Re: [geo] Re: technical potential of ocean bioenergy?
Thanks Michael. I agree that the ocean environment offers many unique benefits as a location for carbon farming but I think it is also important to remember that there are also uniquely inconvenient aspects too The recent loss of Malaysia Airlines 370 has highlighted that there are many areas of the world oceans that are simply very very remote. If it takes a jet 8 hours to fly to the algae farm, probably not the best location for operations, even if robotically managed! There are many other constraints that might reduce the available hectarage (sp?)-- competing food and fishery uses, biodiversity protection, EEZs, prevailing surface winds , etc., etc. -- and the nature of the marine environment creates unique vulnerabilities as well. It would be a good exercise to use a GIS and carry out a first order assessment of suitable areas as some of our colleagues have done for other technologies such as marine cloud brightening. Fred On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Fred, Beyond the few papers/projects/concepts which have been mentioned in this forum (Trent http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA//Capronhttp://www.podenergy.net/Ocean_Afforestation.html /Bhaskar https://www.youtube.com/user/nualgi/Tuliphttp://rtulip.net/ocean_based_algae_production_system_provisional_patent), there seems to be no further work (that I've found) which specifically attempts to work out the details of* oceanic based cultivation on a vast scale*. To gain some understanding of the biomass cultivation potential of the marine environment one has to look within the current* land based http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel* algal cultivation industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fueland transpose that work into/onto the marine environment. Many of the environmental/production limiting factors found within the land based algal cultivation industry (or BECCShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storagein general) become moot when transposed onto the marine environment. Further, when considering the marine environment one needs to understand that there are calm oceanic deserts (of vast scale) which are conducive to the cultivation of a multitude of species (on a vast scale). Also, the design and construction of the production 'rafts' are well within the marine engineering arts and thus the physical barriers to production on a vast scale is minimal. Invention is often based upon the transposition of patterns found within one field into another field. Regrettably, until further work is funded/developed, you will need to use your inventive side to understand the potential of the marine environment as a fuel/food/feed/fertilizer/freshwater/polymer (etc.) source. Best, Michael On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:41:06 AM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote: I have just been skimming through the IPCC AR5 appendix on bioenergy and I see helpful estimates of technical bioenergy potential for land but don't see any estimates of technical potential for marine bioenergy -- are there any good papers on that topic? Fred Fred Zimmerman Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Book - Mike Hulme - Can Science Fix Climate Change?: A Case Against Climate Engineering
Andrew etal This seems to be a case of someone getting the book title wrong. I have ordered the book, but it seems this is not about climate engineering - only about SRM. Ron On Apr 29, 2014, at 1:14 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745682051 Description Climate change seems to be an insurmountable problem. Political solutions have so far had little impact. Some scientists are now advocating the so-called 'Plan B', a more direct way of reducing the rate of future warming by reflecting more sunlight back to space, creating a thermostat in the sky. In this book, Mike Hulme argues against this kind of hubristic techno-fix. Drawing upon a distinguished career studying the science, politics and ethics of climate change, he shows why using science to fix the global climate is undesirable, ungovernable and unattainable. Science and technology should instead serve the more pragmatic goals of increasing societal resilience to weather risks, improving regional air quality and driving forward an energy technology transition. Seeking to reset the planet's thermostat is not the answer. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [geo] 'This is God's Stuff We're Messing With': Geoengineering as a Religious Issue (Opinion Article) | Carr (2014) Geoengineering Our Climate?
