Re: [geo] Research Priorities for SRM
Andrew, cc list: 1. Are there any other documents coming from your Harvard summer program? 2. In the ppt slide about 40% down, labeled Impacts III, can you describe the 5 columns and the meaning of the gray shading on1/3 to 1/2 of the entries? 3. Can you give a summary of your impressions of the program? Any follow planned? Etc. 4.You say the PPt identified "gaps" - but thee are not obvious to me. 5. Anything similar planned for the CDR area? Ron On Aug 17, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > Following on from Ben and Alan's excellent GeoMIP work and summary post, I > thought I'd upload the attached presentation from the Harvard Summer School. > This is a good start to identifying some of the other gaps in our current > research. I'd really value comments on this, as I think it's well worth > developing into a paper on 'known unknowns'. > > Has anyone got anything to add? It would be great to hear. > > Maybe people have got a 'wish list' of research they've thought about but not > managed to get going on? I know I've always got about three times as many > papers in my head as on my PC! :-) > Please feel free to add them to this thread. > > Thanks > > A > > > -- > 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. > -- 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] DAC vs CRD?
On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:05 PM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: Greg etal: This is to comment on a line in the EE report you posed, which said: > "The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas > emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a > critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from > mobile sources." > >I hope there are others, but the company Cool Planet > is proposing exactly this. Perhaps surprisingly, their concept goes beyond > "reduce" (which it does); it also "removes" (via a co-product biochar). > This is a well-funded company, with aggressive expansion plans, perhaps > putting refineries in the field within a few years.. Ron -- 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] DAC vs CRD?
Ken, Greg, list: First to Greg (re just earlier message) - I recognized CRD as a typo. Thanks. Yes to all of Ken's remarks below . My additional point was that "we" (geoengineering list) do have one company which claims the more you drive with their product - the more carbon dioxide removal (more CDR). Both carbon neutral and carbon negative.. I only know of one biofuel company with this claim. Surprisingly, not looking for more capital, with small factories (refineries outputting a drop-in fuel) leaving Colorado as soon as next year: Cool Planet. They are not in the "air capture" category of CDR approaches. Ron On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: >> "The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas >> emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a >> critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from >> mobile sources." >> > > > There is a critical need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from mobile > sources. For the most part, the transportation can be electrified and the > electricity sector can be decarbonized. > > The transportation power needs that cannot be met by electricity (e.g., > perhaps aviation) can be met by biofuels. > > If air capture of CO2 can compete with emissions reduction on cost (broadly > interpreted), great. But to get near to zero CO2 emissions, there is no > necessity for air capture. > > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snant...@carnegiescience.edu > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:05 PM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > > Greg etal: > >This is to comment on a line in the EE report you posed, which said: >> "The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas >> emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a >> critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from >> mobile sources." >> >>I hope there are others, but the company Cool Planet >> is proposing exactly this. Perhaps surprisingly, their concept goes >> beyond "reduce" (which it does); it also "removes" (via a co-product >> biochar). This is a well-funded company, with aggressive expansion plans, >> perhaps putting refineries in the field within a few years.. > > Ron > > > -- > 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. > -- 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] Still More CDR: "Nutty" idea?
Greg and List: 1. Thanks for the alert on this (free) study, that can be found at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.pdf 2. Those (like myself) interested in your "CROPS, biochar, etc", will find plenty here on CDR, even though that term is here replaced by "mitigation". This is not the right term for this list as there is no mention of replacing fossil fuels - only a relatively new form of afforestation, which they (accurately) report can take advantage of a considerable (gigahectare) supply of low value land - removing the most common complaint against biochar. 3. Unfortunately, the authors apparently are unaware that their scheme (afforestation using one species [jatropha] in arid coastal areas using desalinated water) might be more economically attractive if they also produced energy and improved soils (as with biochar), with years (centuries or millennia?) of out year soil improvement (including especially improved NPP) values. Only doing CDR is a pretty narrow view of the potential of their basic scheme. They noted that jatropha was a handy species for them, and maybe not the best species. I would have liked to read about mangroves, which presumably would not require desalination - their main cost element. 3. Speaking of economics, the short summary (below) by the E&E reporter said: > "The researchers calculated that the total cost for a plantation would be > between €42 and €63 per ton of carbon, or between about $55 and $85" > The article itself said clearly (unfortunately) that these price ranges were per ton of carbon dioxide, so for carbon need to be multiplied by 3.67. I sometimes see biochar numbers (for carbon, not carbon dioxide) in the stated range (and lower) - because the energy and soil improvement monetary flows with biochar, which are now available, could be added to the (presently not so available) afforestation/CDR funding. Ron On Aug 24, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > "All the other techniques we know about just prevent emission, nothing else," > said lead author Klaus Becker of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, > Germany. "Only plants are able to extract carbon dioxide from the air." > > Spoken like a true biologist. The problem with plants (unlike geochemical CO2 > uptake) is they usually don't store carbon long term. Solve that little > problem (CROPS, biochar, etc.) plus nutrient, water, albedo, and land use > issues and maybe you've got something? - Greg > > > > CARBON CAPTURE: > Study proposes large 'carbon farms' to reverse rising temperatures > Elizabeth Harball, E&E reporter > Published: Friday, August 23, 2013 > A recent study by German researchers presents the possibility of "carbon > farming" as a less risky alternative to other carbon capture and storage > technologies. It suggests that a significant percentage of atmospheric CO2 > could potentially be removed by planting millions of acres of a hardy little > shrub known as Jatropha curcas, or the Barbados nut, in dry, coastal areas. > > But other experts raised doubts about the study's ambitious projections, > questioning whether the Barbados nut would be able to grow well in sandy > desert soils and absorb the quantity of carbon their models predict. > > The researchers behind the study say Barbados nut plantations could help to > mitigate the local effects of global warming in desert areas, causing a > decrease in average temperature and an increase in precipitation. If a large > enough portion of the Earth were blanketed with carbon farms, they say, these > local effects could become global, capturing between 17 and 25 metric tons of > CO2 per hectare each year over a 20-year period. > > "All the other techniques we know about just prevent emission, nothing else," > said lead author Klaus Becker of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, > Germany. "Only plants are able to extract carbon dioxide from the air." > > The study, published in the journal Earth System Dynamics, states that if 730 > million hectares of land -- an area about three-quarters the size of the > United States -- were devoted to this method of carbon farming, the current > trend of rising atmospheric CO2 levels could be halted. > > Carbon farms would not compete with food production if they were concentrated > in dry coastal areas, the researchers said. In their scenario, oceanside > desalination plants, partially powered by biomass harvested from the > plantations themselves, provide a low-emissions irrigation method. > > Could huge plantations change weather patterns? > > The study states that the Barbados nut is uniquely suited to growing in > regions inhospitable to other crops. The plant, which produces a nonedible > seed that can be used to create biodiesel, is comfortable growing at > temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It can also withstand high > levels of contamina
Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
Simon and Geoengineering list: Thanks for providing this link to a recent paper by Clare Heyward, emphasizing proper terminology. The middle part of the abstract reads: This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change This concern on separating SRM and CDR is especially important when talking about Al Gore's views. The title of the suggested Heyward paper (cite below) talks of 5 responses. Besides CDR and SRM, she mentions mitigation and adaptation in the abstract. The fifth is "rectification" - not mentioned in the abstract, and a topic not well enough addressed on this list I would appreciate seeing the paper without having to pay the $30 (especially as there may be some ethical discussion in the paper), should any reader have this electronically. Almost certainly, the same concepts are found in this free version: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Clare%205%20categories.pdf Here is a final quote from the free version (maybe both?) Let future research and debate cease to be about “geoengineering” and instead focus on the specific features of proposed technologies, and the appropriate mix of emission reductions, CDR, SRM, adaptation and rectification. (Note that "mitigation" has been replaced by "emission reductions" in this final categorization. Only a few CDR approaches (BECCS and biochar at least) do the first two, which are often also termed carbon neutral and carbon negative (or is that creating new confusion, when we are talking nomenclature?) Ron On Aug 25, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Simon Driscoll wrote: > Salif, > > "We are already doing geoengineering" > > My view (and perhaps this is incorrect) is that almost all of the population > would take the opposite view to this statement and agree we are NOT doing > geoengineering (here restricted to SRM) now. In fact, despite of knowing one > or two here and there - I was talking to Alan Gadian a week or two ago who I > know supports this view publicly - it appears widely accepted by the academic > community that the opposite is true and we are not geoengineering today. > > Geoengineering, traditionally, includes the notion of intent. Could you tell > me what you mean by geoengineering? Could you tell me your view as to whether > intent actually matters in any situations? If it does not, this seems to fly > in the face of quite a lot of ethics and everyday interpretation of events. > Do you ignore these events, or if not are you suggesting (somehow ... for > some reason) that there is already an intentional SRM geoengineering > programme and this is why you say we are already geoengineering? > > A good discussion on definitions is found here, for example: > http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8802617 > > Thank you for your clarification. > > "works undertaking under the umbrella of SRM include researches about the > optimal particles that can be injected to reduce solar Radiation reaching the > earth" > > My guess (and it is merely a guess) from this is that Al Gore could possibly > be MORE opposed to these. Given that there could be chemical surprises with > other particles, one could argue if Al Gore is opposed to something we have a > better handle on (and at least have observed a good few times), then he would > probably be against these, but it's hard to say. > > Simon > > > > Simon Driscoll > Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics > Department of Physics > University of Oxford > > Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 > Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 > > http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll > > > From: Salif KONE [skonem...@yahoo.fr] > Sent: 25 August 2013 13:15 > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Cc: Simon Driscoll > Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering > > Simon, > > I do understand that he assumes the SRM technique to be awful under the > consideration of injecting sulfate aerosol in the stratosphere, but works > undertaking under the umbrella of SRM include researches about the optimal > particles that can be injected to reduce solar Radiation reaching the earth. > We are already doing geoengineering but in the wrong way, without taking into > account the impact of what we are already injecting in the atm
Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
Ken and list - with ccs 1. I have previously said I admired your own taxonomy. I was only following up on Simon's cite (especially as I found a free version). 2. Dr. Heyward's 5-part taxonomy could/would be improved by bringing your three (conservation, efficiency, and low-carbon) in at the front end to replace "mitigation" - bringing hers to 7-part. All three make sense in terms of coupling the first four circles 3. But I would already call yours more 7-part than 6-part, as you have 7 circles and 7 outer "links" (not all arrows) Presumably your outermost (late in the day) red "hammer" is related to her "rectification" - which would allow a seventh interior "hammer" with that name. That seventh inner label would nicely balance your chart. 4. All of the seven arrows and "hammers" have economic metrics. The final seventh (rectification) could be the most expensive of all the "hammers" - and is rarely (ever) noted (to my knowledge) in economic analyses. That's where we would include the cost of avoiding expensive wars. 5. Do you agree that adding this fifth-seventh "Heyward" rectification-element would look logical on your chart? Ron On Aug 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Of course this is no one best taxonomy. Taxonomies are tools and different > methods of classification may be more useful for different purposes. > > In the past, I have offered the following 6-part taxonomy, published in > Caldeira et al 2013. It differs from that of Heyward by not considering > "rectification", but subdividing "mitigation" into three categories: > conservation, efficiency, and low-carbon energy. > > > http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/8NiUE6HXETbrWNj3ybct/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548 > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snant...@carnegiescience.edu > > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > Simon and Geoengineering list: > >Thanks for providing this link to a recent paper by Clare Heyward, > emphasizing proper terminology. The middle part of the abstract reads: > >This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a > third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. > Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together > under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the > technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar > challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. > However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting > categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two > parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change > > This concern on separating SRM and CDR is especially important when > talking about Al Gore's views. > > The title of the suggested Heyward paper (cite below) talks of 5 > responses. Besides CDR and SRM, she mentions mitigation and adaptation in > the abstract. The fifth is "rectification" - not mentioned in the abstract, > and a topic not well enough addressed on this list > > I would appreciate seeing the paper without having to pay the $30 > (especially as there may be some ethical discussion in the paper), should any > reader have this electronically. Almost certainly, the same concepts are > found in this free version: > http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Clare%205%20categories.pdf > >Here is a final quote from the free version (maybe both?) >Let future research and debate cease to be about “geoengineering” and > instead focus on > the specific features of proposed technologies, and the appropriate mix of > emission > reductions, CDR, SRM, adaptation and rectification. > >(Note that "mitigation" has been replaced by "emission reductions" in this > final categorization. Only a few CDR approaches (BECCS and biochar at least) > do the first two, which are often also termed carbon neutral and carbon > negative (or is that creating new confusion, when we are talking > nomenclature?) > > Ron > > > On Aug 25, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Simon Driscoll wrote: > >> Salif, >> >> "We are already doing geoengineering" >> >> My view (and perhaps this i
Re: [geo] DAC vs CRD?
Dr. Schulling etal 1. I support the use of olivine to the maximum extent possible. 2. But, maybe naively, I still am persuaded by the arguments of Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben that we have to get back to 350 ppm CO2 (or lower). Better that we do that sooner than later, by all accounts - so I am unable to accept the "impossible" view in your first sentence. Yours is too close to being a self-fulfilling prophecy. 3. I have worked in various RE fields for 40 years, and see several already cheaper than fossils - even before we include externalities - especially in India and China. Those two countries are more apt to lead the way on RE, than hold us back globally. China is already the global RE leader, putting both the US and the EU to shame. Two-thirds of all solar thermal systems are in China, for instance. The world view on the economics of RE and fossils has probably changed a lot since your talk "a few years ago" in India. 4. But my main new message follows from the start of this thread, which began with the subject of a lack of a transportation liquid fuels alternative, through myself and Drs. Rau and Caldeira. I noted that the company "Cool Planet" (CPES) was both projecting a very attractive price for drop-in (carbon neutral ) biofuels from decentralized small refineries and providing a (carbon negative) CDR biochar product as well. 5. New: over the past weekend, there was a lot of press in the state of Louisiana that CP is opening three such refineries there in the next few years. Total investment a few hundred million dollars - not huge in fuel-worlds, but pretty big for the technologies this list talks about. They plan 2000 such refineries in just the USA. Biofuels should be cheaper near the equator - so this is just a beginning announcement. For details on this first (to my knowledge) Federal incentive-free private sector incursion into a field heretofore the purview of the fossil fuel folk, see (among many) this two day old news release http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/08/25/cool-planet-to-invest-168m-in-louisiana-stealthy-biotechnology-heads-for-scale/ 6. The bottom of the diagram near the beginning of the above article shows that CDR (biochar) is a key part of the process. Olivine and biochar can work well together to improve NPP and alleviate hunger (the upper right part of this figure explaining a new form of pyrolysis), while also performing the CDR portion of this list. Ron On Aug 24, 2013, at 5:57 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" wrote: > Why don’t you realize that zero emission is impossible. The first priority of > China and India (and this holds also for Indonesia, Brazil and S.Africa) is > to develop their economies and raise the standard of living of their > populations. The most important condition to achieve that is access to cheap > and abundant energy, and all these nations have huge coal reserves, so zero > emission is impossible. If we can get these nations to compensate their > emissions with olivine through enhanced weathering we reach the same goal. > A few years ago I was invited speaker at a carbon management conference in > India. At a moment I said “when we (meaning the Western industrialized world) > say to you that you have to reduce CO2 emissions, just answer go to hell. > That was the only time in my life that I was interrupted by a very warm > applause! These are geopolitical realities, and it doesn’t work to close your > eyes for them, Olaf > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: vrijdag 23 augustus 2013 21:31 > To: Ronal Larson > Cc: Greg Rau; geoengineering; ui2...@columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [geo] DAC vs CRD? > > "The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas > emissions in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a > critical need for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from > mobile sources." > > > There is a critical need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from mobile > sources. For the most part, the transportation can be electrified and the > electricity sector can be decarbonized. > > The transportation power needs that cannot be met by electricity (e.g., > perhaps aviation) can be met by biofuels. > > If air capture of CO2 can compete with emissions reduction on cost (broadly > interpreted), great. But to get near to zero CO2 emissions, there is no > necessity for air capture. > > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
List and Ken This is to generally support Ken's "no new" proposal below. I have received 17 others in this thread, but I don't believe any have the following three amendments that I suggest for further discussion. 1. That "ceasing" also apply to the opening of any new fossil fuel production facility (oil, gas, coal)/ Rationale 1: This is designed (as is Ken's) to foster renewables. Also good to refurbish and extend the life of older wells. But mainly to ensure that the annual input of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere does not stay constant, but moves downward - at a predictable pace. Plenty of new wells/mines would be rushed into place before the deadline, but the amount would be well known, and controlled somewhat by not being able to be exploited quickly (giving a further cost preference to renewables). 2. That the decision on when to OK large scale solar geoengineering be made by the IPCC, and be made within the next 10 years. Rationale 2: The IPCC overs all countries already. The needed expertise is mostly voluntary and already in place. Ten years is arbitrary, but shouldn't be perceived as too soon. 3. That the IPCC (or other, if a better choice exists) must first affirm that CDR (carbon dioxide removal - including reforestation and afforestation) would NOT be a safer and less costly approach than SRM. Rationale 3. There should always be an alternative approach - especially one that addresses a/the main reason (ocean pH) many folks are fearful of SRM. This will mandate much needed R&D on CDR, as well as accelerate R&D on renewables (especially by fossil fuel companies). (Other: This could be in lieu of a carbon tax. Companies that wished to could simply sell their assets and/or go out of business, if they didn't want to become a renewable energy supplier.) Ron On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is > used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. > > Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be > built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. > > Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new > CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system > deployment. > > This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could provide > cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. > > Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and > increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes > and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. > > -- > > This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of > "catastrophic" outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering for > "peak shaving" amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. Thus, > this proposal does have a substantive implications for "peak shaving" > strategies. > > -- > > I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation presented > here is the best possible formulation. > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Are ideas to cool the planet realistic?
