[geo] Re: Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view
Although you're right that 'most' people in the world have enough to eat, a significant proportion don't. Over 20% of Africans are undernourished (Table 1 here http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e02.pdf). Sure, 'most' of them have enough to eat, but is this situation really 'OK'? I suggest being careful about the wording here. On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 22:31:42 UTC+1, andrewjlockley wrote: This is a draft article I wrote for the African Academy of Sciences. I'd really appreciate any comments on it - before I irrecoverably embarrass myself! Thanks A --- Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view Climate change is here to stay. That much is certain. Due to the heat capacity of the oceans, we always feel the effect of emissions past. Meanwhile, not only do emissions continue, but there’s still a breakneck rush to build carbon-spewing plant and vehicles. This is true not only in the developing world, but also in affluent countries that are switching back to fossil – such as Germany, which has turned against nuclear. So not only are we bracing ourselves for the climate change that’s already in the mail, we’re also wilfully accelerating the process. But it gets worse. As emissions are cleaned up in the developing world, the aerosol haze which mutes global warming will fade away – exposing us to the full glare of a changing climate. Furthermore, we are potentially exposed to major tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, such as the postulated release of methane in the Arctic. Even in the unlikely event that we manage to rapidly decarbonise the economy, we may still find find that any intervention is too little, too late. As a technology, geoengineering – and specifically solar radiation management - is also here to stay. We know we can do it. We know we can do it fairly cheaply - certainly much more cheaply than rapid, large-scale mitigation. We also know that it will work, albeit imperfectly, in reducing the impacts of climate change. So what to do with this terrifyingly powerful technology? We must bear in mind two facts. Firstly, we are still emitting. Secondly, even if we stop emitting there is at least a chance the climate is already in a dangerously unstable state. Faced with a position like that, it’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t at least explore geoengineering technology. And we’d be exploring for a very good reason: committing to NOT geoengineering is rapidly beginning to look like a very dangerous idea indeed. Beyond exploring, what could deployment actually look like? Well here’s the problem: the real world is a messy, dirty place. We live in a world which tolerates reckless emissions, and much more besides. Protectionism, warfare, human rights abuses, genocide. These are all ugly things that go on and the world tolerates them, to a greater or lesser extent. We don’t have an effective global governance policy for such things, although we do try sometimes. We have treaties, which are optional. We have resolutions, which are ignored. We have sanctions, which are ineffective. And we have bombs, which yield highly unpredictable outcomes, and are more effective as a threat than as an intervention. None of the above is terribly efficient at getting people or countries to behave themselves. So why do we pretend geoengineering will really be ‘governed’ by anything, or anyone? My argument is that it won’t be governed at all. Or at least, there isn’t any reason to assume that there will be a single, overall framework of governance that delivers an effective policy – regardless of whom that single, effective policy favours. Could we not image a world where a chaotic muddle of overlapping and competing geoengineering schemes exists? Take for example, a situation where a power bloc determines a policy of minimal intervention, but is overruled by a private carbon offset firm who offer to ‘top up’ the intervention. This seems superficially possible, if not necessarily plausible. Or perhaps a top up scheme could be provided by a nation state looking to preserve its glaciers? This top up could be provided in defiance of a state looking for a ‘light touch’ geoengineering scheme, which allows it to open up formerly ice-bound oil fields. That scenario certainly seems viable. Could we imagine a world where ‘smart’ geoengineering interventions straddle the line between weather modification and climate control? A world where city mayors try to control heatwaves, or steer hurricanes away from their shores? We could surely imagine that agricultural states would seek to manipulate rainstorms – as many already do. This technology doesn’t even have to work to be deployed. Like a modern-day raindance, anyone with a chequebook and a jet can try to control the weather. What hope, therefore, for governance? And should anyone
[geo] DAC vs CRD?
