Re: [geo] A Republican likes geoengineering. Is that middle ground?
It's clear from Congressman Smith's endorsement of geoengineering that he sees it as preferable to regulations that would reduce emissions. I would call that reckless and radical rather than "middle of the road". Brian Cartwright * > Technology Advances Civilization. Bureaucrats Do Not > > [image: Photo of Rep. Lamar Smith] > > <http://dailycaller.com/author/replsmith/> > > *Rep. Lamar Smith <http://dailycaller.com/author/replsmith/>* > > <http://dailycaller.com/author/replsmith/> > > *Chairman, House Science Space, and Technology Committee > <http://dailycaller.com/author/replsmith/>* > > > > 2:44 AM 01/29/2018 > > Technology has advanced civilizations throughout history. Even in ancient > civilizations, such as during the Bronze Age, technological innovation > improved the quality of life for millions of people around the world. More > recently, innovations have continued at increased speed. For instance, > important technologies have led to lifesaving medical cures and affordable > energy through hydraulic fracturing. > > Technological innovation takes many forms in many fields of science. One > area that needs more focus is climate change. As the climate continues to > change, as it always has, we should look to technology to solve possible > problems. These technologies could help us both mitigate challenges and > adapt to our ever-evolving world. > > This opinion is shared by some of the world’s brightest minds. The head of > the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute recently wrote, > “Technology and innovation, rather than sweeping federal mandates, offer > the best approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the > impacts of climate change.” Likewise, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, > one of the most successful technology companies in history, has pushed for > a greater focus on technology solutions. In 2016, Mr. Gates launched a new > private sector technology fund with an initial investment of $1 billion. > > We should celebrate this type of thinking and these actions. For too long, > the government has tried to use mandatory regulations to address climate > change. The previous administration proposed extensive climate regulations > like the Clean Power Plan, which would have driven up basic living costs > for all Americans. And its impact on climate change was negligible. The > plan would have reduced global temperatures by only 0.03 degrees Celsius > and reduced sea level rise by the thickness of three sheets of paper. > > The Paris Climate Accord, which incorporated environmental pledges from > countries around the world, failed to meet any type of arbitrary climate > goal. An analysis by Bjorn Lomborg, the former director of Denmark’s > Environmental Assessment Institute and advocate for long-term climate > solutions, found that the Accord would only reduce global temps up to 0.17 > degrees Celsius by 2100! > > Another area of research that has been overlooked for too long is > geoengineering. This concept involves using technology to make positive > changes in our atmosphere. While this subject is at the basic research > phase, many concepts are groundbreaking and warrant further investigation. > One such area of research is solar radiation management, which involves > slightly altering the amount of sunlight that penetrates and warms the > earth. Another concept, greenhouse gas reduction, involves altering the > makeup of gases in our atmosphere to ensure that levels remain safe. > > In November, the Science Committee held a hearing on the topic of > geoengineering with government, academic, think tank, and industry > witnesses. During the hearing, experts commented on the potential power of > these innovative concepts and advocated further research. While we do not > yet know if these concepts will work, we should explore them further and > encourage the innovative minds that are using technology to find solutions. > > By focusing our resources on basic research, we can find solutions that > meet our needs. America is home to some of the best scientists and greatest > scientific facilities in the world. Supporting our scientists with adequate > resources for technology innovation will unlock ideas and concepts that can > be employed by private industry. Broad, burdensome, ineffective government > regulations are not, and never will be, the solution. > > As in the past, by letting technology lead the way, Americans will reap > the benefits and enjoy a better quality of life. > > *Congressman Lamar Smith represents the 21st district of Texas in the > House of Representatives and is the Chairman of the House Science
[geo] Re: [CDR] Going natural
To save some the time of listening to Walter’s 45-minute exposition, here is a synopsis of some main points. His overall argument is that changes in land management can create physical and hydrological conditions that have an overall cooling effect. He advocates creating a “soil carbon sponge” by increasing vegetation, soil fungal and microbial activity which sequesters carbon. Retaining more water and slowing its passage through landscapes facilitates plant evapotranspiration which absorbs heat energy. The albedo effect of hot bare ground results in markedly greater infrared radiation than vegetated ground. He says that the natural greenhouse effect has gotten more intense because we put up 3 billion tons/year of dust from burning grasslands and crop stubbles, which add to the 8 billion tons from fossil fuels. The fine particles of this dust create heat-retaining hazes such as the “Asian brown haze” that extends from the Mediterranean to China. Particles are too fine to act as precipitation nuclei, so there is persistent overheating. To address this he prescribes increasing fungal breakdown of such litter, or increased grazing activity, the cow being an ideal compost producer. Healthy precipitation clouds feature larger particles of three types: ice crystals, salt crystals and certain bacteria generated from forests. This type of clouds can reflect up to 120 W/m2 of incoming solar radiation. Another cooling effect of healthy precipitation patterns and reducing heat retention is opening nighttime radiation windows as with the cooling observed in tropics after typical afternoon rain. I'd recommend watching the video to get the benefit of Walter's colorful delivery. Brian -- 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] Re: [CDR] Going natural
... and the all-important link: https://vimeo.com/251739209 Brian On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-5, Brian Cartwright wrote: > > Thanks to Andrew and Greg. I didn't go through paywall but my comment > picks up on the mention of "land management" as a way to accomplish CDR. > > I'd like to suggest that land management can be seen as a way to do > hydrological cooling where carbon reduction is NOT the primary metric of > success. This video of a Walter Jehne webinar from last week is a thorough > exposition of this approach. The possibility to change hydrology through > what he calls restoring the "soil carbon sponge" carries the promise of > much shorter-term cooling than the assumption that cooling will always be > in lockstep with atmospheric CO2 levels. Walter's presentation runs from > 4:00 to 52:00 so not short, but I recommend it. Then there's a 16-minute > case study from western Saudi Arabia by Neil Spackman, and Q > > I'd be very interested in feedback from this group on Walter's ideas about > climate cooling. > > Brian Cartwright > > On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 11:30:59 PM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> >> Date: 6 Jan 2018 18:11 >> Subject: [CDR] Going natural >> To: "Carbon Dioxide Removal" <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> >> Cc: >> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0048-y >> >> "Completely stopping fossil fuel use may not be enough to avoid dangerous >> climate change. Recent research on the mitigation potential of >> conservation, restoration, and improved land management demonstrates that >> natural solutions can reduce emissions and remove atmospheric CO2 while >> safeguarding food security and biodiversity." >> >> GR - Why only focus on 30% of the globe? Any potential negative effects >> we need to know about, like can "natural" systems feed 7.6B people? >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to carbondiox...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/440128918.1638579.1515262246453%40mail.yahoo.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/440128918.1638579.1515262246453%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >> . >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] Re: [CDR] Going natural
Thanks to Andrew and Greg. I didn't go through paywall but my comment picks up on the mention of "land management" as a way to accomplish CDR. I'd like to suggest that land management can be seen as a way to do hydrological cooling where carbon reduction is NOT the primary metric of success. This video of a Walter Jehne webinar from last week is a thorough exposition of this approach. The possibility to change hydrology through what he calls restoring the "soil carbon sponge" carries the promise of much shorter-term cooling than the assumption that cooling will always be in lockstep with atmospheric CO2 levels. Walter's presentation runs from 4:00 to 52:00 so not short, but I recommend it. Then there's a 16-minute case study from western Saudi Arabia by Neil Spackman, and Q I'd be very interested in feedback from this group on Walter's ideas about climate cooling. Brian Cartwright On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 11:30:59 PM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net > > Date: 6 Jan 2018 18:11 > Subject: [CDR] Going natural > To: "Carbon Dioxide Removal" <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com > > > Cc: > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0048-y > > "Completely stopping fossil fuel use may not be enough to avoid dangerous > climate change. Recent research on the mitigation potential of > conservation, restoration, and improved land management demonstrates that > natural solutions can reduce emissions and remove atmospheric CO2 while > safeguarding food security and biodiversity." > > GR - Why only focus on 30% of the globe? Any potential negative effects we > need to know about, like can "natural" systems feed 7.6B people? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to carbondiox...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/440128918.1638579.1515262246453%40mail.yahoo.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/440128918.1638579.1515262246453%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Can CCS and NET enable the continued use of fossil carbon fuels after CoP21?