Dr. Seitz, list, adding Dr. Goreau On Sep 21, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Russell Seitz wrote: 1. I didn't find this BBC article below submitted by Drs. Goreau and Seitz to be helpful. For one, the article doesn't answer the hugely important BBC's headline question "Ideas….cool...realistic?" As for almost every article like this, there is a cursory listing of 3 SRM and 7 CDR technologies. Then there is commentary by six knowledgeable Geo researchers - but again - all ONLY talked about SRM - presumably because that is all they were asked about. The reporter here is apparently new to this topic. Glaringly missing are the opinions of a large number of CDR experts in the UK. I am making no comment here on the opinions of the six interviewees. They are all clearly qualified - and possibly even on CDR. So, I am still looking for one paper - popular or technical - that compares SRM and CDR quantitatively - in any manner. I don't believe the Royal Society report did that. 2. This geo list could help by giving researchers, modelers, or other reporters some ideas on HOW SRM and CDR might be quantitatively compared - to answer the "Realistic?" question, . Personally I can't even think of one suitable simple metric of comparability, although it is relatively straightforward to compare with the separate SRM and CDR parts of Geoengineering. That is: SRM and CDR appear to be apples and oranges. The main big cost-component differences will be ocean acidification and assumptions about fossil fuel use. For the same scenario, SRM and CDR can both address ocean rise and similar far-off impacts. It is not clear to me even which can have the more immediate impact (Jim Hansen presenting models getting back to 350 ppm pretty quickly - as fossil fuels are phased out ), so we need several scenarios as well. All the CDR approaches are interested in carbon negative wedges - Gt C/yr. Not something that SRM even begins to address numerically, except through discussions of long term "natural" carbon drawdown. Both SRM and CDR approaches can include the costs of temperature-related impacts. In one sense, the issue I am addressing is perhaps one of quantifying "irreversibility". 3. So here are seven metric-related questions for the hoped-for comparison: Q1:Energy How should carbon positivity and neutrality fit into the comparison of CDR with SRM? Within the seven CDRs listed, the first three have a present carbon neutral (BECCS and biochar) or future (afforestation) energy-use metric. The other seven and SRM all consume energy - are carbon positive. This is a four-way question on a CO2 molecule: better to a) not insert, b) remove, c) hide its visibility, or d) a-b-c are equal. Q2. Non-carbon side benefits Should any non-CDR, non-energy benefit be part of the comparison metric? The biochar option (and no other) is now largely being analyzed for its soil improvement benefits. This is 100% compatible with CDR, although in competition with its (Q1) carbon neutral attributes. Perhaps there are other CDR or SRM options with measurable similar side benefits, addressing major societal issues. Q3.Mainly total (not only carbon) costing? Is least cost overall (including any non-geo attributes) the appropriate metric? Assuming the the apples and oranges issue is solved through a long-term cost-benefit analysis (CBA), should a CDR or SRM approach in that CBA competition include monetary income streams additional to the assumed main international financing (in the form of carbon credits or other), Q4. ExternalitiesShould externalities (not part of a usual CDR or SRM CBA analysis) be part of a comparison metric? Some approaches (SRM or CDR) could have other societal (non-marketed) cost or benefits (externalities such as fire-prevention, health improvement, ocean dead zone mitigation, etc) that are unlikely to receive international carbon financing, Q5 The time domain Should the same discount rate be applied to all ten geo approaches? The SRM approach clearly has to involve the time domain and discount rates, with scenario assumptions needed on its introduction-timing (including possible future rejection). Of the CDR options, only biochar seems to also have out-year beneficial impacts (but for a near-term application, there are few or no out-year costs). Some CDR approaches will have out-year costs (monitoring, etc). All 7 CDR approaches can start immediately providing benefits, but biochar alone (like SRM) also (unfortunately, adding complexity) needs consideration both decades and centuries after introduction. This not a question about what the exact DR should be. The DR can be a scenario variable. Q6. Urgency, Risk Should the issues of speed and "tipping point" avoidance be an identifiable part of the comparis
Re: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks
Greg, Andrew and list: 1. Thanks to Andrew for the alert on IEAGHG. I think this group is limited to deep underground sequestration - cannot likely even be interested in DAC = Direct Air Capture, whose collection costs seem to forgo a CDR opportunity (per Prof. Socolow analysis). This group appears not likely to be able to study CDR. 2. Thanks to Greg for two things: First, the recommendation on "distance" between SRM and CDR. I think our only hope is that the Royal Society issue another two reports separately covering SRM and CDR (not on Geoengineering). Second for use of the term "natural air capture", which I think covers six of the seven CDR approaches listed in the recent BBC report (not DAC). 3. But mostly, because of information only learned today, this is to alert list members to an article that helps all the biological CDR approaches. Helps with information on the high efficiency of the photosynthesis approach called "CAM" = crassulacean acid metabolism. Much less water needed than for the C3 and C4 types of photosynthesis. I highly recommend this (free) article by an Oxford University group, perhaps headed by a Dr. Borland: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2879.full 4. This is a new discovery only for me. I found many earlier and later than this 2009 paper - but this one has good numbers for analysis, including huge land area potentials (double or more global ag land) that hopefully can overcome THE presumed major hurdle (because of conflicts with land for food) for the biological CDR approaches. This approach applies to agave and similar arid region plants, which are reported to be even more productive than sugar cane (CAB plants absorb CO2 at night and can close their stomata during the day). So far I haven't found even one paper coupling "CAM" with CDR. But lots on biofuels (with low costs projected). Ron On Sep 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > From below, > "According to Dixon, although emissions reductions should be the priority for > tackling climate change, the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate > is another technology that needs proper consideration. "Geoengineering will > face even more challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations," he tells > SciDev.Net. "And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even > more essential." > > GR - I think the key message here is that CDRers need to distance themselves > from geoengineering and risks associated with SRM. Certainly emissions > reduction should be a priority, but so should enhanced air capture since > natural air capture is doing way more to limit air CO2 conc than human > actions including CCS can (so far) dream of. I really don't understand why > R&D on this should be such a tough sell, but continuing to lump CDR in with > SRM isn't helping. Happy to provide "scientific advice on those issues" if > it is so "essential", so where do we send our cards and letters? Or is IEAGHG > (with its emissions reduction agenda) the UNFCC's information gatekeeper, as > the abstracts imply. > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on > behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks > > Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering > information deficit discussed, but not in abstract. > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213009466 > > Energy Procedures Volume 37, 2013, Pages 7590–7595GHGT-11Open Access > > Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon > Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC > > Tim Dixona, , , Dr Katherine Romanakb, Samantha Neadesa, Dr Andy Chadwickca > > Abstract > > This paper describes how providing scientific information to negotiators > assisted in achieving inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) > in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean > Development Mechanism (CDM) during 2011. We provide specific examples of how > scientific information from IEAGHG Research Networks in the areas of > monitoring, modelling, environmental impacts and groundwater protection were > used to address the issues of concern listed in the Cancun Decision (2010). > Technical input was provided by members of IEAGHG Research Networks via the > UNFCCC's technical workshop on Modalities and Procedures for CCS under the > CDM, such that the negotiations in Durban (2011) were better informed by an > understanding of the most recent technical information. The outcome was the > agreement of CCS-specific modalities and procedures for including CCS in the > CDM. > > Keywords > > Regulation; Emissions Trading; International Policy; Clean Development > Mechanism; Carbon Dioxide Capture
Re: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks
Dr. Schulling: Thanks for the addition. I enjoyed reading all six approaches, not only section 2.2. Section 2.3 on stopping fires using rock dust slurries was of special interest because of your section 3 estimate of substantial saving benefits (not costs). I am not qualified to know whether a slurry approach is practical soon, but we can certainly start soon to create fire breaks to prevent the really large fires. The breaks could supply an additional resource for all the biologic CDR approaches, with no issues of ILUC, competition with food, etc. We could also prove that the intentional setting of annual fires is a bad idea everywhere. Re #2.2 (diatoms)- yours does not mention CDR - only biodiesel. My hope is that we can encourage more analysis of similar ocean bio approaches that also are CDR. Thanks especially for the Table of estimates on amounts and costs. We need more such. Ron On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" wrote: > Have a look at section 2.2 of the attached paper, Olaf Schuiling > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf OfRonal W. Larson > Sent: maandag 23 september 2013 1:21 > To: r...@llnl.gov > Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks > > Greg, Andrew and list: > >1. Thanks to Andrew for the alert on IEAGHG. I think this group is > limited to deep underground sequestration - cannot likely even be interested > in DAC = Direct Air Capture, whose collection costs seem to forgo a CDR > opportunity (per Prof. Socolow analysis). This group appears not likely to > be able to study CDR. > >2. Thanks to Greg for two things: First, the recommendation on > "distance" between SRM and CDR. I think our only hope is that the Royal > Society issue another two reports separately covering SRM and CDR (not on > Geoengineering). > > Second for use of the term "natural air capture", which I think covers > six of the seven CDR approaches listed in the recent BBC report (not DAC). > > 3. But mostly, because of information only learned today, this is to alert > list members to an article that helps all the biological CDR approaches. > Helps with information on the high efficiency of the photosynthesis approach > called "CAM" = crassulacean acid metabolism. Much less water needed than for > the C3 and C4 types of photosynthesis. I highly recommend this (free) > article by an Oxford University group, perhaps headed by a Dr. Borland: > http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2879.full > > 4. This is a new discovery only for me. I found many earlier and later than > this 2009 paper - but this one has good numbers for analysis, including huge > land area potentials (double or more global ag land) that hopefully can > overcome THE presumed major hurdle (because of conflicts with land for food) > for the biological CDR approaches. This approach applies to agave and > similar arid region plants, which are reported to be even more productive > than sugar cane (CAB plants absorb CO2 at night and can close their stomata > during the day). > > So far I haven't found even one paper coupling "CAM" with CDR. But lots > on biofuels (with low costs projected). > > Ron > > > > On Sep 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > > > From below, > "According to Dixon, although emissions reductions should be the priority for > tackling climate change, the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate > is another technology that needs proper consideration. "Geoengineering will > face even more challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations," he tells > SciDev.Net. "And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even > more essential." > > GR - I think the key message here is that CDRers need to distance themselves > from geoengineering and risks associated with SRM. Certainly emissions > reduction should be a priority, but so should enhanced air capture since > natural air capture is doing way more to limit air CO2 conc than human > actions including CCS can (so far) dream of. I really don't understand why > R&D on this should be such a tough sell, but continuing to lump CDR in with > SRM isn't helping. Happy to provide "scientific advice on those issues" if > it is so "essential", so where do we send our cards and letters? Or is IEAGHG > (with its emissions reduction agenda) the UNFCC's information gatekeeper, as > the abstracts imply. > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on > behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks > > Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering > information deficit discussed,
Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context
Ken cc List: 1. I like your starting point. Thanks for providing it. Re "de minimis", I prefer it over "material". 2. My concern is that you have two (separate, distinctly different) criteria in a relatively long sentence, where some readers may think the two are coupled or dependent. How about this rephrasing (changes all underlined): > "Geoengineering" refers to activities: > a) intended to modify climate that have greater than de minimis effect on an > international commons or across international borders, and b) operate through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. I toyed with the idea of replacing "reduction" with "removal" (or adding the latter) - so as to better tie back into the term CDR. But you are including a lot on sulfur here that has nothing to do with CDR. So I am content, because you have the word "excess". 4. You have below made statements about all the main CDR approaches save biochar. Is biochar in any way different from BECCS and DAC? (Biochar being the only one with a) add-on (non-direct) benefits, b) a long time horizon of both CDR and financial benefits, and c) now being extensively tested.) Ron On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Folks, > Here is my attempt at what I think would be a useful definition of > "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context, > intended as a starting point for discussion. > - > "Geoengineering" refers to activities intended to modify climate that have > greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across > international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an intended > reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations. > > -- > The idea is to get proposals that bear no novel risks and great similarity to > mitigation efforts out of the definition of "geoengineering". Under such a > definition, stratospheric aerosol injections and ocean fertilization would be > geoengineering. Under most circumstances, things like afforestation, biomass > energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC) > would not be considered geoengineering. > Note that specific afforestation activities could be considered > geoengineering under this definition if, for example, increased > evapotranspiration from the forest decreased river flow and took water away > from downstream nations, but afforestation that did not have such properties > would not be considered geoengineering. > Under some definitions, neither biomass energy nor CCS alone would > constitute "geoengineering", nor would a biomass energy plant releasing CO2 > to the atmosphere situated next to a coal plant employing CCS. Under such > definitions, if the pipes were switched, and the CO2 went from the biomass > energy plant to the CCS facility and the coal CO2 released to the atmosphere, > this would constitute "geoengineering". > If someone were to invent a machine to remove power-plant sulfate aerosols > from the troposphere, and this machine has no transborder effect that does > not derive from this intended activity, that it would not be "geoengineering" > under this proposed definition. Such activities would be considered to be > similar to reducing sulfur emissions from power plants. However, if this > machine also emitted something that would have a more-than-de-minimis > unintended environmental effects on other nations or on an international > commons, then it would consitute geoengineering. > > Ocean fertilization and ocean alkanization would be included, but BECCS and > DAC using industrial methods would not be included unless they create greater > than de minimis environmental effects on an international commons or across > international border through mechanisms other than their intended effect of > reducing excess anthropgenic CO2 concentrations. > > I add the qualifier “environmental” to "environmental mechanism" to eliminate > consideration of, for example, economic effects on other countries that would > be a consequence of, for example, the effect of carbon removal on carbon > prices under a cap and trade system. > The importance of "excess anthropogenic ... concentrations" is that to be > excess in must be greater than natural background, so cases are included > where people might want to reduce CO2 or aerosols lower than natural levels. > Use of BECCS or DAC to reduce concentrations beyond natural levels would be > considered “geoengineering” > Note that "modify climate" includes cases where the intent is to produce a > novel climate and not just “restore” climate to earlier conditions. > This definition also addresses issues associated with urban heat islands. If > the effects (beyond de minimis) are purely national, then effor
Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
