The section in full is as follows: Climate engineering or ‘negative emissions’ technologies involve the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR or GGR) or the deflection of sunlight before it reaches the earth’s surface (SRM). Originally proposed as stopgap measures to cover an interim period where the impact of actual emissions reductions might be insufficient, they have — in the absence of the latter — increasingly entered the mainstream of IPCC discourse on mitigation pathways and long-term deployment. This is an alarming development. The IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report referred to mitigation techniques involving human interventions to lower actual GHG emissions through green technology, energy efficiency, improved land management and other means.195 Now, as reported in Science in 2016, “Almost all the scenarios with a likely chance of not exceeding 2 degrees Celsius being considered by the IPCC assume that the large scale roll-out of ‘negative emissions’ technologies is technically and economically viable … If we rely on negative-emission technologies and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway.”196 This appendix outlines the main geoengineering options available, and explains why they are not an appropriate solution to the climate and environmental crises. Carbon Capture and Storage (or Sequestration) CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (OR SEQUESTRATION) (CCS) CCS involves capture of CO2 emitted by industrial processes (steel and cement production, chemicals and refining, and fossil fuel combustion for generating electricity. This is followed by compression/liquefaction, transport via pipeline and high-pressure injection into near-depleted oil and gas fields, saline aquifers, or ocean beds. Used mainly in combination with enhanced oil recovery (EOR), CCS is therefore interesting to the fossil fuel industry. The technology is costly and challenging. Environmental hazards197 include water depletion, toxicity and eutrophication. Its symbiotic relationship with EOR makes it questionable as a serious climate change response. Leakage of the injected fluid into water bodies has been reported,198 which undermines any sequestration gains and raises concerns about water contamination. Reports of damage to rock formations and the activation of geological fracture zones199 increase the questionability of this technique. BIO-ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (BECCS) BECCS involves capture and storage of CO2 emitted by bio-energy use. It has taken centre stage in recent years as a key negative emissions technology and integral part of IPCC mitigation pathways. Virtually all climate change models projecting a future consistent with the Paris Agreement assume a key role for BECCS. The “negative emissions” claim is based on the fallacy that bio-energy is in the first place carbon neutral, whereas Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) conclude otherwise, showing that many bioenergy processes lead to even more GHG emissions than the fossil fuels they replace.200 A vast amount of land will be needed to produce the necessary biofuel crops — more than 40% of all arable land, which is likely to exacerbate land-grabbing and conflict with food crops and food sovereignty201 that has already and invariably followed the large-scale cultivation of biofuel feedstock. Furthermore BECCS deployment could cause up to 10% reduction in global forest cover and biodiversity.202 A recent study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research shows that it involves high risks of transgression of planetary boundaries for freshwater use, land-system change, biosphere integrity and biogeochemical flows.203 Within safe boundaries, BECCS can compensate for less than 1% of current global GHG emissions. In addition, BECCS shares all the drawbacks of the injection and storage phase of CCS. CARBON CAPTURE AND USE (AND STORAGE) (CCU OR CCUS) CO2 is extracted as in CCS but then fed to algae to produce biodiesel (whereby the gas will again be released) or reacted with calcified minerals (mineral carbonation) In addition to sharing the drawbacks of the capture phase of CCS, lifecycle analyses indicate that CCU involves a questionable energy balance and the possibility of net increase in GHG emissions. MASSIVE AFFORESTATION Forests have multiple values as a source of natural capital: apart from absorbing carbon, they regulate soil and water levels and nutrients, protect biodiversity, improve resilience and adaptation capacity, and protect against desertification and erosion. Afforestation is being promoted by governments and the private sector as a safe and cost-effective carbon sequestration technique. However, there are numerous setbacks to deploying massive afforestation in this way.204 Planted forests do not provide the benefits of natural ones. Emphasis on the carbon sink function of trees is leading to the plantation of vast monocultures of fast-growing, evergreen and often non-native species like palm, pine or eucalyptus, which are water-intensive, often involve intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers, and