I agree Adam Sacks that utilisation of desertified biosphere needs to be done. I would add even more that there is a need to utilise arid land masses far better with drip water irrigation which would allow reforestation in some areas where forests can be restored and build more robust food supply system that is resilient against shocks by climate change and normal weather events and other types of crises. However, I would disagree that there is a necessary either - or situation for geoengineering versus desert reclamation. Some deserts should be used for solar farms as well to reduce fossil fuel.
Indeed, why do we always need to stand against each other in opposing of things, when there is market and space for both kind of activity to steer the earth from its disastrous current trajectory? Let's pull the rope together from the same end, rather than competing each other by pulling the ropes from the opposing ends to get results... ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Adam Sacks <adam.sa...@bio4climate.org> Sent: 11 December 2018 13:31 To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: Andrew Lockley; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Carbon Dioxide Removal Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C There is no technology anywhere close to photosynthesis. It's available today and it's cheap to implement and we have 12+ billion anthropogenically desertified acres. We have plenty of knowledge of how to do it, and there are currently practitioners on millions of acres. Geoengineering is a distant and unproved set of options, fraught with unintended consequences. The mainstream climate science doesn't understand the power of biology as they're mostly physical scientists, and even biologists are caught in the assumptions of the dominant paradigm. Studies of the potential of biological carbon capture and the many many other positive effects of eco-restoration are mostly conducted on desertified land and the baseline of the possible is grossly underestimated. We know this from studies of positive variants. If we're serious about addressing climate we will have to shift paradigms, and recover from our extreme technophilia. Every time my cell phone or computer screw up, I marvel that we think for a moment that technology will save us - have we learned anything from dams, large cities, synthetic agricultural assault on soil life, etc.? We don't know more than Nature, we're the global sorcerer's apprentice and we're not catching on. When will we ever learn? Check out our Compendium (links below), watch some of our videos, explore some of the many regenerative land management websites (you can start with Regeneration International<http://regenerationinternational.org>). Cheers! Adam === Check out Bio4Climate's Compendium of Scientific and Practical Findings Supporting Eco-Restoration to Address Global Warming<http://bio4climate.org/resources/compendium>, 3 issues, free download. === Adam Sacks, Executive Director Biodiversity for a Livable Climate<http://bio4climate.org/> P.O. Box 390469 Cambridge, MA 02139 781-674-2339 === "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." Buckminster Fuller === On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>> wrote: “Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net zero CO₂ by 2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately.” Not quite. Net Zero requires that carbon removal equal total emissions. While the primary focus of the IPCC remains reducing total emissions, the hope is that the NET task could be smaller if emissions can be cut. Unfortunately, all the emission trends seem to be in the wrong direction, so it looks like the NET task will actually be bigger. As well, the equation must include CO2 equivalents. The IPCC projections are that by 2030 total CO2e emissions will be 60 billion tonnes (gigatons or GT) under Business as Usual, and that full implementation of the Paris Accord would cut that by 10% to 54 GT (New York Times 6 Nov 2017, World Emissions Far Off Course). Therefore, the projected task for NETs to achieve net zero is to remove 54 GT of CO2e annually by 2030, unless emissions come down faster than agreed at Paris. Further to this massive task, climate restoration requires an even bigger goal. In order to steer the planet away from the hothouse precipice, NETs should aim to remove double total emissions, 100 GT. And in the meantime, solar radiation management should be deployed to help avoid unforeseen dangerous tipping points. These are the primary planetary security problems. Robert Tulip ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>" <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2018, 4:47 Subject: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C Poster's note: mass media, but respected author and topical [X]https://theconversation.com/amp/cop24-heres-what-must-be-agreed-to-keep-warming-at-1-5-c-107968?