Ken, Jim, etal The following more responding to Jim than Ken. Warning - the comments are mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that group. But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as well. The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is ocean acidification (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that distinction is well enough covered by both definitions below On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Jim, > > We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but > to aid comparison, here are both definitions: > > CBD: > > "Geoengineering" is > > A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and > scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. [RWL1: I sense that the developers of this definition did not have the concern that Ken has in his accompanying remarks - that the term "geoengineering" has become almost synonymous with SRM. More below on the reasons that Ken (and I) aren't comfortable with this very (too?) broad definition. I believe that only a small percentage of biochar projects are now being undertaken for climate reasons - rather most are undertaken for food/soil reasons. Jim and Ken and others: would that food/soil intention keep a biochar from being defined as "geoengineering" by this above? How about for Ken's next? > > Alternate candidate definition: > > "Geoengineering" refers to activities > > (1) intended to modify climate > > (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons > or across international borders > > (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through > environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols > and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. > > > I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily > applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies > such as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that > present no special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, > etc. [RWL2: I like the three-part definition. It would be very helpful to have Jim also make a comment on this one. This fails in what way? More (much more) on Jim's message below. The words "de minimis" seem to mean (from quick googling) trivial or not worth considering in a law suit. I believe this to be true for individual biochar projects involving only one buyer and seller (or maybe self-produced), but would claim a total opposite is possible collectively - certainly multiple wedges have been proposed. I hope JIm (and others) can comment on where biochar (as an example - could be afforestation, etc), can be well received at the individual user level, but be harmful globally. Biochar proponents would claim that the future impacts are going to be large (being multiple wedges) - but the impact entirely or overwhelmingly positive. Ken's definition here doesn't separate positive from negative impacts (which of course can be in the eye of the beholder). I am not worrying too much about this now that Ken has said biochar would be excluded from his 3-part definition. Jim has endorsed (maybe authored?) articles opposing biochar; does he place biochar in or out of the realm of geoengineering as defined by either of the above - or any other? Or certain cases - Yes; others - No? I see only "No" cases.More below on Jim's message also. > > Best, > > Ken > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas wrote: > Ken and all, > > 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the > expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their > method and rationale for their preferred definition (see > http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en.pdf) > that was discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at COP11. > I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this > multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting point. [RWL3: This was new. I thought the folks writing this above report on a definition did a credible job and worked hard. However, I doubt they were aware of the issues that Ken is addressing in his definitional notes of the past few days. I agree with Jim's final sentence, though. This list should say what was not covered in this CBD report. I would say the CBD experts were not sufficiently conscious of the problems that happen as you try to lump two topics as different as
Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
Professor Hayes (with ccs) Your moot court idea for the recent HSRC situation is wonderful. You made a good case for the defense, but I would really also like to hear a real (or classroom) dialog after some serious scholarly studies of the case. The key I suppose is who and how many judges are in charge of the courtroom.I want at least nine as this is a matter of Supreme importance. I think we can expect a split decision, based on what I remember in the press. I can think of some other (fictitious now) cases as well - and Jim Thomas offered some. But we shouldn't wait for any law professors or students listening in to report back. I am anxious to hear right now from "lawyers" who might be retained by the other side (actually both sides) in this case you nobly defend. Ron ps I believe "principles" below could be "principals" (which also appears).. On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Michael Hayes wrote: > Ron et al., > > > You asked for feedback on the HSRC in defense of the "NOT GE" ( "I hope we > can hear from others who would say this final example is NOT geo") argument. > And, I believe the HSRC event would make a good moot court exercise on this > overall issue. > > > One possible moot court opening statement in defense of the HSRC event may > read as such: > > > In my most humble opinion, the primary 'intent' of the HSRC principles was to > mitigate local declining salmon stock, the decline being due to multiple > anthropogenic causes, by those in rightful ownership of the area known as the > "salmon pasture". Yet, the project also offered, and used, a secondary > 'intent' as an opportunity to gain valuable scientific and practical > knowledge at a scale which is well within the opinion of the leading > scientific authority on this issue, The Center for Biological Diversity > (CBD), as it does explicitly accepts small scale GE > experimentation/investigation. Thus, the primary 'intent' was not of GE > significance and the secondary 'intent' was well within the proper scope and > scale of GE related scientific field investigations accepted by the leading > global authority on this issue; The Center for Biological Diversity. > > > In the best opinion of the CBD, it offers the phrase "Scale and intent are of > central importance.". True. That logic is obvious to all investigators > seriously concerned with the GE issue. Was the 'scale' of the primary > 'intent' (i.e.mitigating local wild salmon stock decline due to a well > recognized human induced decline in the stock) significantly large enough to > impact the planetary environment? No. Was the secondary 'intent' (i.e. > collect GE related data and gain practical field investigational experience) > carried out to the degree that the planetary environmental matrix was change > in any significant way? No. > > > The standard of GE 'scale' has not been met and the standard of GE 'intent' > was well within the scope of the best 'opinion' of the leading global > scientific authority. > > > Thus, I would petition the jury to acquit the HSRC principals of the primary > charge of wrongful GE as the actions simply did not exceed a reasonably > scientifically knowable degree of harm or good at the planetary level. Also, > I petition the jury to acquit the defendants on the lesser charge, of > wrongful GE experimentation/investigation, as the CBD does allow for such > actions and the 'best known scientific and engineering practices' in this > field were followed. > > > The moot court would now hear the oppositions' opening statement. > > > > In pursuit of a refinement of the word 'Geoengineering', and thus the bedrock > of the scientific/engineering/philosophical/legal disciplines which are > evolving around this concept, any new definition should be tested through > this type of open moot court challenge. I believe it may be useful in > limiting the subjective pitfalls inherent in this debate. > > > > Best, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > Ken, Jim, etal > > The following more responding to Jim than Ken. Warning - the comments > are mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that > group. But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as well. > > The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is ocean > acidification (not being addressed by SRM), so wo
Re: [geo] GGR is the new CDR
Andrew: 1. I like the GRR suggestion - and will start using it. (unless I soon hear a good reason not to) 2. Googling says this Negative Emmissions (Emissions?) Conference has been going on for the last two days at Oxford. Can you or anyone report on any possible location for PPts, etc? Ron On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:36 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > After a vote at the Negative Emmission Conference it was suggested that > "Greenhouse Gas Removal" be used instead of "Carbon Dioxide Removal" > > This is to take account of the fact that methane, etc are also included in > these proposals. > > I think it's a better name, but am generally averse to new names unless > there's a good reason. On balance, I think it's worth changing. > > A > > -- > 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. -- 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] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
Ken etal: Since we are still offering modifications today, let me try an alternative approach, defining exclusions rather than inclusions. This removes a comparative and the word "not". This still keeps I think your intent and much of your language (although I returned to "removal" rather than "reduction"). Following the recommendation from Jim Thomas, this starts off with the CBD definition (which I like - and solves the UN problem Jim points out). The new CBD start is a longer version of your point #1, which (below: "intended to affect climate") could replace it “Geoengineering" is 1) a deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts, but 2) excluding those interventions that are a direct consequence of the removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gas concentrations., if 3) they have a de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders. The new "if" between 2) and 3) [which are re-ordered] is intended to keep as a geoengineering approach any CDR approach that has a potentially large impact outside of a single country.I think "if" was your intent. I couldn't make "and" or "or" (instead of "if") cover weird cases. So some CDR cases are still geoengineering. A large positive effect in the commons or boundary is covered by the words "intended to counteract". Ron On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Self-correction. > > Dave Hawkins was right. > > Modify climate must be understood as a counter-factual. The intent might be > to prevent climate from changing in the face of rising greenhouse gas > concentrations, so "(1) intent to modify climate" must be understood as > relative to what it would have been in the absence of the geoengineering > activity, i.e., a geoengineering activity could conceivably prevent climate > from changing relative to a factual baseline but still be a climate > modification relative to what would have happened absent the activity. > > So, a mitigation activity that reduces GHG emissions would then need to be > interpreted as excluded under (3) which then would also need to be > interpreted as what would have happened absent the action. > > Is there any problem with changing (1) to "intended to affect climate" or us > it clearer to leave its as "intended to modify climate" where that is > understood relative to a counterfactual baseline? [RWL: I am not answering > this - as I think the existing CBD (maybe only UN) definition covers this > question.] > >> "Geoengineering" refers to activities >> >> (1) intended to affect climate >> >> (2) and that have a greater than de minimis effect on an international >> commons or across international borders >> >> (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through >> environmental mechanisms that are not a direct consequence of any resulting >> reduction in anthropogenic aerosol and/or greenhouse gas concentrations. >> >> >> >> >>> -- 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] An Analysis of the Connection Between Climate Change, Technological Solutions and Potential Disaster Management: The Contribution of Geoengineering Research - Springer
Ken etal 1. I concur on that sentence. The literature on biochar that I read certainly includes the public (and only rarely any "elite"). 2. We have mentioned Dr. Sikka's name before on this list. The new article being pricey, I found a similar free article of the same time frame at: http://www.academia.edu/2646863/A_Critical_Discourse_Analysis_of_Geoengineering_Advocacy The sentence there that made me laugh (and cry) is on p. 173, in the second from final paragraph: Further, as I have argued, there are other significant problems with geoengineering whichtend to stem from the fact that it fails to address the root cause of climate change, i.e. toomuch carbon in the atmosphere, and would thus be a temporary stop gap, if it worked at all. Further, as I have argued, there are other significant problems with geoengineering whichtend to stem from the fact that it fails to address the root cause of climate change, i.e. toomuch carbon in the atmosphere, and would thus be a temporary stop gap, if it worked at all. "Further, as I have argued, there are other significant problems with geoengineering which tend to stem from the fact that it fails to address the root cause of climate change, i.e. too much carbon in the atmosphere, and would thus be a temporary stop gap, if it worked at all." 3. Clearly her CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) methodology was leading her only to SRM material (and she DID clearly define geoengineering to be both SRM and CDR). The fault for that lies with the definition, but also with those discussing the topic in the policy discourse circles she was looking at. Your messages of the last week on redefining "Geoengineering" would have made her analysis more correct, but we would still have the problem of getting the CDR (or , per Andrew, GGR?) message across as well. I am afraid that your (and my) attempts to change the definition will still leave a big communication hole. Perhaps getting rid of the word "Geoengineering" all together - maybe starting with changing the name (but not the membership) of this Google group. Ron On Sep 27, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > I laugh: > > The central argument is that the material and discursive monopolisation of > geoengineering research and discussion by elite groups—political, economic > and scientific-technological—has led to the marginalisation of the public > from this debate ... > > One of the main discussion fora about geoengineering research is this google > group, which is open to anybody who has anything even semi-coherent and not > completely redundant to say. > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Lockley > wrote: > http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31110-9_35 > > Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management > Climate Change Management 2013, pp 535-551 > > An Analysis of the Connection Between Climate Change, Technological Solutions > and Potential Disaster Management: The Contribution of Geoengineering Research > > Tina Sikka > > Abstract > > In this article, the author uses a critical political economy approach to > provide a basic topology of the current state of geoengineering research, > funding and testing. The central argument is that the material and > discursivemonopolisation of geoengineering research and discussion by elite > groups—political, economic and scientific-technological—has led to the > marginalisation of the public from this debate and has presented a distorted > view of its (geoengineering’s) need. Its connection to the main theme of this > conference is located in the very clear nexus between climate change, the > potentially disastrous outcomes of increased global warming and an > examination of the potentially equally dangerous consequences of > technologically intensive solutions (like geoengineering) that do not address > but disregard the core problem: overconsumption based a resource-extractive > and energy-intensive economic system. This piece begins with a brief > introduction to geoengineering technologies. I then outline the critical > political economy approach which is, at its core, a historically and socially > reflexive method that focuses on unpacking the “production and reproduction > of…structures” (Mosco 1996, 29) of privilege, followed by a brief > justification of why it is pertinent in this context. Following this, the > author delivers a critical snapshot of some of the most striking, and > simultaneously troubling, geoengineering research currently taking place > worldwide. The paper ends with a call for the public to get aggressively > involved in learning about geoengineering and engaging in critica
Re: [geo] Geoengineering in IPCC WGI AR5 Summary for Policymakers
Joshua and list
1. Thanks for the alert. Besides your excerpt below, there is another
(well hidden, but is in Section E8, with "Irreversibility" in the Section
Title) place in the Summary where CDR appears (albeit indirectly). I found it
as I was reading today's RealClimate summary of the Summary. The Comment I
left (slightly modified here) said:
1. The Real Climate summary above is only partly accurate when it says at the
end of the first section on global warming:
"A large part of the warming will be irreversible: from the point where
emissions have dropped to zero, global temperature will remain almost constant
for centuries at the elevated level reached by that time. (This is why the
climate problem in my opinion is a classic case for the precautionary
principle.)"
2. But the just released actual IPCC report has an important added qualifier
on page 20 in Section E8:
"A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2
emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except
in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained
period."
3. This added clause introduces in these IPCC series for the first time the
hugely important concept of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) - which can be
accomplished, and which I hope Real Climate and its readers can get behind
wholeheartedly.
Ron
ps: Anyone found any other place?
On Sep 27, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Josh Horton wrote:
> It's finally out and here's what it says about geoengineering:
>
> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
>
> Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate
> change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes
> a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management
> (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate
> system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to
> their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to
> quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century
> timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the
> potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would
> also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification.
> If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global
> surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the
> greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term
> consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7} (p. 21)
>
> Not quite what the Guardian was reporting last week ...
