Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Peter Eisenberger]

 Hi Greg ,
Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change
politics
1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve  the
climate problem alone (and cost too much )
2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without
emissions reductions
3 While it is true that in the short term an emission reduction  from a
plant already operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size
one can most effectively reduce  emissions by switching to renewables
4 Now the tricky point is that any technology has a practical  limit of how
fast it can be implemented -so lets use a doubling of capacity every two
years - we know that experience curves result in cost reductions with
installed capacity
5 So if one wanted to achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one
would invest in renewables and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on
emissions reductions which in reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of
emissions reductions)on would be slowing down the other two deployments
increasing the time it would take for both renewables and CDR to reach the
scale needed - because the last doublings ( when all the factories making
CDR and renewable will quickly make up for the increased emmissions from
existing plants -alternatively if one was to focus first on emissions
reductions and then on the other two that would be the longest time to
reach the capacities needed.

This could easily be modeled but the key is the positive feedback created
by building plants which results in enhanced rate ( new installations per
year because of lower costs and earlier  establishment  of mass production
capability  )   make the opportunity cost of investing in emmissions
reductions that will eventually end so large they are not worth doing . In
simpler terms one does not ususally invest in solutions that cannot solve
the problem if one has available approaches that do .

I believe this logic is solid . The reason is has not been widely if at all
accepted is because clean coal got started in an era where we mistakenly(
Socolow and Pacala)  thought that they together with renewables and other
things (eg conservation , efficiency  etc ) could solve te climate problem
. Lots of vested interests exist(DOE in particular) that do not want to
 admit that all their effort was in a dry hole so to speak.

So my position is if we are serious about the climate threat we should all
focus on renewable energy and CDR and I believe of course (which I want
others to evaluate) that DAC followed by use of the carbon that stores it
is the CDR technology  that can scale and offers a low cost solution
because the co2 makes money . The other approach I would support
investigating is enhancd weathering and of course fusion .

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Thanks, Peter.  Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC
> warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are
> required, not either/or.  So how about the concept that emissions reduction
> presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development?
>
> In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived
> by humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017),
> it's game over.  We have to do both.  I seriously doubt that humans are
> truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast
> (IPCC).
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* Peter Eisenberger 
> *To:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Cc:* geoengineering 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for
> mitigation policies
>
> This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples
> of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an
> anti technology
> orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement.
>
> It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news
> that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve
> by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation .  The 2014 IPCC
> report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for
> avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones
> emphasis to CDR  solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot
> makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical.
> The original approach has its origins in the original environmental
> movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy
> conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support
> of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the
> real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in the moral
> hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous plan
> 

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Renaud de RICHTER]

As written yesterday in another post by Phil Williamson (Science
Coordinator: UK GGR programme), the UK recently-started a *Greenhouse Gas
Removal *research programme (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/researc
h/funded/programmes/ggr/).



Hopefully in the *sixth IPCC report*, they will state that to stay below
2degC warming (unfortunately it will already be to late to say below
1.5degC warming), both emissions reduction *and GGR* are required, not
either/or, and should include both the continents *and the oceans*.

Concrete, realistic and feasible CE methods to remove CH4 and other non-CO2
GHGs from the atmosphere at a climatically significant scale have been
proposed [1] 
and [2] ,
and still wait for honest evaluation, critics and discussion from the
scientific community.



And sadly, in the *seventh IPCC report*, they will state that to stay
below *3degC
warming*, both complete cessation of anthropogenic emissions due to the
burning of fossil fuels and GGR are required, not either/or, and that *other
technologies able to enhance outgoing longwave radiation to the outer space*
should be developed and applied, like radiative cooling by the atmospheric
window (8-13 µm), or reducing the coverage of high cirrus clouds.

“*Earth radiation management*” technologies have already been proposed [3]
 and
still wait for honest evaluation, critics and discussion from the
scientific community.