__twitter_impression=true COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C Hugh Hunt, University of Cambridge December 3, 2018 11.12am GMT The Paris Agreement of 2015 has a central aim to keep global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to “pursue efforts” to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. This is an ambitious aim – global temperatures are rapidly approaching the 1.5°C target and the 2°C limit is not far away. The path to 1.5°C requires that the world achieve zero emissions before 2050. It is imperative, therefore, that we stop burning fossil fuels, known as mitigation. However, our present trajectory suggests we’re not on track. COP24 can’t take its eye off this ball –- there is no long-term plan that doesn’t include zero fossil-carbon emissions. The scientific consensus is that we need to reach “net zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050. But to tack closer to a scenario of 1.5°C warming, COP24 should set this target for 2035. Black, observed temperatures; blue, probable range from decadal forecasts; red, retrospective forecasts; green, climate simulations of the 20th century. The Met Office Carbon removal and non-CO₂ emissions The United Nations, in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC has accepted that there isn’t any obvious pathway to zero emissions in such a short time frame, so they have pegged their hopes on NETs – Negative Emissions Technologies. These approaches include carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves sucking CO₂ from the air and storing it deep underground. Carbon removal along these lines is the second imperative for COP24 in Katowice. Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net zero CO₂ by 2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately. But CO₂ isn’t the only problem. We emit other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which all contribute to climate change. Methane is on the rise and is 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO₂. It comes from cows, and it leaks from oil wells and coal mines as “fugitive methane”. It is also seeping out of the melting permafrost in the Arctic. This is a worrying form of “positive feedback” where global warming causes the further release of gases that cause further warming. Nitrous Oxide, which is 300 times more potent than CO₂, is rising too, caused by modern agriculture. And the concentration of refrigerant gases, such as CFCs, which are thousands of times more potent than CO₂, is not falling as fast as we’d hoped. So COP24 has a third imperative, to prevent the rise of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases. If we can stabilise non-CO₂ greenhouse emissions at present day levels we’ll be doing well, but concentrations are rising fast. Limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C requires mitigation (energy efficiency and renewable generation) and CO₂ removal. MCC Desperate times, desperate measures All of this is going to be hard work. We’re failing to cut down our emissions, the technologies for NETs don’t exist at any meaningful scale, yet and there are no political drivers in place to enforce their deployment. There is also a real risk of a dramatic rise in methane in the near future. COP24 will have to consider emergency plans. One such plan is very controversial. There are so-called “geoengineering” technologies which can be used to cause changes in global temperatures. One of these is Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which involves injecting tiny aerosol particles high in the atmosphere where they reflect sunlight into space. We know from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 that stratospheric aerosols caused a cooling of around 1°C over a year. The northern winter of 1992 saw a dramatic increase in sea ice and a stalling of glacial melting. SRM technologies exist and the first sun-dimming experiments are underway. A proposed SRM technique which would inject sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere. Hugh Hunt/Wikimedia Commons There is a realistic possibility that deploying SRM can buy us some time to enact the essential measures needed to stop warming at or before 1.5°C. The discussions at COP24 must keep all options on the table, and as unpalatable as geoengineering technologies might seem, their deployment may prove to be unavoidable. The indicators are all in the danger zone. We are seeing increasing Arctic temperatures, rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, reduced Arctic reflectivity, rapidly melting ice shelves and methane release from permafrost. These are leading to rapidly rising sea levels, coastal flooding and storm surges, increased hurricane and storm activity, dry and hot conditions conducive to wildfires, and drought and crop failure. The urgency for decisive action is the imperative for COP24. The UN must press on with four major strands for meeting the Paris 1.5°C target: Reduce fossil carbon emissions. Remove carbon from the atmosphere (NETs). Halt the rise of emissions of non-CO₂ greenhouses cases (Methane, Nitrous oxide, CFCs). Investigate techniques for geoengineering, including Solar Radiation Management. All four of these must proceed simultaneously and in parallel. COP24 must make this perfectly clear. There is utmost urgency and no time to “wait and see”. Comment on this article Hugh Hunt Reader in Engineering Dynamics and Vibration, University of Cambridge Hugh Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. University of Cambridge provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at [X] https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. To view this discussion on the web visit [X] https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-07rJ4jmCQb1qZFwpQRiCZA-evYi5CsrjoAYxq4%2BZpu1xg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-07rJ4jmCQb1qZFwpQRiCZA-evYi5CsrjoAYxq4%2BZpu1xg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit [X] https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/828491766.2314077.1544532023577%40mail.yahoo.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/828491766.2314077.1544532023577%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@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.
