RE: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks
From below, According to Dixon, although emissions reductions should be the priority for tackling climate change, the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate is another technology that needs proper consideration. Geoengineering will face even more challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations, he tells SciDev.Net. And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even more essential. GR - I think the key message here is that CDRers need to distance themselves from geoengineering and risks associated with SRM. Certainly emissions reduction should be a priority, but so should enhanced air capture since natural air capture is doing way more to limit air CO2 conc than human actions including CCS can (so far) dream of. I really don't understand why RD on this should be such a tough sell, but continuing to lump CDR in with SRM isn't helping. Happy to provide scientific advice on those issues if it is so essential, so where do we send our cards and letters? Or is IEAGHG (with its emissions reduction agenda) the UNFCC's information gatekeeper, as the abstracts imply. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering information deficit discussed, but not in abstract. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213009466 Energy Procedures Volume 37, 2013, Pages 7590–7595GHGT-11Open Access Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC Tim Dixona, , , Dr Katherine Romanakb, Samantha Neadesa, Dr Andy Chadwickca Abstract This paper describes how providing scientific information to negotiators assisted in achieving inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) during 2011. We provide specific examples of how scientific information from IEAGHG Research Networks in the areas of monitoring, modelling, environmental impacts and groundwater protection were used to address the issues of concern listed in the Cancun Decision (2010). Technical input was provided by members of IEAGHG Research Networks via the UNFCCC's technical workshop on Modalities and Procedures for CCS under the CDM, such that the negotiations in Durban (2011) were better informed by an understanding of the most recent technical information. The outcome was the agreement of CCS-specific modalities and procedures for including CCS in the CDM. Keywords Regulation; Emissions Trading; International Policy; Clean Development Mechanism; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; CCS http://m.scidev.net/global/environment/news/scientific-advice-improved-outcome-of-un-climate-talks.html Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks Joel Winston 04/09/13 Some negotiators have no technical background and are underprepared Expert advice on carbon capture and storage aided debates between UN talks at Cancun and Durban But it is hard to conclusively link the improved debate to the input of experts UN climate change policy negotiators need more access to expert advice on new technologies such as carbon storage and geoengineering, according to an expert whose study found that providing scientific information to negotiators before debates resulted in more productive discussions. The paper, published in Energy Procedia last month (5 August), says that the annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) held in relation to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have limited and imperfect routes for providing scientific information to negotiators. Some negotiators have no technical background. Many work from their country's briefs and don't get a chance to get organised beforehand, says Tim Dixon, one of the paper's authors and manager of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and regulation at the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas RD Programme (IEAGHG), an international research initiative that evaluates technologies that can cut emissions from fossil fuel use.And for many developing countries, there are so many issues in these meetings, they struggle to keep up with everything they might want to comment on. Negotiations can therefore involve a fairly low level of technical knowledge and lead to misunderstandings, he tells SciDev.Net. The paper discusses improving the dissemination of scientific advice to negotiators in the context of CCS, the underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations. Developing nations that are currently considering CCS projects to minimise their greenhouse gas emissions include Botswana, Brazil, China, Indonesia,
Re: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks
Greg, Andrew and list: 1. Thanks to Andrew for the alert on IEAGHG. I think this group is limited to deep underground sequestration - cannot likely even be interested in DAC = Direct Air Capture, whose collection costs seem to forgo a CDR opportunity (per Prof. Socolow analysis). This group appears not likely to be able to study CDR. 2. Thanks to Greg for two things: First, the recommendation on distance between SRM and CDR. I think our only hope is that the Royal Society issue another two reports separately covering SRM and CDR (not on Geoengineering). Second for use of the term natural air capture, which I think covers six of the seven CDR approaches listed in the recent BBC report (not DAC). 3. But mostly, because of information only learned today, this is to alert list members to an article that helps all the biological CDR approaches. Helps with information on the high efficiency of the photosynthesis approach called CAM = crassulacean acid metabolism. Much less water needed than for the C3 and C4 types of photosynthesis. I highly recommend this (free) article by an Oxford University group, perhaps headed by a Dr. Borland: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2879.full 4. This is a new discovery only for me. I found many earlier and later than this 2009 paper - but this one has good numbers for analysis, including huge land area potentials (double or more global ag land) that hopefully can overcome THE presumed major hurdle (because of conflicts with land for food) for the biological CDR approaches. This approach applies to agave and similar arid region plants, which are reported to be even more productive than sugar cane (CAB plants absorb CO2 at night and can close their stomata during the day). So far I haven't found even one paper coupling CAM with CDR. But lots on biofuels (with low costs projected). Ron On Sep 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: From below, According to Dixon, although emissions reductions should be the priority for tackling climate change, the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate is another technology that needs proper consideration. Geoengineering will face even more challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations, he tells SciDev.Net. And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even more essential. GR - I think the key message here is that CDRers need to distance themselves from geoengineering and risks associated with SRM. Certainly emissions reduction should be a priority, but so should enhanced air capture since natural air capture is doing way more to limit air CO2 conc than human actions including CCS can (so far) dream of. I really don't understand why RD on this should be such a tough sell, but continuing to lump CDR in with SRM isn't helping. Happy to provide scientific advice on those issues if it is so essential, so where do we send our cards and letters? Or is IEAGHG (with its emissions reduction agenda) the UNFCC's information gatekeeper, as the abstracts imply. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering information deficit discussed, but not in abstract. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213009466 Energy Procedures Volume 37, 2013, Pages 7590–7595GHGT-11Open Access Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC Tim Dixona, , , Dr Katherine Romanakb, Samantha Neadesa, Dr Andy Chadwickca Abstract This paper describes how providing scientific information to negotiators assisted in achieving inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) during 2011. We provide specific examples of how scientific information from IEAGHG Research Networks in the areas of monitoring, modelling, environmental impacts and groundwater protection were used to address the issues of concern listed in the Cancun Decision (2010). Technical input was provided by members of IEAGHG Research Networks via the UNFCCC's technical workshop on Modalities and Procedures for CCS under the CDM, such that the negotiations in Durban (2011) were better informed by an understanding of the most recent technical information. The outcome was the agreement of CCS-specific modalities and procedures for including CCS in the CDM. Keywords Regulation; Emissions Trading; International Policy; Clean Development Mechanism; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; CCS