2017-08-22 21:14 GMT+02:00 Greg Rau :

> Thanks, Peter.  Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC
> warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are
> required, not either/or.  So how about the concept that emissions reduction
> presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development?
>
> In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived
> by humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017),
> it's game over.  We have to do both.  I seriously doubt that humans are
> truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast
> (IPCC).
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* Peter Eisenberger 
> *To:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Cc:* geoengineering 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for
> mitigation policies
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, Peter.  Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC 
warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are 
required, not either/or.  So how about the concept that emissions reduction 
presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development?
In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived by 
humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017), it's 
game over.  We have to do both.  I seriously doubt that humans are truly 
incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast (IPCC).
Greg

  From: Peter Eisenberger 
 To: Andrew Lockley  
Cc: geoengineering 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for 
mitigation policies
   
This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples of 
how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an anti 
technology orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement. 
It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news that a 
new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve by 
renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation .  The 2014 IPCC report 
confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for avoiding a 
climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones emphasis to CDR  
solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot makes sense- to not 
change ones emphasis is illogical. The original approach has its origins in the 
original environmental movement in which renewable energy , emissions 
reductions ,and energy conservation were the central tenets. The latter two 
garnered the support of the people who believe industrialization and human 
consumption is the real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in 
the moral hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous 
plan and will also be a technological fix that will argue against the 
fundamental tenet of the early environmental supporters - human development has 
to harm the environment so we have to reduce our footprint to zero.   
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Lockley  
wrote:

Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals and 
conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/ doi/full/10.1177/ 
1461452916659830
Climatic Change August 2017 , Volume 143, Issue 3–4, pp 321–336
The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for 
mitigation policies
   
   - Authors
   - Authors and affiliations
   
   - Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author
   - P. Sol Hart
   - Kaitlin T. Raimi
   - Kimberly S. Wolske
   
   -   
  - 

   -   
  - 

   -   
  - 

   -   
  - 
  - 

   
   - 1.
   - 2.
   - 3.
   - 4.
   - 5.
Article   
   - First Online: 
  - 28 July 2017
   
   - 44Shares
    
   - 201Downloads

Abstract
A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed to 
address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the public, it 
is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might affect public 
sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a potential moral 
hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change, they may be less 
likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On the other hand, the 
need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of climate change and, thus, 
increase support for other types of mitigation. Using an online survey of US 
adults (N = 984), we tested these competing hypotheses by exposing participants 
to information about different forms of CDR. We find that learning about 
certain CDR strategies indirectly reduces support for mitigation policies by 
reducing the perceived threat of climate change. This was found to be true for 
participants who read about CDR in general (without mention of specific 
strategies), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or direct air capture. 
Furthermore, this risk compensation pattern was more pronounced among political 
conservatives than liberals—although in some cases, was partially offset by 
positive direct effects. Learning about reforestation, by contrast, had no 
indirect effects on mitigation support through perceived threat but was found 
to directly increase support among conservatives. The results suggest caution 
is warranted when promoting technological fixes to climate change, like CDR, as 
some forms may further dampen support for climate change action among the 
unengaged.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1 ) contains 
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 

[geo] Some good news? Arctic hydrates relatively insensitive to warming

[Eric Durbrow]

Although this is not directly related, I know that release of arctic floor
hydrates has been discussed before on this list. This recent Nature report
might assuage your anxiety. (At least in the short-term.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15745

Summary: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170822100400.htm

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Can Seaweed Save the World? Australian Television Program

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 
Can Seaweed Save the World?


 
Thisprogram aired on Tuesday, 22 August 2017 on the ABC Catalyst ScienceShow.  
It can be viewed at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4722454.htm  
Transcript Downloadvideo: mp4 | Watchon iview
 
ABC Summary: “ProfessorTim Flannery investigates how seaweed is helping to save 
the world - fromgrowing the foods of the future, helping clean polluted water 
and evencombating climate change.  Growingseaweed is now a ten billion dollar a 
year global industry. Tim travels toKorea to see some of the biggest seaweed 
farms in the world and meets thescientists who are hoping to create a seaweed 
revolution here in Australia.”

  

Comment

Thisprogram is an essential milestone in the movement of carbon removal into 
the centreof the climate debate. The scale of potential seaweed production at 
sea, andthe range of storage and profitable commodity options, mean that 
industrialseaweed production is the best option for a scalable method to 
stabilise theplanetary climate by removing carbon from the air. Flannery cites 
the work ofOcean Foresters that found “if you cover 9% of the world ocean in 
seaweedfarms, you could offset all of current emissions.” 

Theprogram starts by discussing the range of technological innovations 
occurringin North Queensland, interviewing Professor Rocky de Nys of James 
CookUniversity, who is leading research on seaweed as a profitable method to 
removenutrient pollution that is harming the Great Barrier Reef, using the 
produced seaweedfor food, biochar fertilizer, reduction of cattle methane 
emissions and to growfish. De Nys observes that the lack of structure in 
seaweed enables it to growfar faster than any terrestrial plant, with major 
productivity benefits.