To Olaf, I don't think it was Andrew's own statement that CCS is cheap and secure; he's posting a cut of an abstract that is of interest just because CCS is geoengineering-related. I do appreciate your cautions about CCS and am interested in the potential for natural processes to sequester CO2 with materials such as olivine. What is the most efficient means of achieving this sequestration in terms of the embodied energy of the process? Brian > > -- 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] Re: Q: Eric Toensmeier, author of The Carbon Farming Solution
Thanks for posting this, Andrew. I haven't read Eric's book but have followed these methods among permaculturists and other regenerative farmers. I would just like to add that I don't think the climate benefits of regenerative agriculture are a simple function of sequestered carbon corresponding to a reduction in atmospheric CO2. Eric mentions in the Q that increased organic matter in soil increases moisture retention. This has enormous hydrological benefits. By holding water in the soil sponge, we can increase support for vegetation, evaporative cooling, reduce the baking and radiation from exposed bare soil, and create small-cycle precipitation. It seems to me self-evident that by proliferating this kind of localized hydrological cooling, we could broaden its effect to regional or global scope. Since atmospheric CO2 levels only come down over decades, this interim cooling is imperative. Brian On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 1:25:45 PM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > http://www.chelseagreen.com/blogs/qa-eric-toensmeier-author-carbon-farming-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 importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions
Thank you for your message, Vera. I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making between biomass plantations and historical human land use changes. I think that serious degradation is possible from either path to the degree they depart from a natural and biodiverse ecosystem. "Plantation" usually refers to a massive monoculture project. I don't have access to your article but only the abstract. The point I was trying to make in my posting is that CCS in underground formations should be evaluated on its own terms, not being "greenwashed" by association with the biomass source of the CO2 being sequestered. Best wishes, Brian Cartwright On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Vera Heck <h...@pik-potsdam.de> wrote: > Dear Brian, > > here a very recently published article of mine on the ‚greenness‘ of tCDR > via biomass plantations. Although it does not cover carbon storage, the > conclusion is that tCDR via biomass plantations should probably not be > considered green geoengineering. I hope this is interesting for you! > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818115301612 > > Best regards; > Vera > > > Vera Heck > PhD Student > Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research > Research Domain I: Earth System Analysis > > Telegraphenberg A 62 > 14412 Potsdam, Germany > Ph.: +49-331-288 2458 > http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/veraheck > > > > > > Am 06.12.2015 um 14:09 schrieb Brian Cartwright < > briancartwrig...@gmail.com>: > > To geoengineering, > > I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy > with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing? > > On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling > emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is what has been > happening for billions of years. > > Is this in fact what happens when pressurized CO2 is injected into > underground formations? Or is that conversion such a slow process that we > have an expensive engineered time bomb in the interim? > > These facts don't appear in any discussion I've seen, and as a layman I > think they are central to evaluating CCS. Without knowing whether injected > CO2 verifiably creates stable carbonates I tend to think CCS is > ill-conceived, and photosynthesis is by far my preference for managing CO2. > > Brian > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> >> >> http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D >> >> The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions >> > > < snipped > > >> > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] Re: Marin Carbon Project : Science
Thanks for posting, Andrew. Marin Carbon Project (MCP) has gotten a lot of attention for dramatic documented results with compost application on rangeland. I think these results beg the question of *how that carbon is sequestered, *though. Is it from the actual mass of carbon in the applied compost? No, and if that were the mechanism then the staggering volume of compost required would be unfeasible. The message that unfortunately doesn't come through in MCP's web page is about biodiversity. Successful application of compost works as an inoculation of a whole web of organisms - bacteria, fungi, arthropods and worms - which populate healthy soil and cycle nutrients and carbon in symbiosis with plant roots. Given that this biodiverse community belowground has the function of sequestering carbon, why not include animal life in the mix? A California rangeland should not restrict its aboveground population to the four-wheelers and men with clipboards seen in MCP's web page. The role of small animals, birds and ruminants are integral to the cycling of nutrients and carbon; it's been pointed out that without animals all nutrients would flow endlessly downhill. Ecological balance on the land developed from the co-evolution of all these species. My concern here is that the benefits of compost application should not be considered in isolation. Brian On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:04:06 PM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Poster's note : please do follow the 'read more' links online, where > you'll find full papers and much additional information > > http://www.marincarbonproject.org/marin-carbon-project-science > -- 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] Re: Fw: COP 21 final text
Thanks Greg. I have been watching the language included in successive drafts during the week and the mention of sinks, especially balancing sources and sinks, is a positive change. I'd also point out section 31, where the Ad Hoc Working Group is requested to elaborate "to include all categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals in their nationally determined contributions and, once a source, sink or activity is included, continue to include it". The significance there is that countries acting individually can designate sinks such as soil as solutions to balance emissions. One such initiative is the "4 pour 1000" announced by the French agriculture minister Stéphane Le Foll which advocates for increasing organic matter and soil carbon content by 0.4% per year especially in agricultural land, and makes the case for the food security benefits as well as for climate. This HuffPost article lays it out well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-rijsberman/is-food-security-breaking_b_8750512.html As the article notes, many individual countries were emphasizing agriculture in the conference, but the word "agriculture" and indeed "soil" do not appear in the final agreement, suggesting there was resistance to the global inclusion of soil carbon sinks. No matter. Countries are still empowered by the agreement to credit themselves with soil carbon sequestration, whether by agricultural techniques, biochar, or other methods. This is a central success of the conference which deserves wide notice. Brian On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:36:52 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote: > > http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf > > Of relevance to CDR: > "Article 4 > 1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article > 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon > as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing > country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance > with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between > anthropogenic emissions by sources and *removals by sinks *of greenhouse > gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in > the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. > > Article 5 > 1. *Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, > sinks and reservoirs *of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, > paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests. > > Article 13 > …. > 7. Each Party shall regularly provide the following information: > (a) A national inventory report of anthropogenic emissions by sources *and > removals by sinks of greenhouse gases*, prepared using good practice > methodologies accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and > agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the > Parties to the Paris Agreement" > > GR - Unclear what "as appropriate" means. When would it be inappropriate > to conserve or enhance GHG sinks? Unclear why forests are specifically > called out since they are less than half of the global bio CO2 sink. Anyway > "sinks" seem to be on equal policy footing with sources in the management > of air GHG. One can only hope that commensurate policy and R support > for sink enhancement will follow. > -- 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] Re: The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions
To geoengineering, I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing? On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is what has been happening for billions of years. Is this in fact what happens when pressurized CO2 is injected into underground formations? Or is that conversion such a slow process that we have an expensive engineered time bomb in the interim? These facts don't appear in any discussion I've seen, and as a layman I think they are central to evaluating CCS. Without knowing whether injected CO2 verifiably creates stable carbonates I tend to think CCS is ill-conceived, and photosynthesis is by far my preference for managing CO2. Brian On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > > http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D > > The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions > < snipped > > -- 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] Re: Deich recap on Oxford GGR conf
