Dear Stephen, Many thanks for sharing this analysis: it is really interesting and full of lessons and maybe a beginning of explanations on why the vast majority of peer reviewed articles on SRM are on stratospheric sulphates.
Maybe somebody has a beginning of explanations on why the vast majority of peer reviewed articles on climate engineering are on SRM and not on CDR, or even on GHG removal? Is there some lobbing? Best wishes, Renaud 2017-08-21 11:41 GMT+02:00 Stephen Salter <[email protected]>: > Janos > > All information about all methods is interesting but can be misused > especially if it is not very accurate. We are conditioned by television > shows and Olympic gold medals to want a single winner when the difference > between gold and silver is a tiny fraction of a second. > > The cost of climate change in money and human misery is so high that we > will need every possible tool in the box and use them in harmony. > > I attach an example one attempt at assessment which continues to have a > powerful effect on research policy. > > Stephen > > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, > University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland > [email protected], Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 <+44%20131%20650%205704>, Cell > 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for > Change > > On 21/08/2017 10:16, Janos Pasztor wrote: > > Peter, > > The idea of scoring CDR methods is, in my view, a good way forward. Your > set of criteria is a good start. I would suggest that the criteria be > qualitatively linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the > related targets. After all the world has agreed to pursue the SDGs as the > common goals for the kind of world we want to live in. That being the > case, CDR methods have to fit into those goals one way or an other. By > quantitatively linking, the adjectives like “low” that you have used in > your criteria can be better defined/quantified… > > Janos > > > ======================= > Janos Pasztor > Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs > Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering > Governance Initiative (C2G2) > 2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland > Mobile: +41-79-739-5503 <+41%2079%20739%2055%2003> > [email protected] | Tw: @jpasztor | Skype: jpasztor > www.c2g2.net > > On 21 Aug 2017, at 09:48, Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR > approaches . One could develop a list of the desireable attributes and a > way to score each CDR approach . > The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the > Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC reports. Those same > approaches could reach a consensus on the attributes. > The idea is to bring rigor to what now is a set of unsubstantiated > assertions about different CDR approaches. These usually feature the > positive aspects provided by those doing it leaving a confusing > situation that inhibits decision making. The absence of rigor creates > results that has yielded solutions that make no sense based upon what we > now know. These include BEECS , even worse corn based ethanol, and I > would claim also CCS for coal plants. They all reached some political > consencus but make little if any scientific sense and will not be part of a > sustanable solution. The main point is not to be negative about the past > but to suggest moving forward what is needed is more rigor in assessing CDR > approaches if we are to have useful decisions in the future. > > In any case my criteria for a successful CDR approach are > 1 it can scale to remove the amount of CO2 needed ( eg amount can change > so can it adjust upward if needed ) > 2 the Co2 removed from the atmosphere can be sequestered safely > 3 a low and ideally positive social cost of the CDR process per tonne of > Co2 removed - social cost = ( the cost of the technology(so called private > cost) plus the cost/benefit of the externalities (environmental damage , > or loss of agriculture land increase social cost while positively increased > productivity of the land or use of CO2 to generate wealth like carbon fiber > can actual reduce the social cost below the private cost) ) > 4 low and ideally no risk of unintended consequences when practd at large > scale (minimal ideally zero impact on other geochemical cycles. > 5 low energy use , water use ,and land use land use > > One could rank order each CDR approach in each category and then rank them > overall with the lowest total the best. Note for the record I have had my > students in my class at Columbia on Closing the Carbon Cycle rank the > various approaches for years and DAC wins hands down. Now I am aware that > my involvement could certainly skew the responses that is why i want an > independent effort . The royal society did this many years ago and i think > it is time to update it. > > Most importantly if the scientific community remains fractured as it > currently is on this issue than progress is unlikely. If it self imposes a > discipline and a candor ( eg about BECCS annd Corn Based Ethanol) than > there is a possibility a scientific consensus will emerge. If we do not do > it nobody will. > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into >> CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited >> approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? >> Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other >> methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the >> circumstances, do we really have the luxury of ignoring any of these until >> they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant? >> Greg Rau >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]> >> *To:* "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>; " >> [email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM >> *Subject:* RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon >> dioxide emissions >> >> Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and >> proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to >> listen. So again: >> 1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made >> life possible on Earth >> 2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as >> limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and >> plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments >> contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the >> biosphere together. >> 3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few >> hundred years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of >> million years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine >> at locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical >> countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse >> olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by >> which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee >> slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water. >> 4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we >> will ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can >> be mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such >> olivine mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be >> taken to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries >> profit from the employment provided by the mining exploitation. >> 5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other >> advantages of this spreading can also be used. >> 6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth. >> I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter >> climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its >> validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:geoengineering@googleg >> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau >> *Sent:* zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon >> dioxide emissions >> >> >> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/1616601 >> 4/negative-emissions >> >> "...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that >> incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just >> one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is *spectacularly >> failing in Mississippi* >> <https://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12098504/kemper-ccs-problems-clean-coal>, >> but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand >> into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer >> enough. Time to think about scale." >> >> GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology. >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain > confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the > intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the > non-disclosure agreement between the parties. > > -- > 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. > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- > 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.