Next PiaWinberg explains the high value nutraceutical, plastic, food and carbon 
removalpotential of seaweed.  Then Dr Flannery visits South Korea, where 
theInternational Seaweed Expo illustrates the current large scale and 
lift-offpotential once the industry goes pelagic.  He visits the small islandof 
Wando which produces a million tons of seaweed a year, and could roll out 
onoceanic scale once nutrient supply is developed. That problem should be 
simpleto solve as noted below, since wave energy can pump rich water from below 
thethermocline. Such farms could remove an estimated 160,000 tons of carbon 
persquare kilometre, either sending it to long term storage on the ocean floor 
orusing it for stable construction storage such as bricks.  But in atelling 
comment, Professor Ik Kyo Chung explains that “everyone wants to dosome 
terrestrial environment like trees.” The barrier is political - the 
carboncapture industry suffers from terrestrial bias, ignoring how seaweed 
grown atsea has much greater technical and economic potential than trees, and 
does notcompete with other higher value uses of the space.

A marinepermaculture solution to some of the engineering problems, using wind 
and waveand solar to pump ocean nutrient to the surface, is being developed by 
Dr BrianHerzen of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. With ocean sediments 
alreadynaturally storing millions of tons of seaweed carbon each year, speeding 
upthis process offers excellent prospects.

AdamBumpus explains research status on conversion to bricks, and the potential 
forseaweed to address global food security.

Flannerycomments that “when transformative new ideas grip the world, the 
changes theycreate can happen quickly.”

My reviewof Flannery’s recent book Sunlight and Seaweed is here.

 

RobertTulip

RelatedInfo

Feeding seaweed to cows to reduce methane levels

Prof Rocky de Nys looks at applied algal biotechnologies

The unique Wando Seaweeds Expo

Seagrasses, saltmarshes and mangrovesas a climate change solution

 


 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Peter Eisenberger]

This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples
of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an
anti technology
orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement.

It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news
that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve
by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation .  The 2014 IPCC
report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for
avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones
emphasis to CDR  solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot
makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical.
The original approach has its origins in the original environmental
movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy
conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support
of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the
real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in the moral
hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous plan
and will also be a technological fix that will argue against the
fundamental tenet of the early environmental supporters - human development
has to harm the environment so we have to reduce our footprint to zero.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals
> and conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/
> doi/full/10.1177/1461452916659830
>
>
> Climatic Change 
>
> August 2017, Volume 143, Issue 3–4
> , pp 321–336
> The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support
> for mitigation policies
>
>- Authors
>
>- Authors and affiliations
>
> 
>
>
>- Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author 
>- P. Sol Hart
>- Kaitlin T. Raimi
>- Kimberly S. Wolske
>
>
>-
>   -
>
>-
>   -
>-
>   -
>-
>   -
>   -
>
>
>1. 1.
>2. 2.
>3. 3.
>4. 4.
>5. 5.
>
> Article
> First Online: 28 July 2017
> 
>
>- 44Shares
>
> 
>
>- 201Downloads
>
> Abstract
>
> A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed
> to address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the
> public, it is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might
> affect public sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a
> potential moral hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change,
> they may be less likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On
> the other hand, the need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of
> climate change and, thus, increase support for other types of mitigation.
> Using an online survey of US adults (*N* = 984), we tested these
> competing hypotheses by exposing participants to information about
> different forms of CDR. We find that learning about certain CDR strategies
> indirectly reduces support for mitigation policies by reducing the
> perceived threat of climate change. This was found to be true for
> participants who read about CDR in general (without mention of specific
> strategies), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or direct air
> capture. Furthermore, this risk compensation pattern was more pronounced
> among political conservatives than liberals—although in some cases, was
> partially offset by positive direct effects. Learning about reforestation,
> by contrast, had no indirect effects on mitigation support through
> perceived threat but was found to directly increase support among
> conservatives. The results suggest caution is warranted when promoting
> technological fixes to climate change, like CDR, as some forms may further
> dampen support for climate change action among the unengaged.
> Electronic supplementary material
>
> The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
> ) contains supplementary
> material, which is available to authorized users.
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more 

[geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals
and conservatives is discussed in my paper.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461452916659830


Climatic Change 

August 2017, Volume 143, Issue 3–4
, pp 321–336
The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for
mitigation policies

   - Authors
   
   - Authors and affiliations
   



   - Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author 
   - P. Sol Hart
   - Kaitlin T. Raimi
   - Kimberly S. Wolske


   -
  -
   
   -
  -
   -
  -
   -
  -
  -


   1. 1.
   2. 2.
   3. 3.
   4. 4.
   5. 5.