Andrew and List (adding Mr. Carr) Thanks again to Andrew for bringing this below to our attention. 1. I found this to be an article worth reading - but I strongly recommend the original, found at http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/04/29/this-is-gods-stuff-were-messing-with-geoengineering-as-a-religious-issue/ - and then even a better PDF version at: http://geoengineeringourclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/carr-2014-this-is-gods-stuff-were-messing-with-click-for-download.pdf One misses a lot without the footnotes and citations (so below I don't repeat the original). 2. Much of Mr. Carr's paper relates to a 5 minute short video from IASS. It makes no case for any part of CDR, only showing 2 CDR approaches (DAC and OIF) and sulfur-based SRM. See the video at http://www.iass-potsdam.de/research-clusters/sustainable-interactions-atmosphere-siwa/news/climate-engineering-trump-card and then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GKjl7afwaYlist=UU1meUqqRtzA0IyB5Tn3wh1gfeature=share The IASS site has zero material on biochar, so I am not surprised it was left out of the video. This is not the fault of Mr. Carr. 3. I concur that religion can and should play an important role on geoengineering. However, I feel organized religion (churches on average) have pretty much done so far a lousy job even on climate topics, much less on geoengineering (which should be considered as at least two topics - not the one of this paper [the words SRM and CDR do not appear]). I say this as an atheist, periodically active in the Unitarian church for 50 years. I have tried regularly to get all churches more active in climate and especially CDR/biochar. Unfortunately, about as much happening there as elsewhere in society. Has anyone ever heard of a church (even a Unitarian?) arguing for carbon negativity? Lots arguing for carbon neutrality and doing something about it - but not yet negativity, to my knowledge. 4. As Mr. Carr's background is in religion and forestry (learned from the U Montana site), I urge him to be the first, in a revised thesis, to look at the ethics of two CDR approaches (which are also now called mitigation by the IPCC) that have received zero attention by ethicists as near as I can tell: reforestation/afforestation and biochar. Lots of ethics papers on BECCS - which has not fared very well. I don't know how far along he is in his thesis, but it won't make much of an ethical contribution if it doesn't look at what most foresters and soil scientists can tell him about how badly society has messed up the world's soils. There is a lot to be gained by improving both the atmosphere and soils at the same time (with a controllable energy as well) - or how would the many good ethicists at U. Montana argue differently? I'll wager the respondents to his queries will be very different if he includes biochar/afforestation/reforestation in a different video. I know of two studies with that experience. Ron On Apr 29, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/04/29/this-is-gods-stuff-were-messing-with-geoengineering-as-a-religious-issue/ Geoengineering Our Climate? A Working Paper Series on the Ethics, Politics and Governance of Climate Engineering 'This is God's Stuff We're Messing With': Geoengineering as a Religious Issue (Opinion Article) This is God's Stuff We're Messing With - It's very dangerous to try and play God. This is God's stuff we're messing with. Historically speaking, any time we try to play snip 4 pages of text, which was hard to read -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
OOps - thought this went out three days ago. Apologies if this duplicative. List and ccs: 1. Thanks to David for this lead on Prof. Stavins letter (found at http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/) 2. Since this provides some (not all by any means) of the detail we have been wondering about as the SPM changed character, I read the Stavins letter with interest. But it is hard to go back and forth between the versions A and B of April 7 and 12 when they are in different documents. So I have combined them as follows (no way to shorten this exercise). I have underlined what seems to be new in the final version and underlined what was retained in April 7 draft. The numbering of paragraphs is not in the originals, nor the short summary titles I gave. The only major style IPCC change is that the final contains no bolding. There was some shuffling and deletion of paragraphs 3. I have added some comments from a biochar perspective and hope others will do similarly #1 On UNFCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main multilateral forum focused on addressing climate change, with nearly universal participation. Other institutions organized at different levels of governance have resulted in diversifying international climate change cooperation. [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5] Replaced International cooperation on climate change has diversified over the past decade. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a primary international forum for climate negotiations, and is seen by many as the most legitimate international climate policy venue due in part to its virtually universal membership [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5]. However, other institutions organized at many different scales have ……… risen in importance due to the inclusion of climate change issues in other policy arenas and growing awareness of the co‐benefits that can arise from linking climate mitigation and other issues [13.3, 13.4, 13.5]. [RWL comment #1 - Sorry to see the word “co-benefit” disappear. Objection maybe to the words “risen in importance”?? #2 On cooperation agreements Existing and proposed international climate change cooperation arrangements vary in their focus and degree of centralization and coordination. They span: multilateral agreements, harmonized national policies and decentralized but coordinated national policies, as well as regional and regionally‐ coordinated policies. [Figure TS.37, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] Replaced Existing and proposed international climate agreements and instruments vary in their focus and degree of centralization. International climate agreements and instruments span: multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets and accounting rules), harmonized national policies, and decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages of national and sub‐ national emissions trading schemes) Also, .regional and regionally coordinated policies exist and have been proposed. [Figure 13.2, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] RWL comment: Doesn’t seem to be a big change, especially from biochar angles. #3 On Kyoto The Kyoto Protocol offers lessons towards achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, particularly with respect to participation, implementation, flexibility mechanisms, and environmental effectiveness. (medium evidence, low agreement). [5.2, 13.7.2, 13.13.1.1, 13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1, Table TS.9] Replaced The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward implementing the principles and goals provided by the UNFCCC, but it has had limited effects on global emissions because some countries did not ratify the Protocol, some Parties did not meet their commitments, and its commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy (medium evidence, low agreement). The Parties collectively surpassed their collective emission reduction target in the first commitment period, but the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred even in its absence. The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of non‐Annex I countries, which have grown rapidly over the past decade. [5.2, 13.13.1.1] The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which created a market for emissions offsets from developing countries, had generated credits equivalent to over 1.3 GtCO2eq by July 2013. Its environmental effectiveness has been mixed due to concerns about the additionality of projects, the validity of baselines, the possibility of emissions leakage, and recent credit price decreases (medium evidence; medium agreement). CDM projects were concentrated in a limited number of countries. [13.7.2, 13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1] RWL comment: Missing details on Kyoto now, but I am not sure how or if this impacts biochar. #4 ON UNFCCC
