List:
This is a followup.
Yesterday, a third paper based on Dr. Boysen’s thesis was released -
to be found (no-fee) at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000469/full
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000469/full>. The full title
and author list is: Citation: Boysen, L. R., W. Lucht, D. Gerten, V. Heck, T.
M. Lenton, and H. J. Schellnhuber (2017), The limits to global-warming
mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal, Earth’s Future, 5,
dos:10.1002/2016EF000469.
I like this paper. The final sentence of the Summary states:
“Although we find that this strategy of sequestering carbon is not a viable
alternative to aggressive emission reductions, it could still support
mitigation efforts if sustainably managed.” I think there has been too
little credit given to the added out-year benefits of biochar, so I put this
paper into a pro-CDR category - and hope for more modeling efforts of this high
caliber.
Ron
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> List: cc Andrew
>
> The cite given below by Andrew is for a 20 MB full thesis - which my
> server couldn’t handle. I’d greatly appreciate anyone able to suggest a
> work-around so we can all view the full document.
>
> The author, (now Dr.) Lena Boysen alerted me to this non-fee initial
> (out of 3) part of the thesis:
> “Impacts devalue the potential of large-scale terrestrial CO2 removal
> through biomass plantations”
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095010/meta;jsessionid=325AACE0FC1BCA551F5ABFF7BC15679E.ip-10-40-2-108
>
> <http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095010/meta;jsessionid=325AACE0FC1BCA551F5ABFF7BC15679E.ip-10-40-2-108>
>
> I still need to re-read it, but I am impressed by the depth and breadth
> of what I have read so far. A little on biochar (fortunately “a little”, as
> I think biochar doesn’t suffer from the concerns she raises [see final
> sentence in the abstract below]) - but mostly this seems more related to
> BECCS (as in AR5). Much larger land areas and annual sequestration
> possibilities discussed than normal.
>
> Dr. Boysen has given us much to discuss - from the point of view of
> land-use modeling - mostly for RCP4.5.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:04 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Boysen
>> Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for
>> #climate engineering
>>
>> https://t.co/knfig3fTn9 <https://t.co/knfig3fTn9>
>>
>> Abstract
>> For hundreds of years, humans have engineered the planet to fulfil their
>> need for incre-
>> asing energy consumption and production. Since the industrial revolution,
>> one conse-
>> quence are rising global mean temperatures which could change by 2◦C to
>> 4.5◦C until
>> 2100 if mitigation enforcement of CO2 emissions fails.To counteract this
>> projected glo-
>> bal warming, climate engineering techniques aim at intendedly cooling
>> Earth’s climate
>> for example through terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) which is
>> commonly per-
>> ceived as environmentally friendly. Here, tCDR refers to the establishment
>> of large-scale
>> biomass plantations (BPs) in combination with the production of long-lasting
>> carbon
>> products such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or biochar.
>> This thesis examines the potentials and possible consequences of tCDR by ana-
>> lysing land-use scenarios with different spatial and temporal scales of BPs
>> using an
>> advanced biosphere model forced by varying climate projections. These
>> scenario simu-
>> lations were evaluated with focus on their carbon sequestration potentials,
>> trade-offs
>> with food production and impacts on natural ecosystems and climate itself.
>> Synthesised, the potential of tCDR to permanently extract CO2 out of the
>> atmos-
>> phere is found to be small, regardless of the emission scenario, the point
>> of onset or the
>> spatial extent. On the contrary, the aforementioned trade-offs and impacts
>> are shown
>> to be unfavourable in most cases. In a high emission scenario with a late
>> onset of BPs
>> (i.e. around 2050), even unlimited area availability for tCDR could not
>> reverse past
>> emissions sufficiently, e.g. BPs covering 25% of all agricultural or natural
>> land could
>> delay 2100’s carbon budget by no more than two or three decades (equivalent
>> to ≈550
>> or 800 GtC tCDR), respectively. However, simultaneous emission reductions
>> and an ear-
>> lier establishment of BPs (i.e. around 2035) could result in strong carbon
>> extractions
>> reversing past emissions (e.g. six or eight decades or ≈500 or 800 GtC,
>> respectively).
>> In both cases, land transformation for tCDR leads to high “costs” for
>> ecosystems (e.g.
>> biodiversity loss) and food production (e.g. reduction of almost 75%).
>> Restricting the
>> available land for BPs by these trade-off constraints leaves very small tCDR
>> poten-
>> tials (well below 100 GtC) despite a near-future onset (in 2020). Similarly,
>> simulated
>> tCDR potentials on dedicated BP areas defined in a commonly used and
>> published low
>> emissions scenario stay below the aimed values using current management
>> practices.
>> Some potential may lie the reduction of carbon losses from field to
>> end-products, new
>> management options and the restoration of degraded soils with BPs.
>> This thesis contradicts the assumption that tCDR could be an effective and
>> envi-
>> ronmentally friendly way of complementing or substituting strong and rapid
>> mitigation
>> efforts.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