Article
First Online: 28 July 2017


   - 44Shares
   


   - 201Downloads

Abstract

A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed
to address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the
public, it is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might
affect public sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a
potential moral hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change,
they may be less likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On
the other hand, the need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of
climate change and, thus, increase support for other types of mitigation.
Using an online survey of US adults (*N* = 984), we tested these competing
hypotheses by exposing participants to information about different forms of
CDR. We find that learning about certain CDR strategies indirectly reduces
support for mitigation policies by reducing the perceived threat of climate
change. This was found to be true for participants who read about CDR in
general (without mention of specific strategies), bioenergy with carbon
capture and storage, or direct air capture. Furthermore, this risk
compensation pattern was more pronounced among political conservatives than
liberals—although in some cases, was partially offset by positive direct
effects. Learning about reforestation, by contrast, had no indirect effects
on mitigation support through perceived threat but was found to directly
increase support among conservatives. The results suggest caution is
warranted when promoting technological fixes to climate change, like CDR,
as some forms may further dampen support for climate change action among
the unengaged.
Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of DAC

[Andrew Lockley]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2051-8


Climatic Change 

pp 1–13
The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and
the role of direct air capture

   - Authors
   
   - Authors and affiliations
   



   - Adriana MarcucciEmail author 
   - Socrates Kypreos
   - Evangelos Panos


   -
  -
    
   -
  -
   -
  -


   1. 1.
   2. 2.

Article
First Online: 19 August 2017


   - 1Shares
   


   - 5Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we quantify the energy transition and economic consequences
of the long-term targets from the Paris agreement, with a particular focus
on the targets of limiting global warming by the end of the century to 2
and 1.5 °C. The study assumes early actions and quantifies the market
penetration of low carbon technologies, the emission pathways and the
economic costs for an efficient reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
such that the temperature limit is not exceeded. We evaluate the potential
role of direct air capture (DAC) and its impact on policy costs and energy
consumption. DAC is a technology that removes emissions directly from the
atmosphere contributing to negative carbon emissions. We find that, with
our modelling assumptions, limiting global temperature to 1.5 °C is only
possible when using DAC. Our results show that the DAC technology can play
an important role in realising deep decarbonisation goals and in the
reduction of regional and global mitigation costs with stringent targets.
DAC acts a substitute to Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
in the stringent scenarios. For this analysis, we use the model MERGE-ETL,
a technology-rich integrated assessment model with endogenous learning.
Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2051-8
) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

[Michael Hayes]

Dr. Pasztor et al.,

I would like to recommend that the SDGs be the actual central pivot point of 
any global carbon negative initiative, not just a yard stick.

SDG 14, as an example, calls for protection of the marine space and that same 
space is our easiest source for pulling gigaton levels of CO2 from the 
environment. This is possible through the use of simple and low cost Perpetual 
Salt Fountains.

Utilizing that captured CO2 within floating bioreactors to grow microalgae, the 
fastest growing plant, fixes the marine carbon in a way that allows for biochar 
to be produced.

That biochar, in turn, would then be available for use in the ag sector, SDG 15.

Such offshore infrastructure can, at the same time, house and employ large 
populations of displaced persons, the most vulnerable in SDG 11, yet this 
possibility is rarely mentioned in context with SDG 13, climate action.
  
The Seasteading Institute is but one of many groups currently developing such 
offshore community concepts and partnerships.

This explanation can be expanded to address most, if not all, SDGs.
I'll leave off the rest of the explanation here for brevity sake.

My primary points are:

1) Carbon negative efforts do need rapid scale up. The areas beyond national 
jurisdiction within the marine space can provide for that need, at the resource 
and spatial levels, while helping to set the stage for addressing all other 
SDGs. 

2) Using the the SDGs as the pivot point, not as a periphery measure, can 
greatly help in providing focus for all concerns including the institutional 
investment community. 


3) The high seas have one critically important aspect we are all aware of yet 
seldom give weight to in this type of discourse; no nation controls them 
outside EEZs. As such, that space is...largely...free from short sighted 
Nation/State policies and that is crucial in recruiting investors for such a 
vast scale and long-term effort; a prime concern for SDG 17.

4) SDG 14, the high seas, is our best initial pivot point at this critical 
juncture. IMMHO.


