[geo] Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management:Amazon:Books
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0739175408/ref=redir_mdp_mobile About this item Product Description Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management discusses the ethical issues associated with deliberately engineering a cooler climate to combat global warming. Climate engineering (also known as geoengineering) has recently experienced a surge of interest given the growing likelihood that the global community will fail to limit the temperature increases associated with greenhouse gases to safe levels. Deliberate manipulation of solar radiation to combat climate change is an exciting and hopeful technical prospect, promising great benefits to those who are in line to suffer most through climate change. At the same time, the prospect of geoengineering creates huge controversy. Taking intentional control of earth’s climate would be an unprecedented step in environmental management, raising a number of difficult ethical questions. One particular form of geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM), is known to be relatively cheap and capable of bringing down global temperatures very rapidly. However, the complexity of the climate system creates considerable uncertainty about the precise nature of SRM’s effects in different regions. The ethical issues raised by the prospect of SRM are both complex and thorny. They include: 1) the uncertainty of SRM’s effects on precipitation patterns, 2) the challenge of proper global participation in decision-making, 3) the legitimacy of intentionally manipulating the global climate system in the first place, 4) the potential to sidestep the issue of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, and, 5) the lasting effects on future generations. It has been widely acknowledged that a sustained and scholarly treatment of the ethics of SRM is necessary before it will be possible to make fair and just decisions about whether (or how) to proceed. This book, including essays by 13 experts in the field of ethics of geoengineering, is intended to go some distance towards providing that treatment. Review This well-written, well-edited work makes the assumption that solar radiation management (SRM) would be accomplished by putting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere since the world is not doing much to alleviate global warming in other ways. However, the book is not primarily concerned with the actual method. Contributors recognize that scientists will have difficulty predicting the effects (e.g., local climate changes) of SRM. They cover various issues, such as the fact that using SRM may prevent people from taking firm measures to control CO2 emissions. Authors also explore the ramifications for future generations, who will probably need to continue the practice of SRM; the importance of involving poor and marginalized peoples in decisions about SRM; and effects on nonhuman species. In addition, the book includes chapters suggesting that SRM might be used to help solve other social problems, rather than causing new ones, and that it is foolish to deal with the moral choices involved in using SRM without considering people's religion and other matters. This is a wide-ranging and important book, apparently the only one on the subject--scholarly, but accessible to intelligent readers who are not geoengineers or ethicists. Good index and excellent scholarly apparatus. Summing Up: Highly recommended. All readership levels. (CHOICE )The pursuit of geoengineering requires us to ameliorate the fundamental dichotomy between taking responsibility for the climate future of our planet and the hubris of intentional management of the complex Earth system. So far, it can be argued, we have done a poor job of accepting responsibly for the future climate and we have a history of causing negative unintended consequences when we try. Never-the-less, we can no longer escape this problem. There is no hope of 'going back to nature,' and we have to find better ways to manage our home planet. The study of the ethical ramifications is one important part of this effort and this new volume illuminates many of the issues and provides a good basis for furthering our scholarship and societal decisions on this most difficult issue.(Jane Long, Associate Director at Large, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory )Geoengineering is a new and vitally important topic, and this is the first major collection on the ethical issues. Its insights are a service not just to students and their professors, but also to humanity at large. (Stephen Gardiner, University of Washington ) About the Author Christopher J. Preston is an Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics at the University of Montana. He is the author of Saving Creation: Nature and Faith in the Life of Holmes Rolston, III(Trinity University Press, 2009) and Grounding Knowledge: Environmental Philosophy, Epistemology, and Place (University of Georgia Press, 2003), an edited collection of essays titled Nature Value, and Duty: Life on Earth
[geo] New paper: 'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal
Dear all, We have a new paper out online in *Global Environmental Change* that may be of interest to members of the group: *‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate changehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001179 * *Highlights* • Geoengineering proposals are appraised against mitigation options and adaptation. • Broad range of criteria are identified spanning natural, applied and social sciences. • By ‘opening up’ inputs and outputs findings contrast with those of other appraisals. • Ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than mitigation options. • Stratospheric aerosol injection performs poorly here compared with other appraisals. *Abstract* Concerted efforts have begun to appraise deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system known as ‘geoengineering’ in order to provide critical decision support to policy makers around the world. To date geoengineering appraisals have employed narrowly framed inputs (such as context, options, methods and criteria) and ‘closed’ output reflexivity often amounting to unitary and prescriptive policy recommendations. For the first time, in this paper we begin to address these limitations by ‘opening up’ appraisal