can lead to “green deserts” and degraded soils.205 Invasive species can spread to other areas where native species cannot compete. Moreover, the carbon sequestration capacity of trees is often unpredictable, being highly dependent on climate change and weather conditions and associated effects like pest infestations, drought and storms. And most importantly, forests are not permanent - their potential removal in the future, 63Appendix 1 whether due to manmade or natural causes, risks vast amounts of CO2 being released into the air. Proponents argue that tree plantations can put “marginal land” to good use, but marginal land is a vital source of livelihood for poor communities,206 who use it for subsistence farming, livestock grazing and many other purposes. The quest for biofuel feedstock has already led to transgressions on marginal land.207 The expansion of monoculture plantations has been associated with increased poverty rates208 and the displacement of indigenous and other communities in the Global South. Finally, the number of trees needed to even put a dent in CO2 emissions would clash with food and biofuel crops.209 While the benefits of forest protection cannot be overestimated, the idea of deploying massive afforestation as a substitute for achieving significant cuts in GHG emissions is not a sound one. DIRECT AIR CAPTURE (DAC) Experiments have shown it is possible to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air, converting it into fuel pellets or storing it underground.210 As with CCS, the fossil fuel industry is attracted to DAC because the captured CO2 can be used for EOR. As of now, the technology is prohibitively expensive and not commercially viable. It is also energy intensive and some have therefore proposed that it be powered by nuclear energy. OCEAN FERTILISATION (OF) Phytoplankton consume CO2 and drag it to the bottom of the ocean when they die. OF consists of sowing the ocean with iron filings or other sources of iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth and thereby enhance carbon sequestration. Experiments have shown that this creates large blooms. However, scientists worry about unintended impacts. Die-offs of plankton, for example, use up oxygen, which could create massive “dead zones” in the oceans, something already on the rise.211 Too much phytoplankton can disrupt the marine food web and create toxic algal blooms. Surplus iron or urea can cause mineral and nutrient imbalances in an already stressed and acidic ocean environment.212 ENHANCED WEATHERING (EW) Natural weathering of rocks — a chemical process — removes about one billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year, about two percent of total man-made CO2 emissions.213 EW refers to a technological acceleration of the process by spreading mined olivine (magnesium iron silicate) on beaches (where wave action disperses it into the sea) or on land. The idea is to sequester additional carbon in the newly formed rock deposit in the form of magnesium carbonate. But carbon uptake levels are relatively unknown, as are the effects of large-scale dumping on ecosystems. Massive mining operations required to extract sufficient olivine (possibly thousands of times greater than the current scale) are likely to be expensive and have adverse effects on ecosystems and local populations.214 The marine variation of EW involves adding chemical carbonate to the ocean to increase alkalinity and therefore carbon uptake. The dissolution rates of these minerals and the costs of procuring a sufficient amount raise major concerns, as does the increased mining activity involved and the impact on marine ecosystems. BIOCHAR A method of converting biomass into charcoal and mixing this into the soil to store the burnt carbon. But field trials showed that biochar-treated soils were less effective in sequestering carbon than untreated soils: the added carbon stimulates microbes to release more CO2. Claims that addition of biochar enhances agricultural productivity has not been consistently demonstrated. 2 SOLAR GEOENGINEERING OR SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT (SRM) OPTIONS All options involve modifying the planet’s radiative balance — likely to alter the hydrological cycle and weather patterns, potentially threatening food and water access for millions of people and disturbing the planet’s ecological balance in unpredictable ways. Other significant potential dangers include termination shock, technology lockin, and significant changes in weather patterns. STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOL INJECTION (SAI) The prevailing SRM technology, SAI involves injecting or spraying tiny reflective aerosol (sulphate) particles into the stratosphere—possible with balloons, aircraft or through giant tubes in order to reflect sunlight back into space. Potential dangers (additional to those common to SRM) include ozone depletion. CLOUD MODIFICATION: BRIGHTENING, THINNING, INCREASING COVER Scientists have found ways to alter clouds to deflect or absorb sunlight. One way is to brighten the white, billowy marine clouds by increasing cloud