Respectfully,

Michael

Andrew, thank you for your years of work and patience. 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Developement of a scoring system able to perform an independent and honest CE method comparison

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Geoengineering group,



This post is to complete what Dr. Schuiling (mineral carbonation) and 
Dr. Salter (SRM by marine cloud brightening) said, and also to complete 
several previous remarks made by Dr. Rau saying that we can’t talk of 
CDR, ignoring ocean-based and/or abiotic negative energy systems +/- 
ocean C storage, as the oceans represent 70% of the Earth’s surface!




Any ranking has to consider not only the well-known cooling parameters, 
like SRM dependant albedo increase, CO2 depletion by assimilation, CO2 
burial by BECCS but also the less discussed like methane depletion by 
enhancing the atmospheric oxidation or the CO2 increase by SRM dimming. 
Many examples of such alternative cooling parameters have been given by 
Gaïa before during the numerous Ice Ages on Earth by dust-induced 
cooling. Recent work shows that iron, an important component of 
air-borne mineral dust, has at least 12 cooling effects and, to our 
knowledge, is the only known one which acts both on the troposphere, the 
continents, the oceans and the sediments:




Troposphere

Iron salt aerosols accelerates the depletion of GHGs like methane and 
ozone and also the depletion of soot aerosols, by °Cl atom and °OH atom 
emission, Fenton oxidation and photo Fenton oxidation.


Also iron salt aerosols (ISA) increase cloud albedo: photocatalytic 
processes make the oxidic iron hygroscopic and enhance its iron 
solubility. This enhances the aerosols transparency, makes it lighter 
colored and provides it with an enhanced cloud condensation affinity.


SO2, NOx and organic emissions from natural sources or from 
anthropogenic ones, generate sulfuric, nitric and organic acids. These 
acids transform sea salt spray into HCl and accelerate photolytic °Cl 
atom generation from ISA. Also NOx accelerates the photolytic °Cl atom 
production by ISA.




Oceans

Iron salt aerosols activates the CO2 assimilation of phytoplankton by 
micronutrient fertilization. Phytoplankton blooms emit DMS and 
chloro-organic molecules. Their oxidation products increase the cloud 
albedo.


H2SO4 (from DMS oxidation) further increases the chlorine ISA-induced 
methane (and VOC) depletion by HCl generation from sea-spray.




Continents and sediments

Iron salt aerosols deposition acts as a micro-nutrient fertilizer on 
plants suffering from chlorosis (iron deficiency) and increase the CO2 
assimilation and the plant-induced CO2 weathering to HCO3-


The desert varnish build up by ISA induces methane and ozone-depletion.

Last but not least, methane consuming microbes within iron-poor 
environments like peat bogs, wetlands, sediments and thawing permafrost, 
are activated by ISA, and methane producing micro-organisms are 
inhibited: the result is a reduction of the methane emissions from these 
environments.




To our knowledge the Iron salt aerosols method proposed 
 is the only 
yet proposed CE method which natural equivalent during the paleo 
climates during the glacial times has been verified numerous times. This 
verification includes all kinds of properties of the ISA method, not 
only its many CE cooling activities, it includes its influences on the 
marine and continental ecosystems.




The natural ISA method equivalent is the iron containing mineral dust 
blown off in high emission rates from dry grounds with low vegetation 
cover during the glacial time. This fruitful loess soil building dust 
cooled up to 9 °C the global climate during glacial time climate by the 
same mechanisms. Like the ISA method this natural cooling mechanism used 
only the ingredients dust, sunshine and sea-spray to generate the 
climate cooling.


In comparison to its natural equivalent, the “Iron salt aerosols method 
” needs only 
to stop further climate warming and a global climate cooling of 1 °C in 
maximum.




The ISA method acts only within the lower part of the troposphere (not 
in the stratosphere). This allows:


·regional restriction of the ISA method to regional parts of the 
planet’s surface;


·easy process control by enlarging or reducing the ISA covered 
surface


·immediate stop when the desired climate temperature has been 
achieved


·reduction of possible negative influences on ecosystems (like 
cloud albedo increase on regional parts of the Earth surface)




The iron salt aerosols method is cheap, feasible, and is already 
occurring (some scientist think anthropogenic emissions of soluble 
bio-available iron already have increased the marine productivity up to 
50% in some regions, compared to pre-industrial era), it only needs to 
be enhanced.




Like Dr. Eisenberger and Dr. Cady, we look forward for a scoring system 
able to perform an independent and honest comparison of the ISA method, 
towards other GHGR, CDR and SRM methods. Hopefully, the GeoMIP might be 
able to perform it!




Best