To the geoengineering group, What are the ramifications of calling for "carbon removal"? I think the issue is more than semantic hair-splitting. I addressed this by responding a month ago to Noah Deich's article analogizing carbon to trash: http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog/2015/9/7/reduce-recycle-and-clean-up-what-waste-management-can-teach-us-about-controlling-carbon-emissions Blaming carbon for climate change is quite easy to do these days, but I'd suggest it is throwing away the best means we have to buffer and moderate climate by regenerating soil and landscapes. Brian On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 6:13:11 PM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog/2015/10/3/recap-oxford-conference-on-carbon-removal > > > October 3, 2015 > > Recap: Oxford Conference on Carbon Removal > > Noah Deich > > Background: The Oxford Martin School convened a “Greenhouse Gas > Removal Conference” over the three days spanning September, 30 to > October 2, 2015. Around 100 people from academia, industry, and NGOs > attended to share updates on promising carbon removal research and > innovation, and to discuss strategies for the field to gain the policy > support it needs to flourish. Being one of, if not the only, > conference dedicated to the concept of carbon removal, the event > provided a good look into the state of the carbon removal field today. > Here’s are the three most important things I took away from the event: > > Researchers from across the world gathered in Oxford for the > Greenhouse Gas Removal Conference hosted by the Oxford Martin School. > > 1. Research and development of carbon removal solutions is progressing > in a number of the carbon removal fields. For one, there was > encouraging data presented by the community of researchers that are > investigating ways to enhance the natural ability of silicate minerals > to sequester carbon directly from the air. While there still were a > number of presentations that relied on back-of-the-envelope > calculations to suggest the potential of this technique for carbon > removal, work such as that by Dutch researcher Francesc Montserrat is > staring to show real laboratory-scale enhanced weathering processes > actually doing what the scientists have suggested they will do. > > In addition, the direct air capture (DAC) field is commercializing > rapidly. Climeworks announced closing a commercial sales contract on a > 1,000 t/yr plant in Germany, Carbon Engineering talked about getting > close to inking commercial off-take contracts for solar fuels; Global > Thermostatshowed calculations showing how they could get below the > $50/t price point for DAC CO2. The big caveat here is that DAC > developers aren’t focusing on carbon removal in the short-term, as the > markets for DAC sequestration aren't large enough. That said, many of > the practitioners in the DAC companies that I spoke with expressed > confidence that as soon as carbon prices (or other mechanisms for > supporting carbon sequestration) rise considerably, DAC companies will > have a clear path to delivering net-negative carbon emissions. > > 2. But there are still numerous uncertainties surrounding all of the > carbon removal solutions, particularly around the sustainable scale > potential. Biosequestration (e.g. reforestation, soil carbon > sequestration, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) still > remains a highly uncertain prospect for carbon removal. Guy Lomax from > the Nature Conservancy shared details of his most recent analysis that > estimated that such biosequestration approaches are likely quite > large, but not enormous – "you can't sequester the geosphere in the > biosphere" was the quote that resonated the most with me from his > talk. On the bioenergy with carbon capture front, scientists from > Greenpeace and from DAC company Carbon Engineering alike shared the > view that the sustainable biomass potential is likely constrained > significantly,given the indirect land use considerations and potential > competition for land with food crops. This view on biomass constraints > doesn't seem to be shared with the climate modeling community: Andy > Wiltshire from the UK Met Office shared that the average build out of > bioenergy with carbon capture in modeling scenarios sequesters over > 160 billion tons of carbon dioxide over the next century (equivalent > to four times current emission levels today) -- which would involve > bioenergy production on land larger than all of India. > > > 3. The policy and governance conversation around carbon removal is > fairly advanced – likely much further advanced than the actual > solutions are themselves. This is both a good and bad thing. On the > one hand, these discussions are critical for thinking through > potential future impacts of carbon removal and how to provide > incentives to scale up carbon removal solutions in an
[geo] Re: Reduce, recycle, remove: what waste management can teach us about controlling carbon emissions — The Center for Carbon Removal
The article which Andrew posted was from http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog/2015/9/7/reduce-recycle-and-clean-up-what-waste-management-can-teach-us-about-controlling-carbon-emissions and my previous comment was posted there briefly last weekend but all comments have now been removed. Attached graphic is from the same article, which I referred to in my comment. It is derived from the familiar "reduce - reuse - recycle" which I see as a milestone on the way to what is now called a "circular economy". Noah Deich's analogy between managing solid waste and managing the CO2 in the atmosphere is instructive but my point is that his cycle is not a cycle: just as burying the residue of solid waste is a dead-end, so is burying CO2. I see no persuasive case made that putting CO2 in underground pressurized storage is either safe or, as importantly, a sensible destination for a valuable resource. The roster of carbon removal solutions on offer at centerforcarbonremoval.org includes passing reference to soil sequestration, but the catch-phrase "carbon landfilling" tips us off that earth's natural carbon cycle is not being taken seriously. Brian On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:11:52 AM UTC-4, Brian Cartwright wrote: > > Posted this morning in response: > > You accept without question the status quo approach to “trash”: > "1) reduce waste production, > 2) recycle as much of the remaining waste as possible, and > 3) remove the rest in sealed landfills that protect the environment from > the consequences of this pollution." > The reason I put “trash” in quotes is that I don’t accept that a material > is valueless by virtue of being discarded. All three phases of the 3 R’s > you list represent our failure to manage our material resources wisely, and > the wholesale removal of those resources also has negative consequences as > many of those resources become scarce. > > So this is not the basis for a good analogy to managing atmospheric > carbon, although it is more or less the approach being taken in the growing > “carbon landfilling” industry. Since the carbon which you seek to discard > is not yet diminishing from efforts at source reduction, let’s look at step > two: recycling. I would suggest that the top three lines in your 3 R’s > graphic under “Remove” are in fact excellent modes of carbon recycling: > “ecosystem restoration, reforestation and carbon farming”. With enormous > ancillary benefits beyond the task of “removing” carbon, these are methods > proven to restore carbon to soil from which it has been severely depleted. > Underground storage, by contrast, has no ecological benefits and long-term > risks: when we should be keeping elemental carbon cycling in living > ecosystems, why would we prefer to pressurize and bury the relatively > larger CO2 molecule, representing a leakage threat in perpetuity? The logic > of bypassing our natural carbon cycle in favor of such schemes can only > perhaps be explained by the leverage of vested interests of the fossil fuel > industry. > -- 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] Re: Reduce, recycle, remove: what waste management can teach us about controlling carbon emissions — The Center for Carbon Removal
Posted this morning in response: You accept without question the status quo approach to “trash”: "1) reduce waste production, 2) recycle as much of the remaining waste as possible, and 3) remove the rest in sealed landfills that protect the environment from the consequences of this pollution." The reason I put “trash” in quotes is that I don’t accept that a material is valueless by virtue of being discarded. All three phases of the 3 R’s you list represent our failure to manage our material resources wisely, and the wholesale removal of those resources also has negative consequences as many of those resources become scarce. So this is not the basis for a good analogy to managing atmospheric carbon, although it is more or less the approach being taken in the growing “carbon landfilling” industry. Since the carbon which you seek to discard is not yet diminishing from efforts at source reduction, let’s look at step two: recycling. I would suggest that the top three lines in your 3 R’s graphic under “Remove” are in fact excellent modes of carbon recycling: “ecosystem restoration, reforestation and carbon farming”. With enormous ancillary benefits beyond the task of “removing” carbon, these are methods proven to restore carbon to soil from which it has been severely depleted. Underground storage, by contrast, has no ecological benefits and long-term risks: when we should be keeping elemental carbon cycling in living ecosystems, why would we prefer to pressurize and bury the relatively larger CO2 molecule, representing a leakage threat in perpetuity? The logic of bypassing our natural carbon cycle in favor of such schemes can only perhaps be explained by the leverage of vested interests of the fossil fuel industry. -- 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] Re: Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog
Thanks, Stephen, but isn't it true that most CCN over the Amazon are of biological origin? To put it in very plain language, the typical assumption about where rain comes from is that it blows in from the ocean. I'm interested to what extent it is pulled in by forests. Do you think deforestation and degradation of vegetation on drylands create weather dead zones, by losing the biological capacity to transpire moisture? Thanks to all for your input! Brian On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 7:53:52 AM UTC-4, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All Below is a map from Ben Parkes PhD thesis which tested the idea for coded-modulation of the CCN concentrations in a climate model. Marine cloud brightening in a pink sea area will increase precipitation in the black target area. The blue bits will dry it. These blue bits are in reasonable agreement with the Jones Haywood Boucher paper which said bad things would happen if we did MCB off Namibia. It seems that there are plenty of pink places which can rescue the Amazon but not many climate modeller who are interested in replicating the Parkes work. If anyone asks I can send them maps for the world-wide effects of 89 spray regions and an explanation of the coded modulation idea. Understanding why spray south of the Aleutians will help the Amazon ought to be worth a prize or two. The next bit would be to test marine cloud brightening according to the phase of el Nino and Monsoons. Stephen -- 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] Re: Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog
To the geoengineering group, I'm curious whether group members are familiar with the biotic pump model of Gorshkov and Makarieva; this article gives a quick introduction: http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html A big climate benefit of inland forests is that phase change from evapotranspiration - condensation creates low-pressure areas that pull in moisture and create healthy weather circulation. Seems to me that widespread deforestation is aggravating stalled hot-weather trends by blocking this kind of circulation. The leaf area of a mature forest offers considerably more surface area for evaporation than the same area of open water on ocean or inland lake. Brian Cartwright -- 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] Keystone pipeline veto importance?
