Re: [geo] National Academies reports: CDR
Just a note that I added a second comment (assuming moderator posts it) on his blog, and included below: A couple of comments: 1. While the NRC report is helpful in better explaining the need for CDR research, the notion that CDR implementation can make much of a difference while global emissions are of order 10 PgC/year and growing seems to me to be imagining far too much capacity for CDR. Also, in terms of optimal expenditure of funds to do something, efficiency provides by far the most cost-effective action now, and in many places solar and wind (and other alternative technologies) are (or are nearly) competitive with fossil fuels, especially if any account is given to external costs, and cutting emissions of short-lived species would have strong near-term effects and have many, many co-benefits. Thus, in terms of government policies, most of the implementation effort really needs to go to broad-based mitigation. Once one gets the emission trajectory headed down at a reasonable rate, CDR has a very important role to play in determining how low below a 75% or so cut in global emissions is needed (although many of us would say going back to 350 ppm CO2 would be desirable. 2. I want to take strong exception to your little comments in the table about albedo modification. To suggest that the new (physical/environmental) uncertainties from albedo modification are very negative while the benefits of avoiding sharp, unprecedented global warming are only positive makes no sense at all. The impacts of unconstrained global warming are horrendous and avoiding and slowing them would be hugely positive. Also, this notion that the uncertainties associated with climate change with albedo modification are somehow much greater than the uncertainties associated with climate change without albedo modification just does not seem defensible to me, and that is before there is virtually any research on plausible implementation strategies (e.g., gradual implementation). And that governance issues would be worse than we currently have is also, it seems to me quite arguable. What I do think is that for albedo modification to have any chance of being practically applied, we have to get on a strongly downward emissions trend and then be thinking about albedo modification as a way to shave off the worst impacts and peak warming, for it sure seems likely to be a good bit above 2 C (and I'm worried about being over .5-1 C). So, let's all agree with the NRC's first recommendation that strong mitigation is critical--if we can get on that path, then both CDR and albedo modification have, in my view the potential to be helpful if the needed research is done, with albedo modification (and I'd start by being focused on moderating the worst impacts, so regionally, before going global) phased in early and phased out as CDR can take over. To my mind, thinking about a coordinated, comprehensive strategy and effort makes much more sense than this touting of one over the other--we are so far along past addressing the issue responsibly that we need all the approaches that we have available if we want to increase likelihood of a soft landing. Mike MacCracken On 2/12/15, 12:21 AM, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote: Noah Deich provides a good summary of the CDR report at Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ I have made a comment at his blog. Robert Tulip https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences ... https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ Earlier today, the National Academy of Sciences (³NAS²) released a comprehensive study dedicated to carbon dioxide removal (³CDR²). To date, CDR has largely been ... View on carbonremoval.wordp... https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ Preview by Yahoo From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl; geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015, 6:31 Subject: Re: [geo] National Academies reports Also this: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-su ggests-thinking-carefully-first/ To quote: In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into carbon removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more cost-effective, regional-scale and larger
Re: [geo] National Academies reports: CDR
Noah Deich provides a good summary of the CDR report at Recap and Commentary:
National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal
I have made a comment at his blog.
Robert Tulip
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences ...Earlier today, the
National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) released a comprehensive study dedicated
to carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”). To date, CDR has largely been ... |
| |
| View on carbonremoval.wordp... | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov
To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015, 6:31
Subject: Re: [geo] National Academies reports
Also
this:http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-suggests-thinking-carefully-first/To
quote: In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into
carbon removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low
risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies
that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more
cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term, it
concludes. In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are
currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues
rather than direct costs.But beyond the research programs, it's clear that
neither of these approaches is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that
either of them can ever be made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation
of what would have been the US'largest carbon capture experiment. That's in
sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology is already
mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those of fossil
fuels.Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential
approaches and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of
the latter.Greg
From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Reply-To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] National Academies reports
#yiv1141488040 #yiv1141488040 -- _filtered #yiv1141488040 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1141488040 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4
3 2 4;}#yiv1141488040 #yiv1141488040 p.yiv1141488040MsoNormal, #yiv1141488040
li.yiv1141488040MsoNormal, #yiv1141488040 div.yiv1141488040MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1141488040 a:link,
#yiv1141488040 span.yiv1141488040MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1141488040 a:visited, #yiv1141488040
span.yiv1141488040MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1141488040
span.yiv1141488040EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1141488040
.yiv1141488040MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1141488040 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt
70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv1141488040 div.yiv1141488040WordSection1 {}#yiv1141488040
Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume
report on climate engineering. They are available here
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration
One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The
newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington
Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO
reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came
out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were
supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution
expressed).
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See
https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal
https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers
Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and
climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and
Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ --
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
Re: [geo] National Academies reports
Also this: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-suggests-thinking-carefully-first/ To quote: In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into carbon removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term, it concludes. In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues rather than direct costs. But beyond the research programs, it's clear that neither of these approaches is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that either of them can ever be made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation of what would have been the US' largest carbon capture experimenthttp://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/. That's in sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology is already mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those of fossil fuels. Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential approaches and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of the latter. Greg From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl Reply-To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] National Academies reports Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume report on climate engineering. They are available here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution expressed). http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto: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] National Academies reports
Still more reporting: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0 “The committee felt that the need for information at this point outweighs the need for shoving this topic under the rug,” Marcia K. McNutt, chairwoman of the panel and the editor in chief of the journal Science, said at a news conference in Washington. How refreshing. Is shoving topics under the rug ever an option for an NAS committee, or science in general? Or was the committee referring to the habits of brethren policy- and decision-makers? Greg From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM Subject: [geo] National Academies reports Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume report on climate engineering. They are available here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution expressed). http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ -- 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.
[geo] National Academies reports
Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume report on climate engineering. They are available here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution expressed). http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ The press conference was webcast. Some people live tweeted it. See https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ -- 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.
