochar, there are significantunknowns. A 2008 study by CSIRO (Australia), for example,identified a number of research gaps including: how differentfeedstocks affect biochar’s chemical and physical properties; itslong-term stability in the soil; the presence of toxins from thefeedstock itself or the combustion process; and social andeconomic constraints and impacts.81" So good luck in changing their minds.Greg From: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> To: RAU greg <[email protected]> Cc: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>; Geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [geo] ETC : Why SRM experiments are a bad idea 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 GHGemissions would be stopped now, the inertial lock-in emissions will continuewarming the planet.2. While most promoters of geoengineering CDR options recognize that impacts ofSRM will CDR will not likely be bad and unevenly distributed, they claim the impacts ofunchecked climate change will also be bad and SRM may CDR will not be the lesser of twoevils.3. Other interests, often oil-industry financed think tanks, do not argue that SRM CDRoffers an efficient way to address climate change without having totransform the fossil-fuel driven economy All these arguments, in one form or another, distract from the real strategies toconfront climate chaos: the need to make drastic and real GHG reductions at thesource; decarbonize the global economy; and the need to research and supportsolutions 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 andprivate funds to move into a phase of research, hardware development and open-airexperiments. Immediate and large-scale deployment. Part C. Five Reasons Why SRM CDR Experiments Are a Bad Good Idea1. Experiments are NOT political acts2. Experiments DO NOT create technical and political ‘lock-in’3. Meaningful SRM CDR safety and efficacy “experiments” are not possible4. Experiments DO NOT violate the UN CBD moratorium5. 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]> wrote: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea - › Why SRM experiments are a bad idea Submitted on 28 March 2017Solar 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 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]. 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. -- 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.