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
--
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] ETC: Concern as IPCC Bangs the Drum for Geoengineering
Jim, cc list I really don't understand the ETC position, so please excuse a few questions. I restrict myself, and ask you to also, to CDR, not SRM. I want to tackle the easiest issues first. The reason for asking the following is my having just finished Chapter 1 of a new book Climate Change Ethics by Professor Donald A Brown. I today feel a responsibility to ask you about the ethical foundation for the ETC positions you express below - that I find unethical. 1. Jim Hansen's civil disobedience actions arose from an ethical position that I greatly admire. As a highly credible scientist, way earlier than this latest IPCC report, he went out of his way (went to jail) to endorse exactly what you are opposing. In a 2008 article he showed how to bring CO2 levels quickly down to the 350 level primarily through afforestation and some biochar. Do you think Dr. Hansen should not have made that recommendation? If so, why not? 2. Could you explain ETC's ethical rationale for saying (below) that the IPCC should not have introduced the word CDR? Insufficient knowledge? Insufficient study? Insufficient review?Need for more ethical training? 3.I have no sense how seriously ETC takes our current climate path. I view that path as the biggest global problem ever - and that all of us have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. Where do you rank it - compared to anything else, population, food, etc? 4. I think the IPCC is a pretty good group to offer guidance on CDR. I can't think of a better group. What other group would you rather see making suggestions like those on CDR we heard about today? Ron On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:45 AM, jim thomas wrote: > News Release > > ETC Group – www.etcgroup.org > > 27th September 2013 > > > > Concern as IPCC Bangs the Drum for Geoengineering > > IPCC Shoots a Silver Bullet (Point) for Climate Change, Includes > Geoengineering in its Latest Report > > As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published the first > installment of its latest climate change Assessment Report, AR5, the final > paragraph of its Summary for Policymakers – a bullet point referring to > proposals for deliberately altering climate systems – has caused > consternation by addressing the controversial topic of geoengineering. > (1)While the paragraph does not endorse geoengineering, as had been proposed > by Russia, its very presence is ringing alarm bells. > > "It’s the paragraph that should never have been," explained Neth Daño, ETC > Group's Asia Director." The explicit purpose of Working Group I [WGI] is to > report on the latest climate science, not to discuss response measures. The > report doesn't discuss solar power or electric cars; it doesn't discuss > public transport, carbon markets or any other actual or potential policy > response to the climate crisis, so why have the authors chosen to devote the > concluding paragraph to this highly speculative and dangerous technofix?” > > Last week, on the eve of IPCC's final negotiating meeting, The Guardian (UK) > revealed that not only was geoengineering to feature in WGI’s report, but > also that one country, Russia, had made a bid for the report’s ‘last word’ to > endorse geoengineering as a possible solution. (2) > > Comments submitted by the Russian government lamented the report’s lack of > answers to the climate crisis and proposed including a "possible solution of > this [climate change] problem can be found in using of [sic] geoengineering > methods to stabilise current climate." Russia also highlighted that its > scientists are developing geoengineering technologies. Incredibly, the push > for geoengineering was the sole comment submitted by Russia on the summary > for policymakers– regarded as a politically sensitive document. It since has > been rumoured that the Russian government’s comments had been penned by Yuri > Izrael, a notorious geoengineer and climate change denier. In the past few > years Izrael has carried out at least two small geoengineering experiments > using trucks and military helicopters to release sulphate aerosols into the > skies. > > The text approved in Stockholm last night fell far short of endorsing > geoengineering, pointing out that too little is known and that geoengineering > schemes "carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale." > However the paragraph also suggests that geoengineering methods to reflect > sunlight "if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global > temperature rise" – an oversimplification hiding the speculative nature and > practical complexity of what are still very theoretical proposals. Nor is > this the last time that geoengineering is expected to get a high-profile > airing from the IPCC. Two further installments of the AR5 report (from > Working Groups II and III) are expected to deal with geoengineering in mor
Re: [geo] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC?
Greg etal: I mostly agree. But not with your first paragraph below. Included in most definitions of CDR is "Afforestation" - and there are numerous groups ready to go on that introduction. And with relatively low cost - lower in developing countries. This seems well past the stage you feel is still before us. Biochar is nowhere near in the same position, but one company has announced funding approaching $200 million, with selected sites that could have operational units very soon (see: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/08/25/cool-planet-to-invest-168m-in-louisiana-stealthy-biotechnology-heads-for-scale/ ). They are primarily a biofuels company, but CDR is a major part of the business plan. I believe they know how to find money for sequestration to lower costs substantially to those receiving the CDR product. Their engineering phase is largely past. I know of a dozen other biochar firms operating now at a smaller scale that are also past at least the initial engineering phase. I have seen (un-named type) CDR costs in print that are likely 10 times what biochar costs are likely to become. I don't have publishable values, since private firms would rather keep their costs to themselves - understandably), I have just today learned more about the recently increased Federal value for SCC - the societal cost for carbon. It (a central value) seems to be about $41/tonne CO2. That number is plenty to drive both afforestation and biochar markets - hopefully other CDR markets. In another note soon, I will justify this $41 number. Ron On Sep 28, 2013, at 11:14 AM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > To answer the title's question why GE - I can't speak for the IPCC authors, > but it is clear the other approaches aren't getting the job done, thus other > intervention concepts must now be considered. With all due respect to efforts > (and recently here in this group) to define and use the term geoengineering, > I think it very unfortunate to call CDR "engineering" since it implies > existing, established, off-the-self scientific and engineering knowledge that > can be applied to the problem rather than ideas or concepts whose safety, > cost, and effectiveness of application are poorly understood and need > considerably more scientific, social, and economic research before they can > even be considered for application. > > I think that the preceding is the root of much of the pushback on concepts > lumped under geoengineering (ETC, etc): the false impression that such > methods are established engineering ready to be unleashed on the world by its > clandestine practitioners, when in fact this is at best a nascent science > that has yet to be fully applied in addressing the critical questions about > safety, capacity, cost, social and environmental benefit, etc. For obvious > reason, "geoscience" doesn't fill the bill as an umbrella term either since > it is used in other contexts. > > In any case I have abandoned the use of geoengineering in my writing and > presentations in favor of terms that more specifically describe the CO2 > management concepts under discussion, and I most certainly will not mention > CDR and SRM concepts in the same breath due to their very different > approaches to different problems - climate vs CO2. In any case I am very > glad that CDR is finally and officially on the table, hopefully as a topic of > research and not one of engineering (yet). > > Greg > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on > behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:44 AM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC? > > http://gu.com/p/3j54t > > Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC? > -- 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] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC?
Greg list, etal 1. This is to follow up on the note I wrote a few hours ago saying (about a US government supplied statistic for SCC, the Social Cost of Capital) > In another note soon, I will justify this $41 number. I am not an expert on this topic and hope others can give more information on how it might be used to advance all forms of CDR. 2. The starting point is a well-written free (moderately) technical report from May this year, found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf entitled: Technical Support Document: - Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866 - Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government 3. The top middle of Table 2 on p 13, for a discount rate of 3% and the year 2010, in 2007$, states that the SCC was $33/tonne CO2. Updating to 2013 and then correcting to 2013 dollars will give about $41/tonne CO2. For biochar, we often triple this to get the value per tonne char - so about $120/tonne char. This would be a huge consideration in commercial biochar circles, with (I gather) many potential users, for whom this subsidy would give a sizable price reduction. 4. This is an update of a 2010 much longer version with almost the same title and URL, which is given as a direct link in the reference section at the above URL. That 2010 cite was in an also free highly technical paper, announced today, by two authors who must have worked on these two White House reports. Their paper's URL is http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/331/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10584-013-0858-5.pdf?auth66=1380572702_5743864e3e0986a2ace1ef5e5e75372b&ext=.pdf Climatic Change (2013) 120:831–843 DOI 10.1007/s10584-013-0858-5 Circumspection, reciprocity, and optimal carbon prices Robert E. Kopp·Bryan K. Mignone 5. I was impressed by all parts of this string. But I have no idea whether the $41/tonne CO2 number has any legal force within any potential CDR application within US government activities. It would seem to have utility in justifying action. Both larger and smaller numbers are nearby, but I gather that DR=3% is the standard. The Kopp-Mignone paper shows larger SCC values outside the US - and is concerned with "optimality" in international negotiations, so this might be increased in UN-type activities. If any list member is familiar with this process and how it might be used to advance CDR, I am sure that information would be most interesting and valuable to list members. Ron -- 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] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC?
Ken etal Thanks for this insight. From my perspective, delighted to see (unexpectedly) the word CDR in yesterday's IPCC release, I think you are suggesting that I (maybe we) should thank ETC - so I hereby do. But I want to believe the IPCC team knew what they were doing (in legitimizing both CDR and SRM), so I thank them also. We still have our work cut out for us in changing the meaning of the word "geoengineering" - maybe especially at the IPCC. Since I last made a stab at this, I thought of Venn diagrams. The IPCC is almost certainly thinking of two circles of roughly equal size, intersecting a small amount. Should your definition take hold, the new Venn diagram for "geoengineering" would be an unchanged left (SRM) circle and a much smaller, non-intersecting right (CDR) circle, which only covers CDR activities having a large effect outside of a single country. Ron On Sep 28, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > There is also the possibility that 'geoengineering' is not being legitimized > by the IPCC, but is being legitimized by everyone who says that it has been > legitimized by the IPCC. > > Sometimes, opponents of legitimizing a perspective can act to legitimize a > perspective by acting as if it has already been legitimized. > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > Greg etal: > >I mostly agree. But not with your first paragraph below. Included in > most definitions of CDR is "Afforestation" - and there are numerous groups > ready to go on that introduction. And with relatively low cost - lower in > developing countries. This seems well past the stage you feel is still > before us. -- 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] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC?
Greg etal This in response to your "fill me in otherwise" below: I still think that Afforestation is being so thoroughly practiced now globally that "deploying at a significant scale" should need little global pre-arrangement. An RFP following an announcement with conditions and available funding per tree or hectare would likely overwhelm the sponsor. I heard a few months ago that every Chinese school child is expected to plant 5 trees per year (I don't know how any of your (quite legitimate) questions are being answered there). Probably almost every country has a staff of foresters ready to go. And I think we should start last week. Re biochar, there are plenty of private transactions already occurring - almost a few with a sequestration payment. Some are sure to be failures: wrong char, soil, species, extras (compost, fertilizer, liming, etc) - but I put the fault for that on the purchasers - it is very easy to do simple prior testing. The main complaint from the few groups dissing biochar is that there is insufficient long-term field data, so what you are asking for can be speeded up. I am aware of no major issue in your list below that can be handled other than by proceeding as we are - through ever larger field testing. Some sequestration funding will help (a lot) to move faster. I'd appreciate hearing from your or anyone why accelerated testing is not the right course. Just as Afforestation has plenty of government foresters, biochar has soil scientists and extension agents. I would not recommend any government picking a winner, so there should be funding for the research you are after for all/most CDR candidates. But I think it also appropriate to have the equivalent of FITs (Feed In Tariffs) that did a lot for PV. The per tonne C price can be lowered regularly to match the money available. Proof of lifetime will be a key hurdle for biochar - maybe for all the CDRs. But waiting years for all questions to be answered does not seem appropriate. Ron On Sep 28, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > While I agree that biochar, afforestation, BECCS, CROPS, etc are all valid > CDR concepts, I would hesitate to advocate deploying these at a significant > scale until impacts on land use, food production, soil chemistry, nutrient > cycling, albedo, downstream/ocean impacts, societal implications, etc are > better understood. All of this needs to be researched before we can call this > available, safe and effective global CO2 management engineering/technology. > Ditto for all other CDR concepts, or fill me in otherwise. > > I think at this stage, getting ahead of ourselves on this would be > detrimental to the entire field if not the earth, Russ George and possibly > REDD* being examples. So yes we need CDR, no we don't know what the winning > methods will be, nor should we assume at this stage that there will be any of > adequate size, safety, timeliness, and cost/effectiveness. Unfortunately, > hype (positive and negative) has been/will be used to influence R&D $$ > allocation here, but let's hope that objectivity and level-headedness prevail > in this allocation. > > *http://globaljusticeecology.org/publications.php?ID=472 > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: r...@llnl.gov > Cc: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ; geoengineering > ; "n...@etcgroup.org" ; > "j...@etcgroup.org" ; "sil...@etcgroup.org" > ; "k...@etcgroup.org" > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:56 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC? > > Greg etal: > >I mostly agree. But not with your first paragraph below. Included in > most definitions of CDR is "Afforestation" - and there are numerous groups > ready to go on that introduction. And with relatively low cost - lower in > developing countries. This seems well past the stage you feel is still > before us. > > Biochar is nowhere near in the same position, but one company has > announced funding approaching $200 million, with selected sites that could > have operational units very soon (see: > http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/08/25/cool-planet-to-invest-168m-in-louisiana-stealthy-biotechnology-heads-for-scale/ > ). They are primarily a biofuels company, but CDR is a major part of the > business plan. I believe they know how to find money for sequestration to > lower costs substantially to those receiving the CDR product. Their > engineering phase is largely past. I know of a dozen other biochar firms > operating now at a smaller scale that are also past at least the initial > engineering phase. > > I have seen (un-named type) CDR costs in print that are likel
Re: [geo] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC?