Thanks for weighing in, Andrew. I agree that pricing is the effective signal in this market; note that there are not major investments being made in infrastructure like refining, because there are not secure long-term new supplies. This is an opportunist industry at this point. Saudi pricing leverage is having greater effect than activism, unfortunately. If I were dictator there would be a tax to level prices, neutralize price wars and incentivize clean energy. Brian On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 7:06:06 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: With my moderator hat on If people think this is an appropriate topic for the list, it would be helpful to have some numbers to demonstrate why. The pipeline would have to make a significant difference to price globally to significantly increase the quantity of FF demanded by the market. Will it do this? I have seen no evidence here, or elsewhere. If not, this is off-topic. Without my moderator hat on... My personal view is that carbon taxation or energy-efficiency regulations are far more effective a tool to manage carbon output than what environmentalists call site battles (squabbling over this-or-that piece of infrastructure). Site battles lead to haphazard and irrational decisions. As an aside: The pipeline could potentially be reused in the post-oil age to redistribute hydrogen, biofuels, water, etc. -- 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] Re: Harvard’s David Keith Knows How to Dial Down the Earth’s Thermostat. Is It Time to Try? | Re/code
David Keith comes across as quite logical here, doesn't he? The failure to rein in emissions is the main, indeed the only rationale he gives for the necessity of his brand of geoengineering to be tried out. and since emissions reduction gets near-exclusive attention from public media and intergovernmental conferences, his arguments steadily gain in persuasiveness. There is another failure in evidence, however: the failure to see climate change as a natural process that may be reversible if understood not just in technological terms but as a largely biological process. Participants in this list debate the distinctions between SRM and CDR which define technological handles to be applied to the earth's atmospheric and oceanic envelopes; I would caution however that without the complex ecologies created by millions of other species our power to manipulate the climate would be nonexistent. In engineering terms, reversal of overall climate warming trends clearly requires massive sequestration of atmospheric CO2, which is not addressed by Keith's methods. Yet CDR as an alternative is, I think, an ambiguous category because removal is ecologically meaningless. Where is the removed carbon to be disposed of? The ongoing boondoggle of CCS is a painful example of technological solutions that have no relation to natural cycles; it treats carbon like some poison that needs to be locked away forever. Some methods offered under the category of CDR do indeed support natural cycles, however. Biochar for example certainly has a place in sequestering carbon in soil and jumpstarting microbial communities. I would suggest that the way to correct climate imbalance is not to remove but to *use *carbon in the ways it has been used since long before humans learned engineering. The ecological effects of desertification, deforestation, and industrial agriculture are all demonstrably harmful practices which humans have imposed on the biosphere; isn't it self-evident that reversing climate change can be accomplished by reversing these disastrous practices? Brian Cartwright -- 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] Re: Does this graph tell the truth?
Thanks to those list readers who have replied offline. To be clear, I'm not being a data perfectionist or crank about this issue. I do think, however, that the substantial drawdown performed by photosynthesis each year highlights the possibility of reversing CO2 trends. The un-corrected data look like this: http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/introgeo/interactive/examples/6yrco2.gif The challenge, then, is obviously to draw carbon into stable compounds in the soil which do not degrade and return to the atmosphere. Methods for making such sequestration work have been explored by many researchers and farmers, and are gaining credence. One influential Australian soil scientist, Dr. Christine Jones, describes a liquid carbon pathway by which plants in synergy with fungi can store humus (composed of large stable molecules) much deeper in soil than is generally appreciated. A good essay of hers on making agricultural land act as a carbon sink is at: http://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-SoilCarbonAgriculture(18May10).pdf Brian Cartwright On Monday, December 8, 2014 8:02:50 AM UTC-5, Brian Cartwright wrote: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ CO2 levels here are corrected for seasonal cycle. I would suggest that by showing the annual sawtooth effect of photosynthesis and decay/respiration the graph could suggest the potential of the biological cycle to draw down carbon. I know many physical scientists discount this as a given, but when an increasing proportion of earth's surface is deforested, desertified, etc, the natural drawdown effect decreases; it should instead be amplified by restorative human activity and not edited out of our climate data. Brian Cartwright -- 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] Does this graph tell the truth?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ CO2 levels here are corrected for seasonal cycle. I would suggest that by showing the annual sawtooth effect of photosynthesis and decay/respiration the graph could suggest the potential of the biological cycle to draw down carbon. I know many physical scientists discount this as a given, but when an increasing proportion of earth's surface is deforested, desertified, etc, the natural drawdown effect decreases; it should instead be amplified by restorative human activity and not edited out of our climate data. Brian Cartwright -- 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] Reassessment of satellite-based estimate of aerosol climate forcing - Ma - JGR Atmospheres - Wiley
To Greg, This is somewhat off the topic of categorizing geoengineering approaches, but I need to respond to your warnings about considering biological remedies for climate. The remedies being considered in this category are almost without exception simply reversals of damage done by humans, so the alarm about massive restructuring of landscapes is painfully ironic. Deforestation, desertification, oxidation of soil by chemical agriculture - aren't those the massive restructurings of land use that have gotten us here? Similar alarms have been raised about biochar use, a topic that gets some traction on this list. The assertion that biochar could be scaled up to accomplish substantial CDR led some to infer that there were giant plantations being planned for feedstocks. Again this is ironic since the only giant land grabs that are succeeding are for projects such as palm oil. So I would urge this list to allow biological methods an equal place at the table. As Adam points out, plants annually cycle massive amounts of carbon. Enhancing abd assisting biological methods of CDR should not be dismissed since photosynthesis is well understood and proven. Without plants we would have been cooked long ago. And if we let things go the way they are going we may end up without plants. Brian -- 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] Olson gives Spoerl Lecture on geoengineering, climate change solutions | The Lawrentian
To William, Ron and group, Permit me to add some points in favor of biochar to Ron's list. He mentions that soils are a larger sink for carbon than the atmosphere, and there is a need to increase soil carbon. Indeed about half the CO2 in the atmosphere came from soil sources, and the absence of soil carbon causes many ill effects. Sterile and saline soil resulting from overuse of fertilizer which kills off microbial life, desertified soil lacking vegetation that should buffer moisture and cool landscapes, deforested lands whose soil undergoes massive oxidation of newly exposed biota; these are cases of imbalances created in the carbon cycle which need to be corrected not only to control CO2 levels but to restore hydrology to normalize climate patterns. Biochar is a valuable tool to boost and speed the process of re-establishing soil carbon. I hope that consideration of using biochar can be put in the bigger context of the many problems that can be solved by building carbon-rich living soil in the great variety of earth's landscapes. Brian On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:59:28 PM UTC-5, Ron wrote: Dr. Calvin and ccs See few inserts below On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:34 PM, William Calvin wca...@uw.edu javascript: wrote: I start from urgency: lots of climate change in a decade with something of a hiatus in near-surface air warming. Anything effective we do will have a lead time and then a drawdown time. *[RWL1: Agreed.* If that is to be no more than 25 years, we have to both counter the additional emissions (say, 350 GtC) in that period but also remove 300-400 GtC of the existing accumulation. So we are looking at more than 30 GtC/yr of removal from the air, some of which will come from ocean surface bicarbonate buffers reversing. *[RWL2: I agree with your numbers, but have been thinking 50 years - on the theory we should perhaps go down at about the same rate we have come up. I think biochar could do all of the 15 Gt C/yr half, if it expands to include ocean biomass, which is not on very many plates. I concede not many people are thinking many GtC/yr from biochar - but there are quite a few. I think we will want more than one CDR approach; but I have come to the conclusion that biochar has the most potential - and can be much larger than is generally realized. Biochar application practice is known in many countries over millennia.* This time frame says we don't have time for anything that requires time for trees to grow or a lot of development: known processes like photosynthesis are preferable. 30GtC/yr requires a lot of space; on land, it requires a lot of water. That's why I suggest ocean, using local organisms that are sunk into the depths before they can rot. *[RWL3: I believe the time delays will not be in finding the necessary raw biomass in time. I predict the time delay will be in finding the needed funding. My vision for the long term biomass supply is first ag residues, then coppicing, then rapid-growth perennials harvested annually (as with sugar cane), then CAM-type photosynthesis (agaves, etc). All this possibly supported by macro and micro algae (being more photosynthetically efficient), both freshwater and oceans. With all of this, especially oceans, maybe 15 GtC/yr is possible. If you are correct that you can do 30GtC/yr with push-pull ocean resource, then about the same might be (should be??) possible with that same resource placed into soils, rather than back in the ocean. I say the same because the CO2 amount lost in pyrolyzing can/will be offset with out-year increased productivity (especially through improved fungi growth). And since BECCS can be coupled with biochar, even the initial loss can be lower.* * The issue of water is of course one to worry about, but biochar is touted as saving water, which in any case is totally recaptured upon pyrolysis. But I am totally supportive of using ocean water/nutrients to the maximum extent possible.* I've sketched out such a process using push-pull pumps driven by wind and wave, but I would expect a Second Manhattan Project to come up with something better. *[RWL4: I am only proposing that further analysis might show that one pull pump plus pyrolysis and soil deposition might be that “something better”. My reading on your approach suggests there will be opposition, that would not be there if the new biomass is transferred to soils.* I can see biochar etc for longer term approaches, especially for stabilizing CO2 once drawn down. But it does not pass my Big, Quick, and Surefire Test. *[RWL5: Well I suppose any CDR approach can “stabilize” - and the most likely for that will be the one found to be least cost during the “Second Manhattan Project”.* * As to whether biochar passes your “Big, Quick, and Surefire test”, let me offer these points in biochar’s favor for doing so (in