inputs and outputs to a wider diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We use a Multi-Criteria Mapping methodology to appraise carbon and solar geoengineering proposals alongside a range of other options for responding to climate change with a select but diverse group of experts and stakeholders. Overall option rankings are found to vary considerably between participant perspectives and criteria. Despite these differences, the ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than options for mitigating climate change (including voluntary behaviour change and low carbon technologies). The performance of all options is beset by uncertainty, albeit to differing degrees, and it can often be seen that better performing options are outperformed under their pessimistic scores by poorer performing options under their optimistic scores. Several findings contrast with those of other published appraisals. In particular, where stratospheric aerosol injection has previously outperformed other geoengineering options, when assessed against a broader diversity of criteria (spanning all the identified criteria groups) and other options for responding to climate change it performs relatively poorly. We end by briefly exploring the implications of our analysis for geoengineering technologies, their governance, and appraisal. The work builds upon our earlier paper *A review of climate geoengineering appraisals* http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.197/abstract, published last year in *WIREs Climate Change*. Best wishes, Rob Bellamy -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Reverse geoengineering : China cleans up aerosols
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/12/china-will-spend-roughly-the-gdp-of-hong-kong-to-fight-air-pollution/ China will spend roughly the GDP of Hong Kong to fight air pollution By Brad Plumer, Published: AUGUST 12, 12:44 PM ET This is just a staggering amount of money:China will spend $275 billion over the next five years improving air quality -- roughly the same as the GDP of Hong Kong, and twice the size of the annual defence budget.There’s an old hypothesis, known as the environmental Kuznets curve, that suggests that countries will sacrifice clean air and water in favor of economic development -- but only up to a certain point. Once they get rich enough, the calculus shifts, and countries start spending more on environmental goals. China appears to have reached that point. There are plenty of reasons for the about-face. Not only is China’s air pollution triggering angry protests, but it appears to be hurting the economy, too. One recent MIT study suggested that coal pollution in northern China had shaved as much as 5.5 years off life expectancy. (Some statisticians, like Andrew Gelman, have criticized that precise estimate, though everyone agrees coal pollution has a sharply negative effect on health.)The Economist, meanwhile, wonders whether China’s anti-pollution binge will curtail the nation’s coal use and carbon pollution quickly enough to help the world avoid drastic global warming. (Since 2000, China has accounted for about two-thirds of the growth in the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.) That’s a much trickier question.On one hand: Several Chinese cities are beginning to experiment with cap-and-trade policies that will set hard ceilings on the amount of greenhouse gases that factories and power plants may emit. But the targets themselves can often get weakened in negotiations between state-owned firms and local officials. What’s more, the Chinese government has been cracking down on and jailingenvironmentalists, the sort of outsiders who would typically help ensure these policies are actually working at the local level.This follow-up Economist article suggests that China has plenty of reason to care about climate change: “China will suffer as much as anywhere. Already its deserts are spreading, farmland is drying out and crop yields are plateauing. Climate change may make matters worse. It has 80 million people living at sea level who are vulnerable to rising oceans and higher storm surges.”But that, in itself, isn’t reason to think that a sharp reduction in emissions is inevitable -- even with all those billions. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] New paper: 'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal
Let's say you ran a similar poll about administration of morphine. In terms of addressing threats posed by cancer, where would administration of morphine rank relative to removing carcinogens from the environment? *Q: Would you rather avoid cancer by removing carcinogens from the environment, or would you rather take morphine to alleviate cancer pain?* Emissions reductions and solar geoengineering solve different problems. Emissions reductions try to prevent accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Solar geoengineering aims to provide symptomatic relief from that accumulation of greenhouse gases. If we were in a climate crisis with widespread famines in the tropics due to heat-stress induced crop failures, at that point emissions reductions would be ineffective at addressing the near-term problem. At that point, the relative rankings of emissions reduction and solar geoengineering might be different. The cancer patient immersed in pain may be more focused on obtaining morphine than on reducing environmental carcinogens. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snant...@carnegiescience.edu On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Rob Bellamy rob.bell...