Greg etal This on your second paragraph re REDD. I have tried to keep abreast of that, but can't credibly rebut the many objections given at the cite you give below. So, I hope we can hear from a knowledgeable supporter of REDD and REDD+. If there is a better way to preserve forests than REDD, I would like to hear it. I don't see any alternative given at that site. Their arguments against are the same as for many of the CDR approaches - based on presumed failures and large corporate involvement. Ron On Sep 28, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > While I agree that biochar, afforestation, BECCS, CROPS, etc are all valid > CDR concepts, I would hesitate to advocate deploying these at a significant > scale until impacts on land use, food production, soil chemistry, nutrient > cycling, albedo, downstream/ocean impacts, societal implications, etc are > better understood. All of this needs to be researched before we can call this > available, safe and effective global CO2 management engineering/technology. > Ditto for all other CDR concepts, or fill me in otherwise. > > I think at this stage, getting ahead of ourselves on this would be > detrimental to the entire field if not the earth, Russ George and possibly > REDD* being examples. So yes we need CDR, no we don't know what the winning > methods will be, nor should we assume at this stage that there will be any of > adequate size, safety, timeliness, and cost/effectiveness. Unfortunately, > hype (positive and negative) has been/will be used to influence R&D $$ > allocation here, but let's hope that objectivity and level-headedness prevail > in this allocation. > > *http://globaljusticeecology.org/publications.php?ID=472 > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: r...@llnl.gov > Cc: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ; geoengineering > ; "n...@etcgroup.org" ; > "j...@etcgroup.org" ; "sil...@etcgroup.org" > ; "k...@etcgroup.org" > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:56 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC? > > Greg etal: > >I mostly agree. But not with your first paragraph below. Included in > most definitions of CDR is "Afforestation" - and there are numerous groups > ready to go on that introduction. And with relatively low cost - lower in > developing countries. This seems well past the stage you feel is still > before us. > > Biochar is nowhere near in the same position, but one company has > announced funding approaching $200 million, with selected sites that could > have operational units very soon (see: > http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/08/25/cool-planet-to-invest-168m-in-louisiana-stealthy-biotechnology-heads-for-scale/ > ). They are primarily a biofuels company, but CDR is a major part of the > business plan. I believe they know how to find money for sequestration to > lower costs substantially to those receiving the CDR product. Their > engineering phase is largely past. I know of a dozen other biochar firms > operating now at a smaller scale that are also past at least the initial > engineering phase. > > I have seen (un-named type) CDR costs in print that are likely 10 times > what biochar costs are likely to become. I don't have publishable values, > since private firms would rather keep their costs to themselves - > understandably), I have just today learned more about the recently increased > Federal value for SCC - the societal cost for carbon. It (a central value) > seems to be about $41/tonne CO2. That number is plenty to drive both > afforestation and biochar markets - hopefully other CDR markets. In another > note soon, I will justify this $41 number. > > Ron > > > On Sep 28, 2013, at 11:14 AM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > >> To answer the title's question why GE - I can't speak for the IPCC authors, >> but it is clear the other approaches aren't getting the job done, thus other >> intervention concepts must now be considered. With all due respect to >> efforts (and recently here in this group) to define and use the term >> geoengineering, I think it very unfortunate to call CDR "engineering" since >> it implies existing, established, off-the-self scientific and engineering >> knowledge that can be applied to the problem rather than ideas or concepts >> whose safety, cost, and effectiveness of application are poorly understood >> and need considerably more scientific, social, and economic research before >> they can even be considered for application. >> >> I think that the preceding is the root of m
Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
he stock) significantly large enough to >> impact the planetary environment? No. Was the secondary 'intent' (i.e. >> collect GE related data and gain practical field investigational experience) >> carried out to the degree that the planetary environmental matrix was change >> in any significant way? No. >> >> >> The standard of GE 'scale' has not been met and the standard of GE 'intent' >> was well within the scope of the best 'opinion' of the leading global >> scientific authority. >> >> >> Thus, I would petition the jury to acquit the HSRC principals of the primary >> charge of wrongful GE as the actions simply did not exceed a reasonably >> scientifically knowable degree of harm or good at the planetary level. Also, >> I petition the jury to acquit the defendants on the lesser charge, of >> wrongful GE experimentation/investigation, as the CBD does allow for such >> actions and the 'best known scientific and engineering practices' in this >> field were followed. >> >> >> The moot court would now hear the oppositions' opening statement. >> >> >> >> In pursuit of a refinement of the word 'Geoengineering', and thus the >> bedrock of the scientific/engineering/philosophical/legal disciplines which >> are evolving around this concept, any new definition should be tested >> through this type of open moot court challenge. I believe it may be useful >> in limiting the subjective pitfalls inherent in this debate. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson >> wrote: >> Ken, Jim, etal >> >> The following more responding to Jim than Ken. Warning - the comments >> are mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that >> group. But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as >> well. >> The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is ocean >> acidification (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that distinction >> is well enough covered by both definitions below >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira >> wrote: >> >>> Jim, >>> >>> We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but >>> to aid comparison, here are both definitions: >>> >>> CBD: >>> >>> "Geoengineering" is >>> >>> A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and >>> scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. >> >> [RWL1: I sense that the developers of this definition did not have the >> concern that Ken has in his accompanying remarks - that the term >> "geoengineering" has become almost synonymous with SRM. More below on the >> reasons that Ken (and I) aren't comfortable with this very (too?) broad >> definition. >> I believe that only a small percentage of biochar projects are now >> being undertaken for climate reasons - rather most are undertaken for >> food/soil reasons. Jim and Ken and others: would that food/soil intention >> keep a biochar from being defined as "geoengineering" by this above? How >> about for Ken's next? >>> >>> Alternate candidate definition: >>> >>> "Geoengineering" refers to activities >>> >>> (1) intended to modify climate >>> >>> (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international >>> commons or across international borders >>> >>> (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through >>> environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols >>> and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. >>> >>> >>> I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily >>> applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies >>> such as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that >>> present no special risks, cross-border issues, international commons >>> issues, etc. >> >> [RWL2: I like the three-part definition. It would be very helpful >> to have Jim also make a comment on this one. This fails in what way? More >> (much more) on Jim'
[geo] Comparing bombs, tonnes excess atmospheric C, and land area in a CDR analysis
List: I wondered if I could relate CDR (in my case easiest to use biochar) in some way to Hiroshima bombs. Is the following, using an imbalance methodology, credible? This assumes the reader has been following the list dialog on Hiroshima bombs. I am not recommending that this be a new frame CDR. Imbalance #1: Hansen’s 400,000 bombs per day is the present imbalance. If we want to remove that imbalance in 50 years, we must remove 1/2*50 yrs*365 days*0.4 million bombs/day = 3.65 billion bombs. Call it 4 billion bombs. The factor of 1/2 comes in computing the area of a triangle. A linear drawdown shape is not realistic, but this is a rough computation. All numbers below are rough - chosen for ease in following the arithmetic. b. Imbalance #2.The present atmospheric imbalance in carbon terms is on the order of 100 ppm or 200 Gt C. But to remove that we must remove an equivalent amount from the oceans, so we need near 400 Gt C to remove in total. c. Equating: If the imbalances are 4 billion bombs and 400 billion tons C, then 1 bomb = 100 tons C and one ton C = .01 bomb. If a ton C can be removed for $100 dollars, then removing a bomb will cost $10k. Removing 400 Gt C would be $40 trillion, or $800 billion per year. This is less than $30/tonne CO2. d. Comparing stoves to weapons: One (approximate) way to generate about a third of a ton (near 1/3 kg char per meal or 1 kg char per day or 1/3 tonne carbon per year) of sequestered carbon is to replace cooking with one traditional cook stove with one charcoal-making stove for one year. So 300 families could, over a year, remove the 100 tonne carbon imbalance equivalent to one Hiroshima weapon. In fifty years only 6 families per weapon. This last surprised me. Note that joules never appeared - only weapons and tons carbon. e. Handling out-year impacts. Moving to the gigaton scale, the average annual amount of biochar might have to be 1/2 *400 Gt C/50 yrs = 4 Gt C/yr = 4 wedges. The factor of 2 is postulated to account for an assumed doubling of impact due to out-year carbon-negative impacts from increased above and below ground carbon. There are also some perhaps equal-magnitude carbon-equivalent annual impacts - but they are not in this 4 wedge computation. (A combination of CDR approaches, rather than only biochar, would need be larger than 4 wedges.) f.What land area for 4 GtC/yr? To keep below 1 Gigahectare, we need to end up with at least 4 wedges/1 Gha = 4 tonnes Cseq/ha-yr. If we can get 40% char from a tonne of carbon in the biomass (which itself might be 50% carbon), then we need an NPP of (4 tonnes Cseq/ha-yr)/(0.4) = 10 t C/ha-yr. This is the same as 1 kg C/sqm-yr) [which equates to about 2 kg biomass/sqm-yr)]. There are bioenergy operations operating well above this level today. This is only about twice the global average NPP near (60 Gt C per yr)/12 Gha = 5 t/ha-yr (or 0.5 kg/sqm-yr). Careful selection of species and sites is assumed. A sizeable (below assume 10% processing loss) portion of the 60% of the carbon in the biomass is available for carbon neutral biopower and biofuels - hopefully mostly used for backing up (more land-efficient, but non-dispatchable) wind and solar to enable zero fossil fuels. g. Is 1 gigahectare realistic? Possibly not - but there is about 3 to 4 times that much available in both degraded and pasture land. No need for any forest or ag land, although possibly 1 of the 4 wedges would come from those activities - where a portion of the biochar will certainly also be placed (if credits become available). This could get the 1 Gha down to 3/4 of a Gha. h. Tying land and time with bombs: One hectare producing at the 10 tonnes C/ha-yr rate (char at 4 tC/ha-yr), over fifty years will produce 50 yrs * 4 t C/ha-yr * 1 ha = 200 tonnes of directly sequestered char and twice (by assumption) that due to out-year impacts - or (the required) 400 tonnes Cseq in a 50 year period. (And twice 200 again for carbon neutral impacts, but we are not counting those here). So to get enough land for one bomb (since in step [c] we found a bomb = 100 tonnes Cseq), we need (100 t Cseq per bomb if removal takes 50 years)/(400 tonnes Cseq/ha in 50 years) = 1/4 ha per bomb. i. Energy/bomb aspects. The energy available along with biochar, assuming 32 Gigajoules per tonne C ,from the 0.25 ha (one bomb), on a per year basis, is: (32 GJ/t C) * (.5 Cenergy/Ctotal) * (10 t Ctotal/ha-yr) * 0.25 ha = (32 * 250 * 0.25) GJ/yr = 40 GJoule/year as co-product from one bomb over 50 years. Using an annual per capita world average energy usage of about 80 Gj/yr, this one-bomb land area can also provide the total energy needs of about (40 GJ/yr-bomb)/(80 GJ per person-yr) = 1/2 average person. But if wind, solar, and hydro would do 80% of the supply, t
Re: [geo] Applying for DE-FOA-0000886? CDR test facility
Greg, cc List: I also hope you are wrong. This view on CDR seems a little more pessimistic than warranted, since numerous other much lower cost CDR options exist. I am encouraged that the IPCC has this past week used the word CDR. Should not our DoE (and others) take that to heart also (for other than the BECCS or DAC options). Ron On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > Unclear what this has to do with CDR. This is addressed to pre-emissions, > power plant point source mitigation, not post-emissions air CO2 capture and > storage, although possibly relevant to BECCS. With the APS 2011 report > apparently still viewed as the first and last word on air capture, it's > looking like it will be a very hot day on planet earth before DOE considers > CDR. Hope I'm wrong. > Greg > > From: "markcap...@podenergy.org" > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 6:04 AM > Subject: [geo] Applying for DE-FOA-886? CDR test facility > > CDR or GGR Stakeholders, > > Are you considering: > https://www.fedconnect.net/FedConnect/PublicPages/PublicSearch/Public_Opportunities.aspx? > > Or maybe readying your technology for testing? > > Applications for Post-Combustion and Pre-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture > and Gasification Technologies Testing This Funding Opportunity Announcement > (FOA) is specifically focused on a cost shared Research and Development > effort for operating and maintaining existing test facilities. These test > facilities must include the capabilities of providing multiple and > simultaneous slipstream testing of bench and pilot scale third party advanced > CO2 capture and gasification technologies from diverse fuel sources at > commercially relevant process conditions. These Research and Development > (R&D) test facilities will also promote and conduct the evaluation of > advanced technologies to identify and resolve environmental, health and > safety, operational, component, and system development issues in > collaboration with the technology developer. The identification of cost > effective and efficient advanced CO2 capture and gasification technologies > will address the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) forecast that domestic > and international coal based power generation will remain a critical and > primary source of electricity generation through 2035, thereby creating a > near term market based opportunity with a global opportunity for the export > of U.S. developed technology. > > Mark > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Ventura, California > www.PODenergy.org > -- > 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. > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Andrew and list: Thanks for the alert. In trying to learn more (as Dr. Masiello's article is behind a pay wall), I found this Rice University cite which I found informative: http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/biotech/newsid=32537.php The subject of in-soil signaling needs a lot more work. The reasons for failure and success for different biochar-soil-species combinations are not at all well understood. It will be fascinating to see of this new experimental approach will lead to major explanatory factors. I'd appreciate a copy of the paper, if easy for anyone. Ron On Oct 2, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > Poster's note : adds pathogen resistance and soil bacteria modification to > biochar's benefits > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es401458s > > Caroline A. Masiello, Ye Chen, Xiaodong Gao, Shirley Liu, Hsiao-Ying Cheng, > Matthew R. Bennett, Jennifer A. Rudgers , Daniel S. Wagner, Kyriacos > Zygourakis, and Jonathan J. Silberg > > Publication Date (Web): September 11, 2013 > > E-mail: masie...@rice.edu > > Abstract > > Charcoal has a long soil residence time, which has resulted in its production > and use as a carbon sequestration technique (biochar). A range of biological > effects can be triggered by soil biochar that can positively and negatively > influence carbon storage, such as changing the decomposition rate of organic > matter and altering plant biomass production. Sorption of cellular signals > has been hypothesized to underlie some of these effects, but it remains > unknown whether the binding of biochemical signals occurs, and if so, on time > scales relevant to microbial growth and communication. We examined biochar > sorption of N-3-oxo-dodecanoyl-L-homoserine lactone, an acyl-homoserine > lactone (AHL) intercellular signaling molecule used by many gram-negative > soil microbes to regulate gene expression. We show that wood biochars disrupt > communication within a growing multicellular system that is made up of sender > cells that synthesize AHL and receiver cells that express green fluorescent > protein in response to an AHL signal. However, biochar inhibition of > AHL-mediated cell–cell communication varied, with the biochar prepared at 700 > °C (surface area of 301 m2/g) inhibiting cellular communication 10-fold more > than an equivalent mass of biochar prepared at 300 °C (surface area of 3 > m2/g). These findings provide the first direct evidence that biochars elicit > a range of effects on gene expression dependent on intercellular signaling, > implicating the method of biochar preparation as a parameter that could be > tuned to regulate microbial-dependent soil processes, like nitrogen fixation > and pest attack of root crops. > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Latest IPCC Climate Report Puts Geoengineering in the Spotlight: Scientific American/Nature
Andrew and list: The SA article came from Nature, where they also reference a similar recent article on the NET/CDR/GRR conference (you attended?). I don't think this pro-NET/CDR/GGR interview with organizer Tim Kruger has been yet cited on this list http://www.nature.com/news/why-reducing-emissions-may-not-be-enough-1.13841 Ron On Oct 2, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=latest-ipcc-climate-report-puts-geoengineering-in-the-spotlight > -- 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] IPCC on SRM and CDR