Article below. The usual suspects and viewpoints, e.g. : Pulling vexing carbon emissions straight from the sky might become an important way to keep climate change in check. As pilot projects move forward, the prospect of capturing carbon dioxide from the air is growing increasingly plausible, though it may be some time before the technology, the demand and the costs align to make a dent in global emissions. To review, pulling those pesky carbon emissions straight from the sky already annually consumes 55% of our emissions for free, and the absolute quantity of this DAC is (lucky for us) increasing: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/08/07/science.1239207.full If one is interested in further denting global emissions, perhaps the first thing to do is to figure out how to additionally accelerate/enhance/modify/engineer these existing, highly successful systems, rather than ignoring nature and designing a new air capture process from the ground up. for carbon capture systems [DAC], the main energy sink isn't so much in collecting CO2 in the first place, but in regenerating the absorber and making a pure stream of the gas. Exactly. This is why nature's existing, very successful CRD assiduously avoids this step and why our attempts at further denting air CO2 should also. On the other hand if CO2 EOR is your end game, then you are obviously stuck with making conc CO2 while also increasing atmospheric CO2: typically in EOR CO2 in oil CO2 out. How such schemes get mentioned in the context of saving the planet is something I find breathtaking. Speaking of actually saving the planet, if you haven't already done so, there's still time to vote for The Planet Physician's air capture (and so much more) concept here: http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1303630 and/or vote for this point source CO2 mitigation idea: http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304003 Your humble messenger, Greg CARBON CAPTURE: Air capture needed as a tool to fight climate change, scientists say Umair Irfan, EE reporter Published: Friday, August 23, 2013 Pulling vexing carbon emissions straight from the sky might become an important way to keep climate change in check. As pilot projects move forward, the prospect of capturing carbon dioxide from the air is growing increasingly plausible, though it may be some time before the technology, the demand and the costs align to make a dent in global emissions. Earlier this year, instruments showed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rising above 400 parts per million for the first time in 800,000 years (ClimateWirehttp://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1059979974/, April 24). Energy consumption, and consequently carbon emissions, is poised to grow further even as cars, homes and aircraft become more efficient. Fossil fuels will continue to be the major energy source in the coming century as countries like China harness this energy to drive economic development. As a result, some researchers argue that direct air capture is a necessary, though not sufficient, component of any climate change mitigation strategy. Our view is that air capture is a pathway that could be quite important, said David Keith, president of Carbon Engineering, a firm developing industrial air capture systems. He explained that controlling emissions at the source makes sense for large facilities like power plants and factories but scrubbing carbon dioxide from tailpipes or jet exhaust is too expensive. The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources. Trapping CO2 in a liquid Carbon Engineering is addressing this with a box fan-like air contactor that uses a liquid to sop up carbon dioxide from the air. The liquid, now enriched, circulates to a regeneration facility where it releases the carbon in a pure stream under high temperature. This pure carbon stream is very useful, Keith observed. Carbon dioxide is a raw material for certain industrial processes, drillers use it to squeeze out more oil and gas from depleted wells and it serves as a building block for liquid fuels. We are trying to reduce the risk by using technologies that are proven, he said. The company is designing a large pilot plant that will capture 1 kiloton of carbon dioxide annually, due to come online next year in Alberta. Putting carbon dioxide to work is an important step toward making direct capture economically feasible as well as environmentally sustainable. Unlike a stream from a carbon capture system attached to a coal-fired generator, an air capture system recirculates carbon that is already in the atmosphere. Using this carbon instead of the stuff from the ground to make gasoline or jet fuel means it offsets humanity's
Re: [geo] Re: Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view