[geo] Re: Climate Engineering short film
Ironic that none of the commenters so far has picked up on the subversive anti-geoengineering undertone of the video. Brian On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:22:58 AM UTC-5, Thilo Wiertz wrote: Dear all, the IASS http://www.iass-potsdam.de/, together with the Climate Media Factory http://www.climatemediafactory.de/, has produced a short animation film on climate engineering. The film is targeted at a younger audience, predominantly pupils, and other interested lay persons with a basic understanding of climate change, but no background on climate engineering. The film is meant to introduce to the topic, to highlight its ambivalent status between hopes and risks, and to spark further discussion. Its available in English and German. Please feel free to share the link with anybody potentially interested: English version: http://youtu.be/3GKjl7afwaY German version: http://youtu.be/5_0JRh9dqD0 Best wishes from Potsdam, Thilo -- 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] David Keith and Clive Hamilton debate
To John and group, There is, as you describe, a logical progression in the direction of carbon sequestration, and I believe soil is the sink of first choice. The methods to put that carbon in the soil vary enormously with the physical and biological features of landscapes that are in need of that carbon. Those variables make it difficult to predict the success of any policy that could be proposed from the top down. Isn't that why soil carbon doesn't receive the advocacy of geoengineers? Biochar as a global proposal for CDR is far more quantifiable, but the real long-term benefits of biochar come from the multiplier effect when it supports and stimulates biological activity. Here again, the restoration process happens from the bottom up. So I'd emphasize that the engineering tendency to prescribe only big technical fixes on the assumption that social change is impossible wastes the best and most hopeful avenues for sequestration. By not even mentioning soil carbon, geoengineers allow CDR to be construed as primarily another set of expensive and risky technologies. I don't pretend to know the best remedy for the Arctic crisis, but I hope geoengineers will be mindful of the many hopeful actions that can be taken on the ground by fully empowering the public and supporting ecological restoration. Brian On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:53:39 PM UTC-5, John Nissen wrote: Brian, I absolutely agree with you. We need agitation for CDR with improved food production: from land, lakes and sea. The current wisdom is one track mentality. But it is moving closer to reality, step by step: (1) Reduce CO2 emissions - by each of us reducing our carbon footprint - and all will be well, (2) Reduce CO2 emissions, but even if we manage, it will not be sufficient to prevent climate change, so we will all have to adapt to this. Then we'll be OK. (3) Reduce CO2 emissions, but, even in the best scenario, there will be at least 4 degrees warming. We must learn to adapt to this. It will be tough. Inevitably poor countries will suffer. Then your read Mark Lynas Six degrees, and you watch Wasdell's video, and you read from AR5 about the carbon budget which excludes significant feedbacks. And you realise we are in a heck of a crisis. What the current wisdom is lacking is wisdom. It is wise (actually plain common sense) to be reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, because even 2 degrees global warming may be extremely dangerous for all of us. We cannot afford to wait for this to be proved. We must give the best chance of future generations having a hospitable planet to enjoy. (4) Reduce CO2 emissions drastically and drawdown CO2 on a grand scale at the same time. Then there's a chance of avoiding dangerous climate change and ocean acidification. Then you read about what's happening in the Arctic, and you realise that it is heading for meltdown, and there seems nothing to do about it. Arctic warming is already causing climate disruption. Meltdown would mean a massive sea level rise and the release of masses of methane. So the crisis is even worse that you could have possibly imagined. But you must remember there is always SRM. Fortunately several SRM techniques could together provide enough cooling power. (5) Reduce CO2 emissions drastically and drawdown CO2 on a grand scale. At the same time, and with even greater urgency, cool the Arctic using the best possible mix of SRM cooling techniques, to give best possible chance of saving the sea ice and preventing further meltdown. Geoengineering to the rescue! Cheers, John -- 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] David Keith and Clive Hamilton debate
Thanks, John, for the response. I'm also an advocate of boosting soil carbon with biochar but let me add a couple of comments. As Ron Larsen points out, biochar brings benefits for atmosphere, soil and energy. These should all contribute to providing incentives for its use. In the soil area, it is hardly the only method for sequestering carbon, though. You mention the damage done by chemical inputs in agriculture; a carbon-smart agriculture would use soil biota to exchange and fix nutrients from soil and atmosphere with the result of immense soil C sequestration. Improvements could also result from reversing deforestation and grasslands desertification. These are all essential parts of restoring soil carbon worldwide and they receive virtually no scientific attention or funding. So the situation calls for wide-ranging research, policy discussion,education and even agitation. That is the social change that I urge and support, because methods of restoring soil carbon are generally also methods that strengthen local ecological resilience and restore landscapes. The potential then exists for people to feel hopeful about taking action. When you say that social change does not come into this except to reassure the public, I would ask, don't we have to challenge the prevailing wisdom about what needs to be done to truly reverse climate change? Brian On Sunday, January 19, 2014 7:56:42 AM UTC-5, John Nissen wrote: Hi Brian, The debate between David Keith and Clive Hamilton seems sterile. Plan A, the agreed-upon best scenario, simply won't work to prevent at least 4 degrees warming. Arguably the carbon budget, touted in AR5, has been spent or very nearly spent already. See this short video from David Wasdell [1] for example. Thus the only way to prevent catastrophic warming and catastrophic ocean acidification is by removing CO2 faster than we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. There is no option but to applying CDR geoengineering. The timescale on acidification may be as little as two decades to get CO2 below 350 ppm and prevent the ocean from becoming too acidic. A target of two decades may also be required to keep the future CO2 warming trajectory below 1.5 degrees C (considerably safer than 2 degrees). On top of this we have to cool the Arctic with SRM geoengineering, otherwise the albedo loss and methane forcing are liable to send global warming and climate change towards intolerable extremes. There is evidence that Arctic amplification is already causing an increase in weather extremes through disruption of the jet stream [2]. Thus Plan B has to involve both CDR and SRM. Note that social change does not come into this - except we need to explain to people that geoengineering is not some bad-dream sci-fi dangerous stuff, but practical measures, generally based on processes that occur naturally in nature, either mimicked or boosted. These measures often have extremely beneficial effects, for example putting carbon in soil as biochar can boost crops and reduce requirement for artificial fertilizer - a big contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere. Cloud brightening can reduce sea surface temperature and thereby reduce strength of hurricanes and restore fishing grounds and marine habitats. This is where both David Keith and Clive Hamilton could really help: by explaining to people, in a calm and considered way, the true situation and what can to be done about it with their moral support. Cheers, John [1] http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Fru6Df3Efk [2] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2065.html On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Brian Cartwright briancar...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:23:25 PM UTC-5, Keith Henson wrote: Social change means to the advocates enforcing what they see as frugal morality on people, though, of course, never on the advocates. We on the technical fix side tend in the direction of letting people do fairly much whatever they want, Hummers, frequent air flights and all, as long as we can provide the energy and ecological support to let it happen. *[snipped]* *Yes, in this context social change means cutting back emissions and promoting alternative energy, and there may be components of frugal morality in that campaign. In the David vs. Clive debate, that social change is, shall we say, the unspoken Plan A, the agreed-upon best scenario. My question is, how does geoengineering, in this case SRM, get pushed forward as Plan B? Is there no better Plan B?* *Briefly, there is: the imbalance of the global carbon cycle comes partly from the pumping of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but equally from depletion of global soil carbon. And unlike SRM, restoring soil carbon not only has no harmful side-effects, but offers manifold benefits. Isn't it puzzling that this debate is even taking place?* *Brian
Re: [geo] David Keith and Clive Hamilton debate
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:23:25 PM UTC-5, Keith Henson wrote: Social change means to the advocates enforcing what they see as frugal morality on people, though, of course, never on the advocates. We on the technical fix side tend in the direction of letting people do fairly much whatever they want, Hummers, frequent air flights and all, as long as we can provide the energy and ecological support to let it happen. *[snipped]* *Yes, in this context social change means cutting back emissions and promoting alternative energy, and there may be components of frugal morality in that campaign. In the David vs. Clive debate, that social change is, shall we say, the unspoken Plan A, the agreed-upon best scenario. My question is, how does geoengineering, in this case SRM, get pushed forward as Plan B? Is there no better Plan B?* *Briefly, there is: the imbalance of the global carbon cycle comes partly from the pumping of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but equally from depletion of global soil carbon. And unlike SRM, restoring soil carbon not only has no harmful side-effects, but offers manifold benefits. Isn't it puzzling that this debate is even taking place?* *Brian * -- 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] Re: TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