Andrew 1.Again thanks. You do a great job of finding good "Geo" material to read. These two below of course are very current and relevant to this list. My life would be a lot easier if you didn't provide so many. 2.I also recommend Chapter 12: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf This is the place apparently where "irreversibility" resides in IPCC parlance. The converse (reversibility) of course distinguishes CDR (Chapter 6) from SRM (Chapter 7). The material is very short, so here is all of the main place that "CDR" (reversibility) is discussed (from p 82). "The reversibility of sea ice loss with respect to global or hemispheric mean surface temperature change has been directly assessed in AOGCMs/ESMs by first raising the CO2 concentration until virtually all sea ice disappears year-round and then lowering the CO2 level at the same rate as during the ramp-up phase until it reaches again the initial value (Armour et al., 2011; Boucher et al., 2012; Ridley et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013b). None of these studies show evidence of a bifurcation leading to irreversible changes in Arctic sea ice. AOGCMs have also been used to test summer Arctic sea ice recovery after either sudden or very rapid artificial removal, and all had sea ice return within a few years (Schröder and Connolley, 2007; Sedláček et al., 2011; Tietsche et al., 2011). In the Antarctic, as a result of the strong coupling between the Southern Ocean’s surface and the deep ocean, the sea ice areal coverage in some of the models integrated with rampup and ramp-down atmospheric CO2 concentration exhibits a significant lag relative to the global or hemispheric mean surface temperature (Ridley et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013b), so that its changes may be considered irreversible on centennial time scales. A majority of these cites are free, but (being mainly on Arctic ice) not very pertinent to CDR. However I found the Boucher reference quite good, and on much more than ice: Boucher, O., et al., 2012: Reversibility in an Earth System model in response to CO2 concentration changes. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 024013. found at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024013/pdf/1748-9326_7_2_024013.pdf Quote 1: “ Although the scenario is unrealistic because of the requirement for large negative C emissions in the ramp-down phase, it is useful to investigate hysteresis and irreversibility in the Earth system and can provide insight into a hypothetical scenario of carbon dioxide removal.” [RWL1: I hope this list can have some dialog on "unrealistic". The article analyzes a case of 1% annual decline, about the same as our present path up (8 Gt C/yr vs 800 Gt C total in the atmosphere. Saying that 1% annual removal is "unrealistic" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are peer-reviewed papers talking of such a number for individual CDR approaches, much less a suite. See also a reverse comment below on the possible speed. A 1% increase (the 8 Gt C/yr of fossils) is also "unrealistic" (but we do it).] Quote 2: "A fact relevant to CDR technology is that any negative emission will be subject to an airborne fraction in the same way as positive emissions. During the ramp-down phase, the average airborne fraction is 76%, which is significantly greater than during the ramp-up phase (as the natural sinks are still responding at the beginning of the ramp-down).” [RWL: I haven't previously seen this sort of detail - a bit more than a statement about hysteresis (which is a big part of the paper). The overall conclusion of the paper is (I believe) that they found no show-stoppers for CDR. I am inclined to now prefer the word "reverse" over "remove" - but it is probably too late for that. 3. Re section 6.5 (cite below), I was not particularly impressed. Not very much there (a page?), and not too balanced (more negative than positive, from my perspective). I would not send researchers there to learn the state of the many CDR disciplines. But I am pleased that the section 6.5 concepts are now before the UN. Probably not many CDR experts among the volunteers. 4. Re Section 7.7 (mostly on SRM), there is almost as much on CDR as in Section 6.5. The statement (p68) I found most interesting was: "Assuming a maximum CDR sequestration rate of 200 PgC per century from a combination of CDR methods, it would take about one and half centuries to remove the CO2 emitted in the last 50 years, making it difficult—even for a suite of additive CDR methods—to mitigate climate change rapidly" No citation for the assumption. One could have as easily stated that 400 PgC in 50 years (factor of four) would make it easy to "mitigate climate change rapidly." So I hope we can discuss whether 0.25% per year or 1 % is the more appropriate goal for a suite of CDR approac
Re: [geo] Global funding for geoengineering research
Alexandercc list: Can you clarify whether you are inquiring about A) geoengineering (both SRM and CD) or B) solar geoengineering. Also whether you are also interested in the amount of private sector research funding that is going into A) and/or B). And is total funding or R&D funding that is more critical? I assume you can only fund non-profits. But what if there was shared funding with a University? And whether you could fund an umbrella non-profit organization that only partially supports research (but is promoting a particular "geo" approach). I.e. Is your interest only in funding research? If your funding could be restricted by the recipient to R&D, would that be what you want? (Other funding being on policy, education, etc) Ron On Oct 4, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alexander Berger wrote: > Hi all, > > I work for GiveWell, a nonprofit that does research to help donors decide > where to give, and we're in the early stages of considering recommending > funding for geoengineering research. One question we're interested in as we > think about that is how much funding is already directed to geoengineering > research. > > Andy Parker and David Keith have put together a helpful list of publicly > funded solar geoengineering research projects around the world, including > funding information: > http://environment.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/srm_projects_around_the_world.pdf > (linked from here). > > In the interest of trying to get an estimate of the total global annual > funding for solar geoengineering research, I've added a few projects (mostly > US- and philanthropically-funded) to their list, added timing info where I > could find it, and uploaded it to Google Docs here: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhzKnm3ez8kJdElmRmE3aFN4bTMtYl9lamo3SDlyM1E&usp=sharing > > My total estimate comes out to around $10 million/year. Key (uncertain) > assumptions include: > Continued support from Bill Gates for FICER at ~$1.5 million/year > 50% of SCRiM's main NSF grant is devoted to geoengineering research. The > grant is mentioned as a source of support for GeoMIP but the 50% figure is > pulled out of nowhere. > Programs I know of but don't have any funding info for include: > Finland's COOL > IASS' Investigation and Assessment of Geo-Engineering Approaches which > influence the Composition of the Atmosphere > Exeter's G360 > I've made the spreadsheet publicly editable, and I welcome any additions or > corrections, particularly with respect to the above uncertainties. If you add > information, some note about the source would be much appreciated (e.g. "I, > Jane Smith, work for the program" or "here's the website with the info"). > > The additions I made--and, I believe, the underlying list compiled by Andy > and David--aimed to include projects that have an SRM component (at least), > and are explicitly framed as geoengineering. Including projects that are only > "relevant" to SRM or that focus exclusively on CDR, as the GAO's 2010 report > did, would lead to significantly larger funding estimates. However, it's not > the case that 100% of the included funding is going towards SRM research; > many of the included projects also have CDR components. > > Thanks, > Alexander > > > -- > Alexander Berger > www.GiveWell.org > > -- > 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. -- 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] Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research
Jesse and Andrew: 1. Thanks for the lead on the Winickoff-Brown article. They referenced an article (no fee) by Long and Scott that I thought was also very good at http://www.issues.org/29.3/long.html . Not enough, though, in either paper on separating "Geo" into SRM and CDR. 2. Reading both papers, I didn't see discussion of national vs international. The latter looks quite difficult, but could perhaps be based on a national model that neither paper referenced: a Congressional Office. I was, while on sabbatical, an early employee of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). OTA was headed by a 12 member board consisting of three from each house of Congress and each party. The various administrations paid attention and helped. After 20 years, it was killed by Newt Gingrich in 1994 as a budget-saving gesture for Congress. I think a big mistake as OTA did good work and probably saved a lot of money over the years. The GAO and the CRS are good, but can't do the deep work for Congress that OTA did. 3. I suggest that resurrecting OTA (needs a new name) would have many of the features that the four authors were after. Might work similarly for the UN, but not as obvious how to have a balanced governing board. Ron On Oct 6, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > This article is now available in pdf at > http://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/GeoE-ISSUES-Advisory-Committee.pdf > > A short teaser is below. > > Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research > > Even talking about research on geoengineering stirs controversy. Creating an > effective mechanism for such discussions will be an essential prerequisite to > any scientific work. > SUMMER 2013 79 > > Nobody likes geoengineering. But whether your basic response is revulsion or > resignation, the idea is getting increasing attention, and we need to develop > a better way of talking about it. The most prominent scheme, known as solar > radiation management (SRM), would aim to reduce global warming by spraying > aerosols into the stratosphere or whitening clouds, thereby reflecting more > sunlight back into space. Even strong advocates of geoengineering research > acknowledge the many risks involved. The physical risks include possible > shifts in global precipitation patterns and increased droughts and floods in > the world’s most vulnerable regions. The political risks include the > possibility that geoengineering technologies will provide a welcome excuse to > avoid difficult measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (continues) > > > On 23 September 2013 09:07, J.L. Reynolds wrote: > Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research > > Winickoff, David E. > Brown, Mark B. > > Issues in Science and Technology > Summer 2013 > > > > Even talking about research on geoengineering stirs controversy.Creating an > effective mechanism for such discussions will be an essential prerequisite to > any scientific work. > > > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/170204286/Time-for-a-Government-Advisory-Committee-on-Geoengineering-Research > > > > - > > Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. > > PhD Candidate > > European and International Public Law > > Tilburg Sustainability Center > > Tilburg University, The Netherlands > > Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology > > email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl > > http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds > > > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Carbon farming's added benefits
Andrew and list: 1. Thanks again. The article itself is available (no-fee, perhaps for short time only?) at http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Lin.pdf Not possible to copy the abstract - a stripe across each page. Here is the journal's summary, a little different than that given below by Andrew: Carbon markets and related international schemes that allow payments to landholders for planting trees, sometimes called carbon farming, are intended to support sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere. But they will have harmful effects, such as degrading ecosystems and causing food supply problems, if other benefits and disbenefits from revegetating agricultural landscapes are not also taken into account in land-use decisions, according to an article published in the October issue of BioScience. Brenda B. Lin of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and her colleagues assessed a variety of ways that people have attempted carbon farming. Simple maximization of profit can lead landholders accessing carbon markets to create monoculture plantations, which do not support biodiversity and provide few environmental benefits to local inhabitants. But alternatives such as planting strips of trees on farms, agroforestry—integrating trees into cropping systems—and revegetation of marginal or crop land can sequester carbon while also yielding a broad spectrum of environmental benefits. These benefits may include, for example, reduced pollution outflow and erosion, and better wind protection, pest control, and pollination. What is more, schemes that have local participation and buy-in are more likely to be successful over the long term because they can draw on local knowledge about trees likely to thrive and, therefore, will remain popular. Lin and her colleagues urge organizers of carbon farming schemes to move beyond a carbon-only focus and consider cobenefits of revegetation, while involving local inhabitants, not just private landowners, in policy decisions. 2. The term carbon farming (in the article title: "Maximizing the Environmental Benefits of Carbon Farming through Ecosystem Service Delivery") is one that the CDR group should hear more often - Lin says it is equivalent to "tree-planting" - but it would seem from the article to have a broader meaning - and I think that the case in Australia. The article itself is much more about forestry (trees) than farming. It is all about how to make CDR be more successful, but that term is not used. So this article should be of interest to all of the bio-oriented CDR approaches. It is trying to get away from a plantations-only approach to sequestration through emphasis on co-benefits. The emphasis is certainly on CDR, not forestry or farming. 3. This article is of special interest as the authors are Australian, and Australia already has a carbon credit program at about Aus$24/tonne CO2 ( about 6% less in US $) - appreciably higher than most other carbon markets. I think is still going well, after change of governments?? 4. Lin etal list (Table1) a half dozen approaches from plantations to environmental plantings. The message I got was that the world can do better than plantations , although they might seem to have the best near-term economics. There are no cost estimates here. Some of the co-benefits listed (summarized in Table 1 - were differing for the 6 approaches) are: private: reduced soil erosion, wind breaks, pest control, pollination, livestock shelter and salinity control and public: reduced pollution, runoff, and evaporation, improved connectivity, increased habitat area,species conservation but possible disbenefits: reduced land for cropping, invasive taxia, competition for water resources, biodiversity loss, altered fire regime 5. I think the authors are providing a valuable critique of any comparison between different SRM and CDR techniques that ONLY focuses on sequestration. This was their main message I believe. 6. I followed a few cites that were behind paywalls, finding one book that is relatively new, lengthy, free and looks valuable - on agroforestry (NOT listed in Lin): http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Permaculture/Agroforestry/Carbon_Sequestration_Potential_of_Agroforestry_Systems-Opportunities_and_Challenges.pdf Ron On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:28 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/carbon-farmings-added-benefits/2673768.aspx?storypage=0 > > Carbon farming's added benefits > > 07 Oct, 2013 04:00 AM > 'BEST practice' carbon farming that considers more than just the carbon in > trees is vital for farmers, landholders, and the community, according to > CSIRO research. > > CSIRO-led research confirms that tree plantings in rural lands can provide a > stream of other benefits to farmers, local communities and the
Re: [geo] 2013 North American Biochar Symposium | Harvesting Hope: The Science and Synergies of Biochar
List and cc Andrew: I will be there for all days and will be trying to report "live" to two other lists on latest news. Drop me a line if you would like to hear similarly. About 220 expected, but numerous late "regrets" from a dozen or so Federal employees who were told to cancel. Ron On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://symposium2013.pvbiochar.org/ > > MA, USA > > October 13-16, 2013 > > This symposium is designed for farmers, foresters, researchers, policy > makers, biochar producers and entrepreneurs, and especially students and > citizens who want to learn about biochar as an alternative to fossil > fuel-based fertilizers/pesticides and energy. > > -- > 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. -- 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] Oxford Geoengineering Programme // Geoengineering Library
Andrew and list: I agree the Oxford group is doing good work. But it is incorrect to claim "virtually every" as regards biochar, where they show 26 papers (not all peer-reviewed). By my reckoning they have missed 400+ biochar research papers since their most recent entry from February last year. Maybe they should keep what they have, but they should also send readers to a fully searchable biochar data base: http://www.biochar-international.org/biblio They are leaving an inaccurate perception of the state of the biochar literature portion of the CDR part of Geoengineering. Have they done the same for any others? Ron On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/geolibrary/index/ > > This has been posted before, but it's amazing, so I'm bumping it. It's the > Oxford Martin school geoengineering research library. Virtually every > geoengineering research document is indexed. > > A > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Can science fix climate change? | Mike Hulme
Andrew and List: Obviously Professor Hume's new book will not provide a happy addition for those on this list interested in SRM. But not a new view. I can't contribute, for lack of proper study reasons, but I hope others will. But I also hope Professor Hume and others would comment on the other interest of this list - the CDR portion on each of his three points: Desirable - I take most of the CDR approaches to be "desirable" using the comparison with controlling local weather. Not addressing rising temperatures will be based on the undesirable aspect of societal costs and externalities apparently. Ethical issues are in this first category. Governable - Mostly, the CDR approaches seem governable - at least to the extent that parceling out carbon credits obviously will require following some rules, that we already (sort of) know how to do and are doing. Reliable - Same response. Funding unreliable CDR approaches won't be tolerated very long in a CDR market open to all (10?) CDR approaches Ron On Oct 13, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.mikehulme.org/2013/09/can-science-fix-climate-change/ > > Professor Mike Hulme's Site« Forthcoming book > > Can science fix climate change? > > (23 September 2013) ‘Can science fix climate change?‘ I have just submitted > my full manuscript of this new book title to Polity Press. The book argues > against the research and deployment of large-scale sunlight reflection > methods, especially stratospheric aerosol injection, as a response to climate > change. The book will appear in the New Year as part of their New Human > Frontiers series. Here is a brief summary:“In this book I outline the > reasons why I believe this particular climate fix—creating a thermostat for > the planet–is undesirable, ungovernable and unreliable. It is > undesirablebecause regulating global temperature is not the same thing as > controlling local weather and climate. It is ungovernable because there is > no plausible and legitimate process for deciding who sets the world’s > temperature. And it is unreliable because of the law of unintended > consequences: deliberate intervention with the atmosphere on a global-scale > will lead to unpredictable, dangerous and contentious outcomes. I make my > position clear: I do not wish to live in this brave new climate-controlled > world. In Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel ‘Brave New World’, his ironic Utopia > was brought about by totalitarian engineering of the human subject–‘Yes, > everybody’s happy now’. For those promoting the virtues of designer climates > the equivalent pathological Utopia would be brought about by totalitarian > engineering of the planet.” > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Speaking of artificial upwelling
Greg and list: The information below doesn't use either of the terms SRM or CDR. But I have known a former federal manager of OTEC for about 40 years (Dr. Bob Cohen). I have discussed with him several ways that CDR could be encouraged via OTEC. Anyone interested in making contact - drop me a line. Dr. Cohen is a valuable free (and passionate) resource on this topic. Ron On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:09 PM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > Anyone care to estimate the net atmospheric CO2 impact of bringing deep ocean > water to the surface to perform OTEC and then discharging the water in the > surface ocean? +/- renewable electricity benefits? > Greg > From: French, Bruce [bruce.fre...@yorkrsg.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 6:06 AM > To: Rau, Greg > Subject: OTE Corporation - Bahamas & OTEC Competitors > > Greg, > > OTE, as you know, has been around for a few decades. It appears to be coming > to life again after the Lockheed OTEC sale to China. > http://www.otecorporation.com/news_reader/items/ocean-thermal-energy-corporation-announces-765-equity-offering-under-the-new-jobs-act.html > “In addition to its Energy Services Agreement to build, own and operate the > world's largest deep ocean SDC system, OTE has concluded that other SDC and > OTEC contracts are likely to follow in various locations such as the US > Virgin Islands, the Caribbean, East Africa, the Pacific Rim and US Department > of Defense bases, the latter of which are mandated to reach a 25% renewable > energy goal by 2025. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) have been signed for > at least four projects.” > > “All projects will be funded with an equity component in the capital > structure. The first project in The Bahamas will incorporate equity > contributions from OTE, DCO Energy LLC, host country investors, preference > capital, loan notes and senior debt. OTE expects that future projects will > follow a similar capital structure, which aims to maximize the returns to > investors for limited risk.” > > OTEC competitors see OTEC News at: http://www.otecnews.org/ > > Bluerise > DCNS > Delft University of Technology > Energy Island > ITRI > Kobe Steel > Lockheed Martin > Makai Ocean Engineering > NELHA > NIOT > NOAA > Ocees > OTE Corporation > OTEC International > Saga university > Sea Solar Power > Seawater Greenhouse > US Navy > Xenesys > > > Bruce French > Sr. Project Manager > Environmental > > > -- > 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 togeoengineering+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.