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: Dear all, We have a new paper out online in *Global Environmental Change* that may be of interest to members of the group: *‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate changehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001179 * *Highlights* • Geoengineering proposals are appraised against mitigation options and adaptation. • Broad range of criteria are identified spanning natural, applied and social sciences. • By ‘opening up’ inputs and outputs findings contrast with those of other appraisals. • Ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than mitigation options. • Stratospheric aerosol injection performs poorly here compared with other appraisals. *Abstract* Concerted efforts have begun to appraise deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system known as ‘geoengineering’ in order to provide critical decision support to policy makers around the world. To date geoengineering appraisals have employed narrowly framed inputs (such as context, options, methods and criteria) and ‘closed’ output reflexivity often amounting to unitary and prescriptive policy recommendations. For the first time, in this paper we begin to address these limitations by ‘opening up’ appraisal inputs and outputs to a wider diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We use a Multi-Criteria Mapping methodology to appraise carbon and solar geoengineering proposals alongside a range of other options for responding to climate change with a select but diverse group of experts and stakeholders. Overall option rankings are found to vary considerably between participant perspectives and criteria. Despite these differences, the ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than options for mitigating climate change (including voluntary behaviour change and low carbon technologies). The performance of all options is beset by uncertainty, albeit to differing degrees, and it can often be seen that better performing options are outperformed under their pessimistic scores by poorer performing options under their optimistic scores. Several findings contrast with those of other published appraisals. In particular, where stratospheric aerosol injection has previously outperformed other geoengineering options, when assessed against a broader diversity of criteria (spanning all the identified criteria groups) and other options for responding to climate change it performs relatively poorly. We end by briefly exploring the implications of our analysis for geoengineering technologies, their governance, and appraisal. The work builds upon our earlier paper *A review of climate geoengineering appraisals*http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.197/abstract, published last year in *WIREs Climate Change*. Best wishes, Rob Bellamy -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
[geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?
Sorry if this is old news, but in cleaning out my in box I came across this interesting 2012 paper – anaerobic methane oxidation also consumes CO2. So with a bit of biogeoengineering we can pro-actively mitigate CH4 and CO2 simultaneously, +/- take the lipid-rich biomass to produce biofuels, supplanting fossil sources??? Greg Autotrophy as a predominant mode of carbon fixation in anaerobic methane-oxidizing microbial communities 1. Matthias Y. Kellermannhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Matthias+Y.+Kellermannsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3,2http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-4,3http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#corresp-1, 2. Gunter Wegenerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Gunter+Wegenersortspec=datesubmit=Submitbhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-2,chttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3, 3. Marcus Elverthttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcus+Elvertsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 4. Marcos Yukio Yoshinagahttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcos+Yukio+Yoshinagasortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 5. Yu-Shih Linhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Yu-Shih+Linsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 6. Thomas Hollerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Thomas+Hollersortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3, 7. Xavier Prieto Mollarhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Xavier+Prieto+Mollarsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 8. Katrin Knittelhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Katrin+Knittelsortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3, and 9. Kai-Uwe Hinrichshttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Kai-Uwe+Hinrichssortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1 +http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full Author Affiliations 1. aOrganic Geochemistry Group, MARUM-Center for Marine Environmental Sciences and Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, D-28359 Bremen, Germany; 2. bAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research Group for Deep Sea Ecology and Technology, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany; and 3. cMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, D-28359 Bremen, Germany 1. Edited by Donald E. Canfield, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark, and approved October 5, 2012 (received for review May 24, 2012) Next Sectionhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#sec-1 Abstract The methane-rich, hydrothermally heated sediments of the Guaymas Basin are inhabited by thermophilic microorganisms, including anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaea (mainly ANME-1) and sulfate-reducing bacteria (e.g., HotSeep-1 cluster). We studied the microbial carbon flow in ANME-1/ HotSeep-1 enrichments in stable-isotope–probing experiments with and without methane. The relative incorporation of 13C from either dissolved inorganic carbon or methane into lipids revealed that methane-oxidizing archaea assimilated primarily inorganic carbon. This assimilation is strongly accelerated in the presence of methane. Experiments with simultaneous amendments of both 13C-labeled dissolved inorganic carbon and deuterated water provided further insights into production rates of individual lipids derived from members of the methane-oxidizing community as well as their carbon sources used for lipid biosynthesis. In the presence of methane, all prominent lipids carried a dual isotopic signal indicative of their origin from primarily autotrophic microbes. In the absence of methane, archaeal lipid production ceased and bacterial lipid production dropped by 90%; the lipids produced by the residual fraction of the metabolically active bacterial community predominantly carried a heterotrophic signal. Collectively our results strongly suggest that the studied ANME-1 archaea oxidize methane but assimilate inorganic carbon and should thus be classified as methane-oxidizing chemoorganoautotrophs. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Geoengineering: Re-making Climate for Profit or Humanitarian Intervention? - Jean Buck - 2012 - Development and Change - Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1467-7660.2011.01744.x/abstract Climate engineering, or geoengineering, refers to large-scale climate interventions to lower the earth's temperature, either by blocking incoming sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the biosphere. Regarded as ‘technofixes’ by critics, these strategies have evoked concern that they would extend the shelf life of fossil-fuel driven socio-ecological systems for far longer than they otherwise would, or should, endure. A critical reading views geoengineering as a class project that is designed to keep the climate system stable enough for existing production systems to continue operating. This article first examines these concerns, and then goes on to envision a regime driven by humanitarian agendas and concern for vulnerable populations, implemented through international development and aid institutions. The motivations of those who fund research and implement geoengineering techniques are important, as the rationale for developing geoengineering strategies will determine which techniques are pursued, and hence which ecologies are produced. The logic that shapes the geoengineering research process could potentially influence social ecologies centuries from now. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Geoengineering: Re-making Climate for Profit or Humanitarian Intervention? - Jean Buck - 2012 - Development and Change - Wiley Online Library
Hi Folks, I haven't been able to read beyond the abstract, yet Buck seems to be giving us a foundational perspective as important as the Precautionary Principle. Her statement of: ***The logic that shapes the geoengineering research process could potentially influence social ecologies centuries from now.* brings a spotlight to the issue of which type of projects should be given long term priority. SRM is important yet it is only a short term solution to a long term problem which has a multitude of attached issues. One avenue in which GE could be developed that would provide the broadest possible range of social ecologies for the long term, as well as climate warming mitigation, is found within the ocean based proposals. A well designed, organized and regulated large scale Ocean Afforestation/Mariculture project (combined with MCB) can provide for a wide range of humanitarian agendas such as food,fuel,fertilizer, jobs, room for climate refugees, ocean pH adjustment, SRM and direct air capture of CO2/CH4. All of these issues will eventually need to be addressed and provided for (for the foreseeable future). I believe Buck is correctly pointing out that GE can do far more than just address the first order technical issues of GW. If so, the only concept I'm aware of that can provide for that type of broad based vision is found within ocean based projects. The scale of a comprehensive ocean based project large enough to combat yearly emissions is hard for most people to conceive. The global surface area needed is continental in scale. Yet, our yearly population increase and the corresponding increase need for basic commodities can fill such a space within a few short years. The only long tern means to accommodate those needs, without transborder conflicts being a major limiting factor, seems to be expansion out into/onto the oceans. Our current 'social ecology' has little to do with the oceans beyond the endless (and damaging) harvest of the wild marine based biota, fuel and of course shipping is of major importance. Few realize that half of all wild caught fish are reduced to fish food! Clearly, the marine based oil and gas needs to be replaced with safer bio alternatives. And, if a major focus on ocean development is initiated, ocean transport would probably be revolutionized in short order (oceanic hyperloop?). However, the oceans can provide an even wider array of our basic needs and can provide them in a sound and sustainable way. The nutracline is the greatest store of nutrients on the planet and it is capped off by a highly active renewable energy environment. As we know, many groups and individuals are calling for a paradigm shift in thinking about our environment, resource management and social ecology, as well as planetary cooperation at the environmental policy level. The $275B China is willing to spend over the next 5 years to clean up air pollution is a *SMALL* indication of the scale of the problem each nation faces on this meta issue. Marine based systems can pay for themselves over the long run, which is no small consideration. It may take over $8T just to compensate for our current level of environmental damage. For that cost, we deserve to see long term solutions at many different levels! We need a truly comprehensive meta plan which can address the first order environmental mitigation needs (GE) as well as the foundational matrix of issues which compel us to be so dysfunctional on the issues of food, fuel, fertilizer etc. Our species has few long term options which exclude the needed evolution of a large scale marine based meta system. I suspect that such an evolutionary step by our species (going back to the oceans) would eventually be recognizable as something of a oceanus hominis modification to the anthroprocene. Oceanic development could be a large game changer and may possibly provide for an ethical/sustainable social ecology so many desire. Any thoughts? On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1467-7660.2011.01744.x/abstract Climate engineering, or geoengineering, refers to large-scale climate interventions to lower the earth's temperature, either by blocking incoming sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the biosphere. Regarded as ‘technofixes’ by critics, these strategies have evoked concern that they would extend the shelf life of fossil-fuel driven socio-ecological systems for far longer than they otherwise would, or should, endure. A critical reading views geoengineering as a class project that is designed to keep the climate system stable enough for existing production systems to continue operating. This article first examines these concerns, and then goes on to envision a regime driven by humanitarian agendas and concern for vulnerable populations, implemented through international development and aid institutions. The
Re: [geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?