condensation nuclei by shooting or spraying salt or salty seawater into the clouds. Another is to thin out cirrus clouds, which absorb more sunlight than they reflect. But the consequences are unpredictable and could produce drought or floods, or even the opposite effect (heating). SURFACE ALBEDO MODIFICATION Proposals include genetically engineering crops with reflective leaves and “whiting out” the earth’s surface by covering the deserts with white polyethylene sheets, painting roofs, pavements and mountaintops white, covering Arctic ice with a thin film, and clearing boreal forests to increase reflectivity. All entail significant risks for the environment and biodiversity. SPACE SUNSHADES Involves the launching of trillions of tiny spacecraft over the planet to create an artificial cloud. Could in theory divert 10% of sunlight back into space. The technology involved is daunting. SPACE MIRRORS Space mirrors positioned in exactly the right place could reflect 1-2% of sunlight back into space. But computer models suggest mixed results215 the technology is prohibitively expensive and, so far, also impossible. 64 GND for Europe DRAWBACKS Each of these options has its own specific problems, but all share the following drawbacks and implications:216 • All are end-of-pipe approaches, aiming to reduce GHG levels in the atmosphere without reducing GHG emissions. Their promoters maintain they do not preclude urgent climate action. In reality they create a false sense of security, providing a convenient escape for climate deniers and governments seeking to avoid the political costs of actual emissions reduction. Stepped up research and development on geoengineering is diverting resources and funding away from real solutions. It is delaying the transition to a carbon free economy and being used to justify eased restrictions on high polluting industries. Further entrenchment of polluting industries combined with the new techno-fixes could have us permanently locked into a geoengineered world with continuing GHG emissions. This unrealistic attempt to “buy time” has been described as intergenerational injustice217 because future generations will have to deal with the consequences, as captives of geoengineering and victims of an even harsher climate. • Each of these techniques would have to be deployed on a massive scale to have an impact on global climate. Other unintended impacts could also be massive and will necessarily transcend national boundaries. • Geoengineering plays with poorly understood and complex nonlinear dynamical systems. There are countless risks and uncertainties due to incomplete knowledge and data, mechanical failure, human error, changes in political and financial circumstances, and increase in unpredictable natural phenomena (volcanic activity, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.). • All climate engineering options have many potential negative environmental impacts ranging from depletion of biodiversity, soil and water to disturbing the entire planet’s ecological balance by blocking sunlight. • Because of the scale required and the nature of geoengineering technologies, their application and its impacts on ecosystems and people are likely to be irreversible. • The powerful countries and corporations primarily responsible for current and historical GHG emissions are the main investors in geoengineering and related intellectual property. While these powers dominate international climate politics, the majority of impacts of geoengineering will be experienced in the Global South. When the creators of the problem are managing the solution, the interests of the less powerful are likely to be ignored. • Geoengineers are applying for and being awarded patents for the technology, and some are pushing to include geoengineering options in carbon trading schemes - leading to the horrifying prospect of private monopoly rights on modifying the climate. • Geoengineering technology evolved from weather manipulation techniques like cloud seeding operations in the Vietnam war, which led to the ENMOD treaty prohibiting the hostile use of weather manipulation - but this has remained on the defence agenda of the US and other countries for decades.218 • Deployment of geoengineering violates UN treaties and rulings like ENMOD, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the London Convention/Protocol.
On Monday, 2 September 2019 09:42:53 UTC+1, Gideon Futerman wrote: > > Today Green New deal for Europe released their draft report for public > consultation, where they speak extensively in Appendix A about > geoengineering, both CDR and SRM, essentially rejecting them as part of a > possible solution. Interestingly, they have very few citations when > discussing SRM, as compared to CDR. This is open for public consultation, > and so, if anyone has any critiscms, it may be an idea to submit them to > the GND for Europe movement. > > https://report.gndforeurope.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf > > The geoengineering section is on page 64 > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/407e812b-01a8-43f9-9946-07e389ca8bfa%40googlegroups.com.