Your point and suggestion is well taken. OK is a very loose term. Is suffering, is famine, is war, is illness OK if one is at the bottom end? While we worry about warming we might do better to worry about increasing overpopulation and the bottom end. Is global warming going to take care of the problem without human intervention? Might it be exacerbated by squeezing more people into polar regions? -gene - Original Message - From: Angus Ferraro angus.ferr...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 5:22:38 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view Although you're right that 'most' people in the world have enough to eat, a significant proportion don't. Over 20% of Africans are undernourished (Table 1 here ). Sure, 'most' of them have enough to eat, but is this situation really 'OK'? I suggest being careful about the wording here. On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 22:31:42 UTC+1, andrewjlockley wrote: This is a draft article I wrote for the African Academy of Sciences. I'd really appreciate any comments on it - before I irrecoverably embarrass myself! Thanks A --- Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view Climate change is here to stay. That much is certain. Due to the heat capacity of the oceans, we always feel the effect of emissions past. Meanwhile, not only do emissions continue, but there’s still a breakneck rush to build carbon-spewing plant and vehicles. This is true not only in the developing world, but also in affluent countries that are switching back to fossil – such as Germany, which has turned against nuclear. So not only are we bracing ourselves for the climate change that’s already in the mail, we’re also wilfully accelerating the process. But it gets worse. As emissions are cleaned up in the developing world, the aerosol haze which mutes global warming will fade away – exposing us to the full glare of a changing climate. Furthermore, we are potentially exposed to major tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, such as the postulated release of methane in the Arctic. Even in the unlikely event that we manage to rapidly decarbonise the economy, we may still find find that any intervention is too little, too late. As a technology, geoengineering – and specifically solar radiation management - is also here to stay. We know we can do it. We know we can do it fairly cheaply - certainly much more cheaply than rapid, large-scale mitigation. We also know that it will work, albeit imperfectly, in reducing the impacts of climate change. So what to do with this terrifyingly powerful technology? We must bear in mind two facts. Firstly, we are still emitting. Secondly, even if we stop emitting there is at least a chance the climate is already in a dangerously unstable state. Faced with a position like that, it’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t at least explore geoengineering technology. And we’d be exploring for a very good reason: committing to NOT geoengineering is rapidly beginning to look like a very dangerous idea indeed. Beyond exploring, what could deployment actually look like? Well here’s the problem: the real world is a messy, dirty place. We live in a world which tolerates reckless emissions, and much more besides. Protectionism, warfare, human rights abuses, genocide. These are all ugly things that go on and the world tolerates them, to a greater or lesser extent. We don’t have an effective global governance policy for such things, although we do try sometimes. We have treaties, which are optional. We have resolutions, which are ignored. We have sanctions, which are ineffective. And we have bombs, which yield highly unpredictable outcomes, and are more effective as a threat than as an intervention. None of the above is terribly efficient at getting people or countries to behave themselves. So why do we pretend geoengineering will really be ‘governed’ by anything, or anyone? My argument is that it won’t be governed at all. Or at least, there isn’t any reason to assume that there will be a single, overall framework of governance that delivers an effective policy – regardless of whom that single, effective policy favours. Could we not image a world where a chaotic muddle of overlapping and competing geoengineering schemes exists? Take for example, a situation where a power bloc determines a policy of minimal intervention, but is overruled by a private carbon offset firm who offer to ‘top up’ the intervention. This seems superficially possible, if not necessarily plausible. Or perhaps a top up scheme could be provided by a nation state looking to preserve its glaciers? This top up could be provided in defiance of a state looking for a ‘light touch’ geoengineering scheme, which allows it to open up formerly ice-bound oil fields. That scenario certainly seems viable. Could we imagine a world where ‘smart’ geoengineering interventions
Re: [geo] DAC vs CRD?
On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Greg etal: This is to comment on a line in the EE report you posed, which said: The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources. I hope there are others, but the company Cool Planet www.coolplanet.com is proposing exactly this. Perhaps surprisingly, their concept goes beyond reduce (which it does); it also removes (via a co-product biochar). This is a well-funded company, with aggressive expansion plans, perhaps putting refineries in the field within a few years.. Ron -- 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] DAC vs CRD?