Yes, completely supplanting fossil fuel is indeed a pipe dream, but someday will be a necessity if we survive that long. Still, in reading the fine print in this paper the ratio of CO2 consumed to lipid produced is generally 0.6, a figure I find remarkably high. The incubations were conducted at 37 deg C so that precludes the use of ambient T in most places without genetic engineering, esp in mitigating Arctic methane. They also found that the use of methane to make lipid was dissimilative, meaning that the carbon is not assimilated and does not become part of the biomass. The use of the term methanotrophy to describe methane consumption therefore now needs to be used with great caution unless further evidence is provided. This is an example of methane oxidation providing energy for autotrophic CO2 fixation – a form of chemoautotrophy Greg From: euggor...@comcast.netmailto:euggor...@comcast.net euggor...@comcast.netmailto:euggor...@comcast.net Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:42 AM To: Default r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov Subject: Re: [geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation? Supplanting fossil sources is a pipe dream at least in the US. Getting rid of CO2 and CH4 would be an interesting experiment. If it actually reduces global temperature it would be a real plus. From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:01:07 PM Subject: [geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation? Sorry if this is old news, but in cleaning out my in box I came across this interesting 2012 paper – anaerobic methane oxidation also consumes CO2. So with a bit of biogeoengineering we can pro-actively mitigate CH4 and CO2 simultaneously, +/- take the lipid-rich biomass to produce biofuels, supplanting fossil sources??? Greg Autotrophy as a predominant mode of carbon fixation in anaerobic methane-oxidizing microbial communities 1. Matthias Y. Kellermannhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Matthias+Y.+Kellermannsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3,2http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-4,3http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#corresp-1, 2. Gunter Wegenerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Gunter+Wegenersortspec=datesubmit=Submitbhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-2,chttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3, 3. Marcus Elverthttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcus+Elvertsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 4. Marcos Yukio Yoshinagahttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcos+Yukio+Yoshinagasortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 5. Yu-Shih Linhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Yu-Shih+Linsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 6. Thomas Hollerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Thomas+Hollersortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3, 7. Xavier Prieto Mollarhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Xavier+Prieto+Mollarsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 8. Katrin Knittelhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Katrin+Knittelsortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3, and 9. Kai-Uwe Hinrichshttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Kai-Uwe+Hinrichssortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1 +http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full Author Affiliations 1. aOrganic Geochemistry Group, MARUM-Center for Marine Environmental Sciences and Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, D-28359 Bremen, Germany; 2. bAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research Group for Deep Sea Ecology and Technology, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany; and 3. cMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, D-28359 Bremen, Germany 1. Edited by Donald E. Canfield, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark, and approved October 5, 2012 (received for review May 24, 2012) Next Sectionhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#sec-1 Abstract The methane-rich, hydrothermally heated sediments of the Guaymas Basin are inhabited by thermophilic microorganisms, including anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaea (mainly ANME-1) and sulfate-reducing bacteria (e.g., HotSeep-1 cluster). We studied the microbial carbon flow in ANME-1/ HotSeep-1 enrichments in stable-isotope–probing experiments with and without methane. The relative incorporation of 13C from either dissolved inorganic carbon or methane into lipids revealed that methane-oxidizing archaea assimilated primarily inorganic carbon. This assimilation is strongly accelerated in the presence of methane. Experiments
[geo] Climate Change Negotiations and Geoengineering: Is This Really the Best We Can Do?