Re: [geo] Speaking of artificial upwelling
Bob, Greg, etal Appologies; I am in rush to finish 2 PPts at Biochar2013 conference at Univ Massachusetts. I wanted mainly to get in the concept of island-based units. Good economics purportedly in first using cold water for thermal coolth, then for aqua-(mari-?) culture. I agree there needs to be concern over the depth of mixed water release. Note also that a possible "waste" product is fresh water - which can be of major value in some areas. Alternatively, typical ocean fertilization schemes need not also rely on deep ocean sequestration of biomass. I believe there is a better future for use of biomass on land or sea for "regular" biochar plus liquid fuels (ala new company "Cool Planet"). "Rumor" that Cool Planet will be giving reportedly high new productivity number tomorrow from field tests with their biochar. The main point is that OTEC is promising. It could have been well proven by now if President Reagan had not declared death of the development effort on grounds OTEC was (1981) "commercially ready". More tomorrow. Ron On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "Rau, Greg" wrote: > Discharging at depth will presumably cost energy, so what does that do to the > economics, not to mention effects on mid-depth marine ecosystems where it > will suddenly get a whole lot warmer/colder and O2 enriched/depleted? > Greg > From: Robert Cohen [r.co...@ieee.org] > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 8:36 PM > To: Ronal W. Larson > Cc: Rau, Greg; geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Speaking of artificial upwelling > > Dear Ron, > > It would be quite inadvisable to discharge the condenser effluent of ocean > thermal plants into the photic zone. Responsible plant-designers and > plant-operators should avoid that practice, by discharging that effluent at > greater depths. > > That topic was discussed at the Asia Pacific Clean Energy Summit 2013 held > last month in Hawaii. Please note in this connection the e-mail below, and > its attachments, which I received from Dr. Luis Vega, > > Regards, > > > Robert C ohen, Ph.D., Consultant > Specialist in Ocean Thermal Energy > 1410 Sunshine Canyon Drive > Boulder, Colorado 80302 USA > (303) 443-4884 > mobile: (303) 249-7859 > <http://www.robertcohen.org/> > > > --- > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: >> Subject: Fw: Help OTEC from new IMO-OTEC >> Date: September 16, 2013 3:34:04 PM MDT >> To: >> Reply-To: >> >> The following information was provided by Prof. Yasu Ikegami of Saga >> University in Japan. >> >> If indeed the International Maritime Organization (IMO) were to approve this >> amendment on October 14, OTEC would be incorrectly classified as an "ocean >> fertilization" activity and essentially banned from implementation. This >> ignores the fact that all serious OTEC designs and ongoing development >> proposals include returning the seawater to the ocean below the photic layer >> such that enhancing primary productivity would not be feasible. >> >> Please alert others of this situation and if you know your IMO country's >> delegate contact her/him. >> >> Luis >> >> Luis A. Vega, Ph.D. >> Manager >> National Marine Renewable Energy Center >> University of Hawaii >> 1680 East West Road, POST 112A >> Honolulu, HI 96822 >> USA >> (808) 956-2335 (landline) >> (808) 221-5267 (mobile) >> luisv...@hawaii.edu >> http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/ >> >> -Original Message- From: Yasuyuki Ikegami >> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:36 PM >> To: Luis Vega UH Mail >> Cc: 池上 康之 >> Subject: 【IOES-II】Help OTEC from new IMO-OTEC >> >> Aloha Luis-san, >> >> I am very happy to meet you again in Honolulu. >> >> By the way, as I explained, I would like to request you to help OTEC for >> future. I have introduced on IMO (International Maritime Organization) >> situation on OTEC. It is VERY VERY Serious situation for OTEC. If this >> serious situation will be realized, OTEC business will be VERY difficult. >> >> Please check the our document. It is VERY VERY TOO BAD situation for >> OTEC promotion in the world. You can get the including document from the >> following the WEB. Please get more information of IMO, >> >> http://www.imo.org/Pages/home.aspx >> >> Already, I would request Dr. Hyeon-Ju Kim to help OTEC against IMO. >> And I sent him same document. >> >> If adopted on october 2013, before placement of matter for ocean >> fertilization,
[geo] Report from Biochar conference - U Mass.
1. This coming at end of 2nd day. One more day and then a field demonstration day. 2. The conference agenda should anyone want detail (or possible answer to a specific question) is at http://scholarworks.umass.edu/biochar/2013/ 3.Today's schedule is at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/biochar/2013/Policy/1/ Two very encouraging periods today were: a. 8:00 AM Plenary with Prof. Johannes Lehmann and Hampshire President Jonathon Lash. Johannes (Chair of IBI (International Biochar Initiative) ) was more encouraging than I have heard him in the past. We should relatively soon be able to explain the variability of reported results. He reported latest results that are averaging 20% productivity improvement vs about 10% last year (but see below). b. 1:30 presentation By Dr. Rick Wilson of Cool Planet (CPES), provided an economic rationale on how farmers of certain high value crops (his example: tomatoes) can justify purchasing the CPES biochar at a price where CPES also makes their required profit. Emphasis was on being able to provide improved yield to farmers. CPES headquarters today issued a press release (see http://www.coolplanet.com/sites/default/files/docs/Cool_Planet_Announces_Launch_of_Cool_Terra_Biochar_Soil_Amendment.pdf, in part saying: "Cool Planet has shown yield improvements consistently averaging 60% and input reductions of 40%, combined with accelerated growth rates, in commercial field trials in California, enabling cost-effective farming in regions with structured drought such as California and Arizona." Their favorable economics are projected with zero new federal incentives. Most prior life cycle assessments (LCA's) have assumed no productivity improvements. First commercial production giving carbon negativity in 2015 from conversion site already established in Louisiana. 4. Dr. Wilson was followed By Keith Driver giving new details on the IBI-proposed carbon certification program being developed under the American Carbon Registry. Webinar later this month. 5. The final presentation in that session was by Tom Stokes (Climate Crisis Coalition) giving details on a carbon tax with rebate program (much like that proposed by Dr.Jim Hansen 7. I heard several other high improved productivity reports today of a similar character - much better news for low cost CDR progress than I have heard previously. 8. For the first time at this conference, the evening program was 15 (?) "Ignite " talks (10 minute max). -- 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] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers
Greg and list: This is my first day back from the 4-day biochar conference (went well). I have read the abstract and the supplementary material, but not yet the full article (copy would be much appreciated). I am pretty sure the authors are encouraging vermiculture for CDR reasons - but that the authors did not consider biochar in their studies. I am also pretty sure that worms prefer soil with biochar augmentation. So to answer Greg's question, the answer is probably "no" - but I need to read the full article to give a better answer. There is a fair amount of literature on the coupling of worms and biochar, but I found none addressing "better than" and don't think this particular article will help. Both worms and biochar increase carbon above and below ground. That is where the real CDR will be taking place. Ron On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > Better than biochar? > Greg > > > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html > Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification of > carbon stabilization compared with mineralization > Yuanhu Shao& Shenglei FuAffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author > , > Deborah A. Neher,Jianxiong Li > Roger A. Burke,Jianping Wu, > Paul F. Hendrix,Lauren E. Dame, > Weixin Zhang, > Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2576 doi:10.1038/ncomms3576 > Received 28 April 2013 Accepted 09 September 2013 Published 15 October 2013 > Article tools > Abstract > A recent review concluded that earthworm presence increases CO2 emissions by > 33% but does not affect soil organic carbon stocks. However, the findings are > controversial and raise new questions. Here we hypothesize that neither an > increase in CO2 emission nor in stabilized carbon would entirely reflect the > earthworms’ contribution to net carbon sequestration. We show how two > widespread earthworm invaders affect net carbon sequestration through impacts > on the balance of carbon mineralization and carbon stabilization. Earthworms > accelerate carbon activation and induce unequal amplification of carbon > stabilization compared with carbon mineralization, which generates an > earthworm-mediated ‘carbon trap’. We introduce the new concept of > sequestration quotient to quantify the unequal processes. The patterns of CO2 > emission and net carbon sequestration are predictable by comparing > sequestration quotient values between treatments with and without earthworms. > This study clarifies an ecological mechanism by which earthworms may regulate > the terrestrial carbon sink. > > -- > 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. -- 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] Fwd: [biochar] Post-conf re-cap: USBI 2013 North American Biochar Symposium, Amherst, MA Oct 13-16
List: This message from Albert Bates (author of a biochar best-seller, appeared before the Supreme Court four times) captures a lot of the flavor. Full videos of all presentations probably at least a few weeks away. Personally, I missed most of the material in Albert's blog. Ron Begin forwarded message: > My highlights of the previous week now up on my blog: > http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/ > > Tom Miles (Moderator) Note: > USBI 2013 North American Biochar Symposium, Amherst, MA Oct 13-16 > http://symposium2013.pvbiochar.org/ > Albert Bates is a USBI Board member -- 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 Engineering Conference 2014
Ben, Andrew and list: I see so little on CDR/GRR that I couldn't in good conscience recommend friends from the biochar community to submit anything. I include the membership lists in the various organizing and advisory panels, where you have many (maybe all) well known names - a few on ocean technologies, but none I think from the CDR earth-bio side. Can you provide a sales pitch on why any person interested only in CDR/GGR (with examples for biochar) should want to attend? Two weeks ago, I was overwhelmed with what was new at a biochar conference. With four parallel sessions over 3 days, I missed over half of what went on. I now can't see your bringing in more than one or two panels of interest to me - not enough to justify the time and expense. Am I wrong? Hope I am. Ron On Oct 23, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Ben Kravitz wrote: > Hi Andrew - > > That's entirely up to you and the rest of the people on this list. If you > feel the list is a good place to coordinate ideas, discuss session proposals, > and divide up responsibilities, that's great. If you would prefer to keep > your ideas private and propose them individually, that's also great. We're > interested in broad participation and representation of as many viewpoints as > possible, so whatever method of discussion supports that is fine by me. > > Best, > > Ben > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> Do you want the suggestions shared on the list? >> >> I suggest the following sessions : >> Non CO2 GGR >> Engineering and testing of delivery technology >> Governance/deployment modelling, games, etc. >> Deployment details - flight paths, security, monitoring , etc. >> Unconventional SRM particulates >> Cirrus stripping, DMS and other secondary SRM technologies >> >> A >> >> On Oct 23, 2013 5:22 PM, "Ben Kravitz" wrote: >> Hi everyone - >> >> It is my pleasure to announce the Climate Engineering Conference 2014: >> Critical Global Discussions (CEC14), to be held in August of next year in >> Berlin. The official conference website - http://www.ce-conference.org - >> contains much more detailed information about the purpose of the conference, >> but here is an overview: >> >> Climate Engineering has emerged rapidly as a contentious issue in mainstream >> political, scientific, and cultural discussions. We see a window of >> opportunity for bringing together the research, policy, and civic >> communities under one roof to discuss the highly complex and interlinked >> ethical, social and technical issues that come into focus when discussing >> climate engineering. We thus strive to engage in critical global discussions >> by bringing in new voices, providing a forum for exchange and dialogue, and >> examining how climate engineering intersects with other issues and broader >> trends by organizing a large conference on climate engineering in August >> 2014. >> >> As a member of the steering committee, I would like to welcome anyone who is >> interested to submit session proposals. These can include disciplinary, >> interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary ideas. We want to consider >> anything that you think is useful! More information about session proposals >> can be found at http://www.ce-conference.org/call-session-proposals . The >> deadline for submitting session ideas is Friday, December 6. >> >> If you have any questions about anything related to this conference, please >> do not hesitate to contact me at ben.krav...@pnnl.gov (please use CEC14 as >> the subject of your email). If I'm not the right person to answer your >> question, I'll make sure you get sent to the right place. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ben >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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/gro
Re: [geo] Climate Engineering Conference 2014
Ben and ccs Thanks for the full response. I do hope you can bring the CDR folk in, as there are few opportunities for hearing what is happening in CDR compared to what is happening (or not) in SRM. My concern is that no-one I recognize with expertise on biochar is in the long list of likely attendees. If the planners want CDR representation, I urge not waiting for session ideas, but make some invitations to those active in CDR. More specifically to those in specific approaches - as I see very few (maybe there is no one) with deep insights into more than their own favorite CDR/GRR approach. There is one (and only one) biofuel-biochar company with major near-term plans (and a lot of money) that your attendees should hear from (as the most likely leader in CDR in 2014). If I were them at this point I would see no reason to attend without a special invitation for a plenary. Ron On Oct 23, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Ben Kravitz wrote: > Hi Ron - > > I think I understand your question, but please let me know if I've > misunderstood or misrepresented your points. Also, please keep in mind that > although I'm a member of the steering committee of this conference, I'm not > writing on behalf of anyone other than myself. I've tried to say things that > I believe are in line with the many hours of discussions the members of the > steering committee have already had, but anyone else who may have a better or > different sales pitch is certainly welcome to offer one. > > Our purpose in this conference is to encourage a discussion of climate > engineering that is as all-encompassing as possible. We wish to be > inclusive, leaving the session proposals open to whoever may wish to organize > a coherent set of presentations. Of course, such a broad list cannot be > fully represented by a short list of the people who are on the advisory > group, but I do hope the message of the conference on the website is very > clear, in that we want participation from as many different perspectives of > climate engineering as possible. Interactions between the different > communities interested in climate engineering are crucial to the success of > this conference. > > In my opinion, as well as according to my recollection of discussions with > the rest of the steering committee, CDR/GGR is an important part of the > discussion of climate change and climate engineering. Our purpose is not to > focus the entire conference on any one particular technology or aspect of > climate engineering, so I do think the topics under this wide umbrella can > and should have a critical role to play, both in the presentation of > disciplinary ideas, as well as what they add to the discussion of climate > engineering as a whole. By attending, each presenter or session proposer > will ensure that his/her views and research are being adequately represented > at the conference. If you would like to participate, we would be delighted > to include the perspectives of your community as well. Any conference has > the tradeoff of engaging in knowledge exchange versus time and expense; such > a decision is, of course, a personal one. I believe that the broader the > participation, the more rewarding the conference will be for all of the > attendees. > > Best, > > Ben > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > >> Ben, Andrew and list: >> >>I see so little on CDR/GRR that I couldn't in good conscience recommend >> friends from the biochar community to submit anything. I include the >> membership lists in the various organizing and advisory panels, where you >> have many (maybe all) well known names - a few on ocean technologies, but >> none I think from the CDR earth-bio side. >> >>Can you provide a sales pitch on why any person interested only in >> CDR/GGR (with examples for biochar) should want to attend? Two weeks ago, >> I was overwhelmed with what was new at a biochar conference. With four >> parallel sessions over 3 days, I missed over half of what went on. I now >> can't see your bringing in more than one or two panels of interest to me - >> not enough to justify the time and expense. Am I wrong? Hope I am. >> >> Ron >> >> >> On Oct 23, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Ben Kravitz wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew - >>> >>> That's entirely up to you and the rest of the people on this list. If you >>> feel the list is a good place to coordinate ideas, discuss session >>> proposals, and divide up responsibilities, that's great. If you would >>> prefer to keep your ideas private and propose them individua
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