To Ron, I will just insert a few things *like so *to clarify what I think: On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:07:27 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote: Brian and list: See inserts below. Re the first sentence below on Dr. Shiva, see a message I just sent. I go further than you about “rhetorically overstated”. I agree with others that she is dangerous - because she is anti-science, much worse than no science. more below. On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Brian Cartwright briancar...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Just a few comments: Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar and other geoengineering ideas (role ... should be zero) may be rhetorically overstated. But I just want to look at biochar to the extent that it can be called geoengineering. If I could characterize your views, you generally look to extrapolate the role of biochar to sequester the maximum atmospheric CO2. That would be large-scale geoengineering, I think we would agree. And because there could be substantial benefits to soil and energy supply, you argue that this is a superior tool to other CDR proposals. *[RWL1: Yes on last sentence. But I favor Dr. Ken Caldeira’s arguments on this list that geoengineering should be redefined to exclude biochar - because biochar and most CDR approaches are NOT large-scale. I made the point a few posts ago that biochar experiments are happening worldwide at a rate that we can’t keep up with. I see zero hazard to anyone with that happening. Re last sentence - I hope there are other CDR approaches that are as good. I am not trying to keep up with these others, except through this list. The more approaches, the better.* Just removing CO2 from the atmosphere won't cool the planet quickly enough, because of numerous sinks and feedbacks. *[RWL2: Disagree. I know of no peer-reviewed paper making this “irreversibility” claim in a manner I can believe. If we put our mind to it, we can be back at 350 ppm in 50 years. * * * *But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. * * There are others saying this. Those saying there is a much lower maximum are also saying they are making conservative assumptions.]* I advocate soil carbon sequestration for other primary benefits: reversing aridification of enormous areas of land that are increasingly radiating heat because of losing vegetative cover, reversing the damages done by industrial agriculture which have depleted carbon with the plow and with chemical inputs killing off microbes and other soil organisms, and restoring hydrology that comes from forests providing the biological seeds for clouds, and from supporting microclimates to hold moisture in the soil. *[RWL3: All true. But there is zero conflict I know about with any of these benefits and biochar (the main CDR approach falling under “soil carbon sequestration”)* These benefits use water vapor effects that cool much more effectively than CO2 reduction. *[RWL4: I have seen no peer-reviewed paper showing this. Many point out that water vapor is a more effective GHG than CO2. I do think that latent heat transfer has some potential - but believe that in no way conflicts with biochar.]* And yes, CO2 being sequestered is also urgent. Biochar obviously does that. But if you think that biochar has to be given the whole job, the logistical side-effects could be disastrous. *[RWL5: I have seen no “logistical side-effects reported that I take seriously.I am NOT arguing that biochar “be given the whole job”. I just have not seen any other with biochar’s potential. * *I'm just looking for biochar to be presented as a well-engineered component of the re-establishment of healthy carbon-rich soils worldwide. The difference is in the message presented and the democratic potential of empowering people to reverse climate change. If that empowering message doesn't get received then there is the potential to use climate crisis to force top-down solutions which tend to be heavy-handed. Bad biochar is possible in such circumstances.* * Clearly we can and must get a wedge or more of afforestation - but if managed, we can get more CDR by coupling afforestation with biochar. Most analysts also ignore the out year potential of greater NPP and soil carbon - which I think (can’t prove yet) can double the CDR of what goes directly into the ground. To repeat, one Gt C of direct biochar application has a long term impact of any other CDR approach sequestering 2 wedges. I know of no other CDR approach that can make that claim.* I'd rather see us use biochar in concentrated doses (after all, it's still very expensive) as a catalyst and stimulant
[geo] Re: TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Just a few comments: Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar and other geoengineering ideas (role ... should be zero) may be rhetorically overstated. But I just want to look at biochar to the extent that it can be called geoengineering. If I could characterize your views, you generally look to extrapolate the role of biochar to sequester the maximum atmospheric CO2. That would be large-scale geoengineering, I think we would agree. And because there could be substantial benefits to soil and energy supply, you argue that this is a superior tool to other CDR proposals. Just removing CO2 from the atmosphere won't cool the planet quickly enough, because of numerous sinks and feedbacks. I advocate soil carbon sequestration for other primary benefits: reversing aridification of enormous areas of land that are increasingly radiating heat because of losing vegetative cover, reversing the damages done by industrial agriculture which have depleted carbon with the plow and with chemical inputs killing off microbes and other soil organisms, and restoring hydrology that comes from forests providing the biological seeds for clouds, and from supporting microclimates to hold moisture in the soil. These benefits use water vapor effects that cool much more effectively than CO2 reduction. And yes, CO2 being sequestered is also urgent. Biochar obviously does that. But if you think that biochar has to be given the whole job, the logistical side-effects could be disastrous. I'd rather see us use biochar in concentrated doses (after all, it's still very expensive) as a catalyst and stimulant to effective prime soil carbon. quickly boosting mychorrizal fungi and microbial communities, and regreening landscapes. The soil carbon is the priority, and biochar is an invaluable tool for the purpose. We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're putting the cart before the horse. Brian snip -- 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] Re: TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
to euggordon If you read my message you will see I don't rely on reducing atmospheric CO2 but rather on using water vapor effects to cool the planet. Reducing CO2 would be a side benefit. Brian On Oct 28, 2013 10:01 AM, Brian Cartwright briancartwrig...@gmail.com wrote: Just a few comments: Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar and other geoengineering ideas (role ... should be zero) may be rhetorically overstated. But I just want to look at biochar to the extent that it can be called geoengineering. If I could characterize your views, you generally look to extrapolate the role of biochar to sequester the maximum atmospheric CO2. That would be large-scale geoengineering, I think we would agree. And because there could be substantial benefits to soil and energy supply, you argue that this is a superior tool to other CDR proposals. Just removing CO2 from the atmosphere won't cool the planet quickly enough, because of numerous sinks and feedbacks. I advocate soil carbon sequestration for other primary benefits: reversing aridification of enormous areas of land that are increasingly radiating heat because of losing vegetative cover, reversing the damages done by industrial agriculture which have depleted carbon with the plow and with chemical inputs killing off microbes and other soil organisms, and restoring hydrology that comes from forests providing the biological seeds for clouds, and from supporting microclimates to hold moisture in the soil. These benefits use water vapor effects that cool much more effectively than CO2 reduction. And yes, CO2 being sequestered is also urgent. Biochar obviously does that. But if you think that biochar has to be given the whole job, the logistical side-effects could be disastrous. I'd rather see us use biochar in concentrated doses (after all, it's still very expensive) as a catalyst and stimulant to effective prime soil carbon. quickly boosting mychorrizal fungi and microbial communities, and regreening landscapes. The soil carbon is the priority, and biochar is an invaluable tool for the purpose. We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're putting the cart before the horse. Brian snip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/asKgGcYsLh4/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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] Re: Terraforming Earth: Geoengineering megaplan starts now - environment - 09 October 2013 - New Scientist
Remarkably sloppy article. Claims it's urgent to spend trillions $/yr. to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere without specifying what would be done with it. Brian On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 2:51:25 PM UTC-4, George Morrison wrote: *Terraforming Earth: Geoengineering megaplan starts now - environment - 09 October 2013 - New Scientist* http://feedly.com/k/1cwjNPQ shared via http://feedly.com -- 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] Re: World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report - environment - New Scientist
Let me point out that the source quoted in this article only said, CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period. So where does the term geoengineering come in? It appears to be the New Scientist writer's paraphrase of that quote, and only aggravates the presumption that drastic action has to result from failure to control tailpipes and smokestacks. Meanwhile some of the geoengineering thinkers on this group are seeking to limit the term geoengineering to those interventions that most require international governance. Who is speaking up for the natural systems that have always controlled CO2 levels and could play a part in massive draw-down on a global scale? If mitigation is plan A, I would want a robust plan B to give full play to such processes as photosynthesis and restorative agriculture, then *if we need* geoengineering (in the well-governed sense) it is plan C. Brian On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkLSzyO3PFo World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report 11:40 25 September 2013 by Fred Pearce snipped article quotation -- 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] Climate Change's Silver Bullet? Our Interview With One Of The World's Top Geoengineering Scholars | ThinkProgress