These two pieces by Allenby may not have appeared on the list before and are worth a read. 1. Geoengineering: A Critique http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=arnumber=5936870url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5936870 (paywall) Author Allenby, Brad Journal Title Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), 2011 IEEE International Symposium Abstract Geoengineering is a technological response to the challenge of anthropogenic climate change and the failure of political mechanisms to achieve substantial progress in controlling atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Because it derives from the same policy framework as current global warming initiatives, it suffers from the same deficiencies. In particular, the geoengineering dialog to date fails to understand the full power of technology systems, and, because of its singleminded focus on global climate change, inadequately defines the class of technologies included in the geoengineering category. 2. Climate Change Negotiations and Geoengineering: Is This Really the Best We Can Do? Available at: http://media.cigionline.org/geoeng/2010%20-%20Allenby%20-%20CC%20Negotiation%20and%20geoengineering.pdf Author Allenby, Brad Journal Title Environmental Quality Management DOI 10.1002/tqem -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?
Greg et al., A few weeks ago, I explored the use of *Cupriavidus metallidurans*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralstonia_eutrophus * *with the Arctic methane groups. Insulated bioreactors would make this species useful in the Arctic ebullition fields. Also, I believe non Arctic marine based systems, such as OMEGA, could exploit this species for a co CO2/CH4 capture. Below is the text of the exploritory email: It may be possible to construct a continuous incubator for the production of *Cupriavidus metallidurans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralstonia_eutrophus *which is a feed stock for *Polyhydroxybutyrate* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhydroxybutyrate. This may help partially address the critical issue of Arctic methane releases in areas of high ebullition. Of the many things I like about *C. metallidurans*, it is non pathogenic and is a lithotroph. The first makes working with it easy and the second makes it sympathetic to the use of *olivine*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivineas the mineral source. It is a *mesophile.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesophile However, an incubator can compensate for Arctic temperatures. Here is the article which started me down this line of thought:* How Methane-Sourced Polymers Could Save the World*http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/how-methane-sourced-polymers-could-save-world . In past posts concerning concepts relitive to the *Arctic Methane Tipping Point*http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/13/2138531/nasa-finds-amazing-levels-of-arctic-methane-and-co2-asks-is-a-sleeping-climate-giant-stirring-in-the-arctic/?mobile=ncand *Arctic Sea Ice Loss*http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss, I've proposed creating multi-use Arctic sea platforms using *Shaf Downwellers * https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c852tpue32fr5iy/nQDRPbSO_p as the main structure. In the proposal I mentioned the possibility of incorporating wave energy conversion through in-flow turbines within the down flow, water spraying for ice enhancement and aerobic *methanotroph*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotrophcontinuous incubators to help reduce desolved methane in the sea water. The use of *C. metallidurans *continuous incubators over the high ebullition methane fields of the *ESAS*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Siberian_Sea, to produce feed stock for polyhydroxybutyrate production, seems to make sense to me and they can be fitted into the overall design. This type of *mariculture* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariculture may help offset the cost of Arctic methane mitigation. If you have time, please let me know if I've failed to properly connect the dots on this idea. I'll put some work into the technical side to help show what a 'continuous incubator' mounted to a Shaf Downweller may look like.. Best, Michael On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:01:07 AM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: Sorry if this is old news, but in cleaning out my in box I came across this interesting 2012 paper – anaerobic methane oxidation also consumes CO2. So with a bit of biogeoengineering we can pro-actively mitigate CH4 and CO2 simultaneously, +/- take the lipid-rich biomass to produce biofuels, supplanting fossil sources??? Greg *Autotrophy as a predominant mode of carbon fixation in anaerobic methane-oxidizing microbial communities* 1. Matthias Y. Kellermannhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Matthias+Y.+Kellermannsortspec=datesubmit=Submit a http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3 ,2 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-4,3http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#corresp-1, 2. Gunter Wegenerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Gunter+Wegenersortspec=datesubmit=Submit b http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-2,chttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3 ,1 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3, 3. Marcus Elverthttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcus+Elvertsortspec=datesubmit=Submit a http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 4. Marcos Yukio Yoshinagahttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcos+Yukio+Yoshinagasortspec=datesubmit=Submit a http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 5. Yu-Shih Linhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Yu-Shih+Linsortspec=datesubmit=Submit a http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 6. Thomas Hollerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Thomas+Hollersortspec=datesubmit=Submit c http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3, 7. Xavier Prieto Mollarhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Xavier+Prieto+Mollarsortspec=datesubmit=Submit a http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1, 8. Katrin Knittelhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Katrin+Knittelsortspec=datesubmit=Submit c http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3, and 9.