*The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources.* There is a critical need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources. For the most part, the transportation can be electrified and the electricity sector can be decarbonized. The transportation power needs that cannot be met by electricity (e.g., perhaps aviation) can be met by biofuels. If air capture of CO2 can compete with emissions reduction on cost (broadly interpreted), great. But to get near to zero CO2 emissions, there is no necessity for air capture. ___ 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 Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Greg etal: This is to comment on a line in the EE report you posed, which said: *The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources.* I hope there are others, but the company Cool Planet www.coolplanet.com is proposing exactly this. Perhaps surprisingly, their concept goes beyond reduce (which it does); it also removes (via a co-product biochar). This is a well-funded company, with aggressive expansion plans, perhaps putting refineries in the field within a few years.. Ron -- 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 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] DAC vs CRD?
Ken, Greg, list: First to Greg (re just earlier message) - I recognized CRD as a typo. Thanks. Yes to all of Ken's remarks below . My additional point was that we (geoengineering list) do have one company which claims the more you drive with their product - the more carbon dioxide removal (more CDR). Both carbon neutral and carbon negative.. I only know of one biofuel company with this claim. Surprisingly, not looking for more capital, with small factories (refineries outputting a drop-in fuel) leaving Colorado as soon as next year: Cool Planet. They are not in the air capture category of CDR approaches. Ron On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources. There is a critical need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources. For the most part, the transportation can be electrified and the electricity sector can be decarbonized. The transportation power needs that cannot be met by electricity (e.g., perhaps aviation) can be met by biofuels. If air capture of CO2 can compete with emissions reduction on cost (broadly interpreted), great. But to get near to zero CO2 emissions, there is no necessity for air capture. ___ 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 Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Greg etal: This is to comment on a line in the EE report you posed, which said: The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources. I hope there are others, but the company Cool Planet www.coolplanet.com is proposing exactly this. Perhaps surprisingly, their concept goes beyond reduce (which it does); it also removes (via a co-product biochar). This is a well-funded company, with aggressive expansion plans, perhaps putting refineries in the field within a few years.. Ron -- 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 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] Al Gore on geoengineering
Al Gore: Let me deal with the geoengineering part of your question first. That’s complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere , though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips — these are simply nuts. We shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re just crazy. To the broader part of your question, innovation is already playing a major role in bringing about new potential solutions to the climate crisis. The tech world had a bitter experience after the burst of enthusiasm in 2005 and 2006 because of a perfect storm made up of four elements: First, the great recession, which had a huge, destructive impact on business generally. Number two, the Chinese juggernaut, which subsidized the production of several prominent renewable energy technologies to the point where their sales price fell below the price of production in the West. Third, the shale gas boom dropped the retail price of electricity to levels below what many renewable energy plans needed to be viable. And fourth there was the policy failure I mentioned earlier in the U.S. Senate and Copenhagen. And all the while there was this massively funded climate denier campaign by the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobile and others that hired tobacco industry veterans to work with them on consumer advertising and lobbying activities. But that setback was only temporary because reality has a way of reasserting itself. There has been a 100-fold increase in the number of extreme, high-temperature events around the world in the distribution curve. And people have noticed for themselves — the rain storms are bigger, the droughts are deeper and the fires are more destructive. All of these things have not escaped notice and people are connecting the dots. The cumulative amount of energy trapped by manmade global warming pollution each day in the earth’s atmosphere is now equal to the energy that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima bombs going off every 24 hours. It’s a big planet, but that’s a lot of energy. The consequences are now hard to escape. Every night on the news, it’s like a nature hike through the book of revelations. Eleven states today are fighting 35 major fires! People are noticing this. And simultaneously they’re noticing the sharp drop in the cost of carbon-free, greenhouse gas-free energy, and the combination is pushing us over this political tipping point and the trend is unstoppable. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/al-gore-explains-why-hes-optimistic-about-stopping-global-warming/ Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll -- 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.
