On 11/25/05, Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I strongly disagree with Gar Lipow's view of where we are in the horror of > global warming. Gar Lipow wrote: > > > > > But by the time we phase out net CO2 equivalent emissions we will > have a number of feedback cycles started - melted icecaps, reductions > in the ability of the biosphere to absorb carbon and so forth. So we > will probably need to do some sequestration in addition to reverse the > damage we have done. No point in making the investment in deployment > while we can still have less expensive reduction opportunities > untouched - but we should invest in research. Because in the long > term, we will need to replace (at a very high price) the services of > the natural carbon sinks we have destroyed or reduced the > effectiveness of. > > > > We are way beyond starting the feedback cycles -- they are NOT in the > future, they are happening now. In today's (11/25/05) UK Guardian, under the > headline "Sea Lever Rise Doubles in 150 Years," there is the following > expression of despair: > > According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide > caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. > It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still > going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect > CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush > administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising > and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question > around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any > kind of cost basis at all'," he said. So sequestration of CO2 at incremental > power plants, beginning fifteen years from now, even if feasible and > practical if expensive, is already much too late. Florida will be the size > of Rhode Island in 100 years, and Rhode Island will be the size of Columbus, > Ohio. > > Gene Coyle > Gene I replied in haste and should have said "more advanced". Right now the politics of the situation is that wordwide we are doing essentially nothing - oh small things, but overall emissions continue to rise, with the U.S. as the largest contributor. It seems to me insane to do sequestrations (in the conventional sense of burning fossil fuel and then removing the carbon we omit) while we are still increasing fossil fuel consumption, and destroying the sinks that are part of the sequestration cycle. We need to follow the first law of holes: when you are in one stop digging. In short, phase out fossil fuel, stop destroying the soil and the biosphere. But even if we started fullbore tomorrow feedback cycles have already started. Fossil fuel emissions, forest destruction agriculture that emits rather than sequesters carbon are ot things we can stop on a dime. First of all the politics are such that we cannot at the moment stop them, just as we can't stop other horrible things. But even if that changed tomorrow it would take time to make the conversion; I think a full phase out of fossil fuels and other types of greenhouse emissions and sink destruction would take 30 years. Maybe it could be done faster. But however fast or slow you do it, for the most part phasing out fossil fuels is cheaper than continuing to burn them and peforming artificial sequestration. So doing sequestration in the sense Michael orginally asked about it - removing carbon from fossil fuels either immediatly before or immediately after they are burned - uses resources that would could end global warming faster. Like I say there may be exceptions where burning fossil fuels and decarbonizing them is less expenive than institutiing efficiency measures and then supplying greatly reduced demand from renewable sources. But overall that is the way to go.
But at the point where we are carbon neutral or almost carbon neutral, it will make sense to do sequestration in addition. It does not make sense to do put resources into artificial sequestration at the same time we are continuing to pour CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural sequestration is another question - because agriculture can be converted from a carbon source to a carbon sink while also greatly increase energy and material efficiency. That is worthwhile, but as part of a larger program.