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:21:47 AM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: *snip* If we are indeed incapable of rationally controlling CO2 emissions, then, very sadly, looking for viable alternative strategies also appears to be too much to expect. We're indeed doomed. *Greg, I don't accept that mitigating emissions is the only alternative. On another thread I asked why building soil carbon is not included in strategies, and Ken responded that it might be a good idea but wouldn't help in an emergency. So I say, let's do it before there's an emergency and let's not allow the constant obsession with emissions to continue to dominate the discussion. Otherwise geoengineering is an unavoidable Hobson's Choice. By the way, soil carbon has many other benefits and I think you could say photosynthesis is a proven technology.* *Brian* *snip* -- 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] Re: Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com
In response to could be a good idea... wouldn't help in an emergency: Achieving soil carbon sequestration in the United States, Lal, Follett and Kimble 2003 https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/745281/soil-carbon-amp-challenes-to-policy-makers.pdf Better to talk about it now than to wait for an emergency. Brian On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:52:43 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: There are a number of people who are interested in squeezing geoengineering into their pre-established worldview, wherein geoengineering is somehow another manifestation of the evils of crony capitalism and the current world order, and that therefore research into geoengineering as seen as an effort to help crony capitalism and the current world order to persist. Geoengineering may be a response to CO2 emissions that have occurred under the current world order, but that does not mean that geoengineering research per se necessarily supports persistence of the current world order. For example, we have seen calls for international governance of solar geoengineering research. This suggests that solar geoengineering could potentially demonstrate the importance of systems of global governance -- a result that could potentially be antithetical to the interests of crony capitalism. --- Soil carbon storage has been discussed extensively in this and other fora. It could be a good idea but won't help much in an emergency. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Brian Cartwright briancar...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: To Ken, I don't think Naomi Klein was questioning the motives of geoengineering researchers, rather saying that there could be a passive drift toward geoengineering because emissions aren't reduced and climate change continues; indeed even with big emission reductions there will be continued warming that's already in the pipeline. But I will question the motives of geoengineers, and I wish you would answer. Why does soil carbon not figure in the discussion of methods to cool the planet? Isn't it clear that its drastic depletion has resulted in plenty of GHG emissions, as well as setting the stage for hydrological failure? What is it about creating healthy soils that you don't get? The kind of debate that Klein and Joe Romm are engaged in is utterly unhelpful, and the public is justifiably despairing if this is the only discourse they hear. Hence the drift toward ideas like manmade Pinatubos to buy time. Time to do what? Brian Cartwright On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:28:14 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/**05/naomi_klein_big_green_** groups_are_crippling_the_**environmental_movement_**partner/http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/ You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism? I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our power, will just be scaled up. -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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
[geo] Re: Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com
To Ken, I don't think Naomi Klein was questioning the motives of geoengineering researchers, rather saying that there could be a passive drift toward geoengineering because emissions aren't reduced and climate change continues; indeed even with big emission reductions there will be continued warming that's already in the pipeline. But I will question the motives of geoengineers, and I wish you would answer. Why does soil carbon not figure in the discussion of methods to cool the planet? Isn't it clear that its drastic depletion has resulted in plenty of GHG emissions, as well as setting the stage for hydrological failure? What is it about creating healthy soils that you don't get? The kind of debate that Klein and Joe Romm are engaged in is utterly unhelpful, and the public is justifiably despairing if this is the only discourse they hear. Hence the drift toward ideas like manmade Pinatubos to buy time. Time to do what? Brian Cartwright On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:28:14 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/ You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism? I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our power, will just be scaled up. -- 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] New paper: 'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal
To Ken's analogy: I've seen this same Hobson's choice presented by David Keith, between reducing emissions and reducing sunlight. If we're facing the famine in the tropics which you refer to, I believe it's possible to address the proximate causes of that situation, which are desertification and disruption of water cycles, by restoring soil carbon which also takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, using the well-studied geoengineering technique of photosynthesis. Brian Cartwright On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:47:27 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: Let's say you ran a similar poll about administration of morphine. In terms of addressing threats posed by cancer, where would administration of morphine rank relative to removing carcinogens from the environment? *Q: Would you rather avoid cancer by removing carcinogens from the environment, or would you rather take morphine to alleviate cancer pain?* Emissions reductions and solar geoengineering solve different problems. Emissions reductions try to prevent accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Solar geoengineering aims to provide symptomatic relief from that accumulation of greenhouse gases. If we were in a climate crisis with widespread famines in the tropics due to heat-stress induced crop failures, at that point emissions reductions would be ineffective at addressing the near-term problem. At that point, the relative rankings of emissions reduction and solar geoengineering might be different. The cancer patient immersed in pain may be more focused on obtaining morphine than on reducing environmental carcinogens. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snan...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Rob Bellamy rob.b...@yahoo.co.ukjavascript: wrote: Dear all, We have a new paper out online in *Global Environmental Change* that may be of interest to members of the group: *‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate changehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001179 * *Highlights* • Geoengineering proposals are appraised against mitigation options and adaptation. • Broad range of criteria are identified spanning natural, applied and social sciences. • By ‘opening up’ inputs and outputs findings contrast with those of other appraisals. • Ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than mitigation options. • Stratospheric aerosol injection performs poorly here compared with other appraisals. *Abstract* Concerted efforts have begun to appraise deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system known as ‘geoengineering’ in order to provide critical decision support to policy makers around the world. To date geoengineering appraisals have employed narrowly framed inputs (such as context, options, methods and criteria) and ‘closed’ output reflexivity often amounting to unitary and prescriptive policy recommendations. For the first time, in this paper we begin to address these limitations by ‘opening up’ appraisal inputs and outputs to a wider diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We use a Multi-Criteria Mapping methodology to appraise carbon and solar geoengineering proposals alongside a range of other options for responding to climate change with a select but diverse group of experts and stakeholders. Overall option rankings are found to vary considerably between participant perspectives and criteria. Despite these differences, the ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than options for mitigating climate change (including voluntary behaviour change and low carbon technologies). The performance of all options is beset by uncertainty, albeit to differing degrees, and it can often be seen that better performing options are outperformed under their pessimistic scores by poorer performing options under their optimistic scores. Several findings contrast with those of other published appraisals. In particular, where stratospheric aerosol injection has previously outperformed other geoengineering options, when assessed against a broader diversity of criteria (spanning all the identified criteria groups) and other options for responding to climate change it performs relatively poorly. We end by briefly exploring the implications of our analysis for geoengineering technologies, their governance, and appraisal. The work builds upon our earlier paper *A review of climate geoengineering appraisals*http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.197/abstract, published last year in *WIREs Climate Change*. Best wishes, Rob Bellamy
[geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
A lot of geoengineering discussion has the common feature of looking only at the atmosphere. Well, the CO2 that creates warming is part of a carbon cycle that includes reservoirs much larger than the atmosphere: the ocean is the biggest, but another very big place to store carbon is the world's soils. And interestingly, there are manifold environmental problems that can be addressed by restoring carbon to soils. This should include reversing many practices of industrial agriculture which have been responsible for depleting a lot of that carbon. Mr. Keith seems to draw a fence around the problem as if cutting emissions were the only alternative to depriving ourselves of sunlight. I don't buy that. -- Brian Cartwright On Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:11:27 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions. And that fear was broke a few years ago and so now kind of all the research is pouring out really because effectively had been suppressed, not by some terrible suppressor, but by a fear of talking about it.TONY JONES: So what do you think would actually drive the world's superpowers or a collective of nations to decide to actually do this, to go ahead and begin the process of planning and preparing for a geoengineering project?DAVID KEITH: Very, very hard to guess. I mean, essential thing to say about this is that technology is the easy part; the hard part is the politics. Really deeply hard and almost unguessable. At this point we have no regulatory structure whatsoever and no treaty structure, so it's really unclear what would - how such a thing would be controlled.TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence. The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research. And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer. Basically, how much damage there would be and how we could fix
Re: [geo] CIA study
To Ken Caldeira and the geoengineering group, Certainly using the atmosphere as a waste dump has to stop. If atmospheric pollution can be slowed or reversed then the cause of global security is helped, and I agree that an open-source study is preferable to secrecy. I am puzzled by the absence in your discussions of climate mitigation using the vast storage potential of global soils, the magnitude of which was highlighted by this recent study: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-013-1600-9 Speaking of global security issues, there is great promise of enhancing food and water security in areas of the globe with depleted soils, and simple techniques of building carbon storage in those soils are among the cheapest and most effective techniques for what your community calls CDR. Sincerely, Brian Cartwright On Friday, July 19, 2013 11:22:53 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: There is no CIA study. There is a National Academy study that is funded by NOAA, NASA, the CIA, and the National Academy itself. All of these parties had a hand in developing the charge to the committee which is publicly available here: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49540 Neither NOAA, NASA, nor the CIA have anything more to do with this study other than receiving the final committee report. You too will receive this same report. The panel members are listed here: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=49540 We are a diverse groups of academics who share a commitment to openness, free-exchange of ideas, and transparency. I am on record decrying many abuses by the US intelligence community including what I consider to be criminal drone attacks, secret wars, surveillance, etc. If I thought that somehow our report was going to help the CIA do something nefarious, you can be sure that I would not be a participant. I want the US gov't to think through the situation that lies before us with respect to climate change. If a careful thinking through could occur, I think it would result in greatly increased emphasis on transforming our energy system into one that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Motoko moto...@googlemail.comjavascript: wrote: Media coverage for the CIA study. I will keep this up to date for 2 days. http://www.climate-**engineering.eu/single/items/** press-review-cia-is-funding-a-**study-on-ce.htmlhttp://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/press-review-cia-is-funding-a-study-on-ce.html Greetings Nils -- 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 geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineeringhttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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] Re: Apologizing to Lee Lane
To Andrew, anyone not going to the link will not see the name of the person apologizing here, Doug Craig. On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:32:02 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : despite the apologies to Lee, geoengineering does seem to offer a way for deniers to get out of their intellectual dead end. Please excuse lack of paragraphs. I'm ill, and line breaks are not high on my list of priorities! http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/06/apologizing-to.html Apologizing to Lee Lane June 3, 2013 10:22 PM I stand corrected.On May 20, 2013, I posted the second blog in a series with the following title: The conservative flip-flop on climate change (2).In that blog I wrote, While the Hudson Institute regularly publishes articles denying that global warming is real or human-caused, many of those pieces are written by Lee Lane, a resident fellow at AEI and codirector of the AEI Geoengineering Project, who has advocated researching the use of climate engineering (CE) technologies like solar radiation management (SRM).I wrote, Lane was the lead author of a paper that offered, 'a preliminary and exploratory assessment of the potential benefits and costs of climate engineering (CE). We examine two families of CE technologies, solar radiation management (SRM) and air capture (AC), under three emissions control environments: no controls, optimal abatement, and limiting temperature change to 2°C.'I continued to quote Mr. Lane: Our analysis suggests that, today, SRM offers larger net benefits than AC, but that both deserve to be investigated further. In the case of SRM, we investigate three specific technologies: the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere, the increase of marine cloud albedo, and the deployment of a space-based sunshade.We estimate direct benefit-cost (B/C) ratios of around 25 to 1 for aerosols and around 5000 to 1 for cloud albedo enhancement.And then I wrote this:In other words, conservatives insist that global warming is not real or human-caused if the solution is carbon taxes or government regulation. However, if the solution is the highly profitable business of geoengineering, they not only believe global warming is real and human-caused, they think we need to get cracking on saving ourselves from it.In response, Mr. Lane wrote me today, adamantly insisting that I have done him a disservice and that I have not fairly or accurately characterized his views. And he is correct.Lane writes that I made blatantly false and misleading statements about my writings on climate change. You state, 'While the Hudson Institute regularly publishes articles denying that global warming is real or human-caused, many of those pieces are written by Lee Lane, ... who has advocated researching the use of climate engineering (CE) technologies like solar radiation management (SRM).'Mr. Lane writes, In fact, I have never claimed that global warming is not real nor have I ever asserted that humans have not contributed to it. My monograph posted on the Hudson Institute website here places the anthropogenic origins of climate change in a historical context. It also explains why it is extremely unlikely that effective greenhouse gas controls will be deployed on a sufficient scale to avoid climate change damage in the more vulnerable societies, which is the source of my interest in SRM.My monograph on climate engineering is easily accessible here. I challenge you to find any claim in it that disputes either the reality or the anthropogenic roots of climate change.Or, if you only read shorter pieces, you might consult the piece listed here.I excerpt: 'Many Republicans will doubtless again respond by challenging the science that shows that greenhouse gas emissions could cause harmful climate change. Were such challenges directed at poking holes in the often hyped claims of green advocates, they would serve the public interest.'But Senator James Inhofe and many other Republicans go much farther, claiming that manmade climate change is a huge scientific hoax and that greenhouse gas emissions pose no risk.''Hoax, really? Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish Nobel laureate chemist, first described the greenhouse effect in 1896. Science, then, has long known that carbon dioxide and some other naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere cause Earth to be about 30 degrees C warmer than it otherwise would be.''Mankind, by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, is adding to the atmosphere's stock of warming gases. If that process continues, all else being equal, simple logic tells us that the planet will warm further. Warming is highly likely to affect rainfall, clouds, ice cover, and much else.'Not only is your description of my views are grossly misleading, but had you taken even the most rudimentary care to check their accuracy would have clear evidence refuting them. Stop
[geo] Re: CCS efficiencies in using geothermal saline aquifers with methane?
My reason for posting this is not to advocate CCS but to bring attention to what looks like an advance in CCS technology. Efficiencies appear to come from the fact that the geothermal aquifer conveniently does triple duty: supplies dissolved methane, supplies heat, and then receives CO2 for sequestration. I don't know anything about the research funding but the video at this link has the feel of a slick promotion. On Monday, June 3, 2013 3:45:03 AM UTC-4, Brian Cartwright wrote: http://www.energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=64Itemid=71 A team of scientists led by University of Texas at Austin Professor Gary Pope has developed a new, game-changing idea that combines these two technologies and adds another – the dissolution of CO2 into extracted brine, which is then re-injected back into the aquifer. This alternative approach to CO2 injection takes advantage of both dissolved methane and heat content in geo-pressured geothermal saline aquifers. Conservative calculations indicate this alternative method could reduce the cost of CCS such that it could compete in a market environment without subsidies or a price on carbon. Anyone have knowedge or critique of this idea? Brian Cartwright -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] CCS efficiencies in using geothermal saline aquifers with methane?
http://www.energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=64Itemid=71 A team of scientists led by University of Texas at Austin Professor Gary Pope has developed a new, game-changing idea that combines these two technologies and adds another – the dissolution of CO2 into extracted brine, which is then re-injected back into the aquifer. This alternative approach to CO2 injection takes advantage of both dissolved methane and heat content in geo-pressured geothermal saline aquifers. Conservative calculations indicate this alternative method could reduce the cost of CCS such that it could compete in a market environment without subsidies or a price on carbon. Anyone have knowedge or critique of this idea? Brian Cartwright -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] On Jaffé article in Science: a caution
to geoengineering: The article in Science surprised a lot of people with data that charcoal enters the world's oceans in massive quantities. My caution is about language. A spin-off article made it to the Scientific American with the title, Soils Cannot Lock Away Black Carbon. The author painted with a broad brush, and it could easily be inferred that *any* form of carbon or charcoal in the soil will be dissolved and go away. Rather than debate the point, I want to point out that the definition of biochar is of a product made and applied intentionally, not a catch-all category for any residue of wildfire or other carbon source. In considering the best and highest form of technology to offset CO2 (and, by the way, NO2) we would be very irresponsible to marginalize the potential contribution from biochar, and nothing in the Jaffé study suggests otherwise. Biochar news and web sites at: http://pinterest.com/nnumeric/what-is-biochar/ -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