List cc Andrew This interview is of course not good news; Dr. Shiva has a pretty strong following in environmental circles. I add a few comments here for three reasons First because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions. She wrote a very confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her CDR/biochar views. Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her. Her views on biochar are the same as given below. Second, because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis. He comments on views like hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of (former “Geo" list member) Peter Read. a. Oliver wrote p 392: “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. in a decentralized, slapdash way. The idea we might do it better should not be rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at all.” b. A paragraph later: “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature should be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is everywhere under our influence already. c. One more paragraph later. We are on the flight deck, and we are alone. We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them. And we know where we want to go. The fact that we have only a dim idea of how to fly means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not act. All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was selected (in 2007 at a biochar conference - because of Peter). Dr. Shiva’s views were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely above in these three excerpts. These apply as well to George Monbiot, whose similar views are on p 389. They were also given recently even more strongly in an e-mail response to Albert Bates, saying: On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/ > > TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW > > NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because you’re > an incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. and it’s > great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with you. It’s > something that embraces everything: food and water and what is happening now > in the world in a situation of climate change, and great change, and risk of > collapse at every level. I saw the interview you had with Amy Goodman. So, > first, what is, for you, at this moment, the role of geoengineering? > > 00:55 Vandana: the role of geo-engineering should, in a world of > responsibility, in a world of scientifically enlightened decision making and > ecological understanding, it should be zero. There is no role for > geo-engeneering. Because what is geoengineering but extending the engineering > paradigm? There have been engineered parts of the earth, and aspects of > ecosystems and organisms through genetical engineering: the massive dam > building, the re-routing of rivers. These were all elements of geoengineering > at the level of particular places and we have recognized two things: one, > that when you don’t take into account the way ecological systems work, then > you do damage. Everyone knows that in effect climate change is a result of > that engineering paradigm. We could replace people with fossil fuels, have > higher and higher levels of industrialization, of agriculture, of production, > without thinking of the green-house gases we were admitting, and climate > change is really the pollution of the engineering paradigm, when fossil fuels > drove industrialism. To now offer that same mindset as a solution is to not > take seriously what Einstein said: that you can’t solve the problems by using > the same mindset that caused them. So, the idea of engineering is an idea of > mastery. And today the role that we are being asked to play is a role based > on informed humanity. > > 2:45 NoGeoingegneria > In my eyes geoengineering started in the 50s with atomic tests, because in > this period they started to make geoengineering of the atmosphere of earth in > a global sense, in a bigger sense, and a lot of projects in the 50s started > to organize the earth, the planet, in a new way, with a new idea of > engineering really the whole planet. With the power of atomic bomb scientists > made a shifting in their mind, in my eyes. So in this period, in the 50′s > weather modification also started very energically. It is part of geo > engineering, and you have here the map of the ETC group, in the whole world, > they are doing it, and you cannot do local modifications without
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
List cc Andrew This interview is of course not good news; Dr. Shiva has a pretty strong following in environmental circles. I add a few comments here for four reasons 1. Because she has said all of the same things about biochar (not mentioned in the transcript below) on several occasions. She wrote a very confused forward (as though she hadn't read it) to a major biochar book by Albert Bates (at his invitation) - should anyone want to see more on her CDR/biochar views. Albert, a leader in both fields, says that mostly the Permaculture movement is behind biochar, not listening to her. Her views on biochar are the same as given below. 2. Because I have today read the following in Oliver Morton’s excellent book (“Eating the Sun”) on photosynthesis. He comments on views like hers in the last chapter where he reports (pages 389ff) on the views of (former “Geo" list member) Peter Read. a. Oliver wrote p 392: “What’s more, we are rearranging the world……. in a decentralized, slapdash way. The idea we might do it better should not be rejected for an unworkable if understandable desire that we not do it at all.” b. A paragraph later: “We can’t let a romantic idea that nature should be free to carry on regardless dominate our thinking; nature is everywhere under our influence already. c. One more paragraph later. We are on the flight deck, and we are alone. We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them. And we know where we want to go. The fact that we have only a dim idea of how to fly means we must act carefully and thoughtfully, not that we must not act. All of Oliver’s book was written before the name “biochar” was selected (in 2007 at a biochar conference - because of Peter). Dr. Shiva’s views were probably the same then and I feel are refuted nicely above in these three excerpts. 3. These sentences apply as well to George Monbiot, whose similar views are on p 389. They were also given 4 days ago even more strongly in an e-mail response to Albert Bates, replying to a posting on the recent biochar conference by Albert at http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-21/post-modern-moonshots George wrote to Albert, saying I find this utterly terrifying: one of the worst examples of mindless cornucopianism since the untimely demise of Peter Read. >> >> Beware of what you want to believe! >> >> George I include this because I think George is even more dangerous to most CDR (certainly biochar) than Dr. Shiva 4. Lastly, Dr. Shiva’s interviewer below wanted her to talk about “the map” (produced by a third campaigner against geoengineeering: ETC). That map can be seen at On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.nogeoingegneria.com/interviste/terra-futura-2013-interview-with-vandana-shiva-about-geoengineering/ > > TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW > > NoGeoingegneria: So, first, thank you very much for your time because you’re > an incredible woman and you always have so much time for everybody. and it’s > great. We wanted to speak a little bit about geoengineering with you. It’s > something that embraces everything: food and water and what is happening now > in the world in a situation of climate change, and great change, and risk of > collapse at every level. I saw the interview you had with Amy Goodman. So, > first, what is, for you, at this moment, the role of geoengineering? > > 00:55 Vandana: the role of geo-engineering should, in a world of > responsibility, in a world of scientifically enlightened decision making and > ecological understanding, it should be zero. There is no role for > geo-engeneering. Because what is geoengineering but extending the engineering > paradigm? There have been engineered parts of the earth, and aspects of > ecosystems and organisms through genetical engineering: the massive dam > building, the re-routing of rivers. These were all elements of geoengineering > at the level of particular places and we have recognized two things: one, > that when you don’t take into account the way ecological systems work, then > you do damage. Everyone knows that in effect climate change is a result of > that engineering paradigm. We could replace people with fossil fuels, have > higher and higher levels of industrialization, of agriculture, of production, > without thinking of the green-house gases we were admitting, and climate > change is really the pollution of the engineering paradigm, when fossil fuels > drove industrialism. To now offer that same mindset as a solution is to not > take seriously what Einstein said: that you can’t solve the problems by using > the same mindset that caused them. So, the idea of engineering is an idea of > mastery. And today the role that we are being asked to play is a role based > on informed humanity. > > 2:45 NoGeoingegneria > In my eyes geoengi
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
List and David 1. David Hawkins responded today with a longer piece and then this correction: "Whoops. In my penultimate sentence I left out an important "not." The sentence should read-- > The fact that we are a part of nature does NOT mean we can argue that we > should be comfortable with any actions we take because they are "natural." This is partly to make sure that everyone understands that Oliver is not guilty of the charge which David is rightly saying must not occur. I think my three short excerpts from a very long book make clear that Oliver is well aware of this. Conversely, Dr. Shiva seems to believe it impossible to do ANYTHING right. Unfortunately the same seems true of George Monbiot and his BiofuelWatch sources. I hope we can have some additional dialog on the ethics of doing nothing in the CDR arena. 2. I have excerpted all but a few lines of what I wrote earlier, as I inadvertently sent two versions - neither complete (still learning my new Mac). Below I finish my thoughts about a map mentioned in the interview. On Oct 27, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: > List cc Andrew > > This interview is of course not good news; Dr. Shiva has a pretty > strong following in environmental circles. > > I add a few comments here for four reasons > > 4. Lastly, Dr. Shiva’s interviewer below wanted her to talk about > “the map” (produced by a third campaigner against geoengineeering: ETC). > That map can be seen at > [RWL: What I meant to add was the website for that map that I consider as uninformed about CDR as I do the comments of Dr. Shiva and George Monbiot: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/world-geoengineering This map is at least 16 months our of date, claiming only 300 “Geoengineering” projects. Roughly half of them seem to be biochar - and I am sure the number was much higher 16 months ago, but would probably be in excess of 1000 by now. One example of their being badly out of date is the fact they show zero biochar activity in China, whereas that Country has at least 3 regional groups (shown at the the IBI site, along with conferences in China). My guess is that China either is or will be the premier biochar country shortly - exactly as they have done for wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal heating (something like 2/3 of the world totals), and afforestation. The interviewer and Dr. Shiva seemed to think it reprehensible that a map exists with 300 “Geo” entries. I view the number 300 differently. I hope that ETC will quickly update, so as to show that there are huge and growing numbers of researchers who take the opposite ethical view of Dr. Shiva, George Monbiot, ETC, and the interviewer. On the other hand - maybe that is the ETC reason for not keeping this map current. Ron -- 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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
List cc Oliver 1. There was a message from David Hawkins after this one from Oliver - that seem to indicate David is better understanding Oliver’s position on CDR. Good. But I am not following that theme in this message. 2. This message is picking up on Oliver’s final paragraph below - returning to the thread title topic(couplng Dr. Shiva and “Geo”). At the “carboncounter" site below, there is a 50 minute video of Mark Lynas talking mostly about GMO’s (which I think has nothing to do with CDR and especially biochar - so hope we don’t go down that road). There is also a video of Dr. Shiva - but only on GMO. At the 27:53 point, we find 10 seconds for one sentence re Dr. Shiva (emphasis added): “The government in India is increasingly enthralled to backward looking ideologues like that of Vandana Shiva who idealized preindustrial village agriculture despite the fact it was an age of repeated famine and structural insecurity for everyone." 3. This sentence apparently caused Dr. Shiva to respond on 3 January: #MarkLynas saying farmers shd be free to grow #GMOs which can contaminate #organic farms is like saying #rapists shd have freedom to rape”. I hesitated to include this, but think she would say the same with “Geo”replacing “GMO”. The reference to rape didn’t go over well at this site. 4. A little later, Robert Wilson, owner of the site (which heading ends “fanatic or fantasist” that Oliver has sent us to) said: "The real issue however is whether Vandava Shiva is simply deluded, or actively malicious. In either case it is high time the environmental movement recognised that she is a deeply dangerous figure.” 5. I prefer to think that Dr. Shiva, like the anti-biochar folks at BFW and ETC have simply forgotten how important it is to use the scientific method. This (anti-science [not just a different science] - as similarly employed by climate deniers) is the message I got today after reading Mark Lynas. 6. Apologies for returning to the main point of this thread started a few days ago by Andrew - which I believe was that geoengineering (both CDR and SRM) is going to be much hampered by a very small group. I agree with the several writers listed above that Dr. Shiva and supporters are dangerous, not because they have and anti-geo message, but because they are carrying an anti-science message. I do not think they are either deluded or malicious - they only come from a misguided “moral?” position not supported by science. She and her supporters are dangerous because they have a sizable and vocal following. I hope someone/anyone can offer a best way to engage in dialog with Dr. Shiva - especially on whether she can support any means of CDR - and the ethics behind doing or not doing some form of CDR and/or SRM. Thanks to Oliver (who probably has a totally different take on this) for his additional alert (below, emphasis added) on Dr. Shiva. Ron On Oct 28, 2013, at 10:17 AM, O Morton wrote: > Dear David > > Though obviously you couldn't know this, in the context of the preceding > paras, it should be fairly clear that the flight deck metaphor applies to a > range of choices of which climate geoengineering options are only a subset > (new energy sources, new farming practices etc) The subsequent paras make the > case that considering things "carefully and thoughtfully" will lead people > not to wish to press the button marked OIF. So I still don't see how your > response differs from what I said. > > The nature discussion is probably a long one for another place; my basic > point is that there is nothing more socially constructed than what gets > counted as natural. > > On another topic, I can't speak to Vandana Shiva's publication record, but > those wanting to know more about her thought and rhetoric may find this > interesting: > http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/ > > > Best > > Oliver -- 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
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
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 Caldera’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. 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. 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 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.
[RWL6: I don’t see us in disagreement. Obviously you will use the minimum
amount possible (to maximize the NPP). Many already are doing this with char
placed only near the roots - not everywhere in a field.
>
> We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're putting the
> cart before the horse.
[RWL7: Sorry, I am not understanding this. What is the cart and what is
the horse? If this means I am proposing too aggressive an introduction
schedule, I admit to thinking we are going too slowly. Almost no government
funds are now being employed - at least in the USA. I think my schedule is
about the same as proposed by Dr. James Hansen. Any biochar user getting
large-scale bad resul
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s response to you BC1: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. [RWL1: Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon. I do not know enough on either SRM or the latent-heat-transfer topic to argue on either point. I will say that I think there is good enough literature around to say that getting back to 350 ppm in 50 years would be thought by most analysts to be virtually miraculous. I am all for faster means of cooling in addition to (not instead of) removing the CO2. But I cannot yet endorse either SRM or the still-unanalyzed hypothetical cooling attributed to latent het transfer. BC2: 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. [RWL2: I agree with all. Any new approach can be done badly. It can also be done well. I see enough advantages to biochar users that the latter seems more likely. The argument it WILL be done badly is the only complaint that BFW and Dr. Shiva seem to be making - that is not science. I repeat my claim that anyone finding a bad result from biochar deserves what they got.] BC-last: We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're putting the cart before the horse. >[RWL7: Sorry, I am not understanding this. What is the cart and what > is the horse? > Soil carbon is the cart. Biochar is one of the team of horses that can serve > to build it up, and the others are good agricultural and forestry practices > that bring countless ecological benefits. There needs to be a great deal of > public discourse and education to show these potential benefits and to show > how depletion of soil carbon had a great deal to do with CO2 levels being > where they are. That's why we need to talk about soil carbon and not just > biochar. > > By the way, these benefits are directly threatened by the kind of > agricultural practices that support GMOs. Vandana Shiva has led a principled > fight against native seeds being displaced by GM seeds. Robust biodiversity > means a healthy web of microbes and other organisms in the soil. But if you > have a vulnerable GM seed, those organisms and all their carbon-based food > chain don't belong. > > To put it more simply, healthy soil carbon and GMOs do not go together. For > all of people's legitimate worry about GMOs' health and economic side > effects, the harm done to soil, and by extension to climate, gets too little > attention. I believe farmers need to be in the front lines of reversing > climate change, so to me Vandana Shiva is heroic. And advocating > biodiversity in natural systems strikes me as very good science. [RWL3: a. I also responded (see below) about my possibly asking for too much speed on introducing biochar. Brian did not address that, so that is not the cart-horse issue. b. Re para #1, I admit to placing lots of attention on soil carbon - and on this list especially - to the huge sequestration potential that is there, without any conflict at all between the two objectives. It seems to me that I am not guilty of putting your soil carbon cart ahead of your biochar horse. They are to me one and the same. If you are arguing that there are other ways to increase soil carbon, that is a different issue. Good luck in getting them adopted as well. c. Re para #2 - I refuse to get into anything related to GMO - especially on this list. In a different response to Oliver Morton yesterday, I said I see zero relation between biochar and GMO materials - and said I refuse to talk about any purported relationship between them, as proposed by BFW (and probably believed by Dr. Shiva). d. Re para #3. Glad to see you agree (I think) here on not appropriate to couple soil carbon (including biochar as the main way likely to increase soil carbon) and GMOs (so I don’t understand your raising it in Para #2). Re Dr. Shiva, I hope you recognize that she is thoroughly against biochar (not natural enough?). So I strong
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
List and Brian: I just noted a mis-statement. See below. On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: > Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s > response to you > > BC1: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. > [RWL1: Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see below) > that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing for SRM > here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent heat > transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong > warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon. RWL: The last word was supposed to be “moisture” - NOT “carbon”. Apologies. I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”. Ron -- 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] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
m not claiming great accuracy above - but if we double these numbers then the annual average expenditures on the biochar side, would be $200/t C * 2 Gt C/yr = $400 billion per year - a small portion of today’s annual GDP of $80 trillion. Appreciably less than the 1% of GDP one often reads for CDR - and no-one is expecting global GDP to stay flat at $80 trillion. 11. I don’t believe a doubling for biochar sequestration subsidy cost is appropriate, as we are beginning to see quite substantial (60% by one recent corporate announcement) annual yield improvements for land receiving biochar treatment. A few years earlier we talked of 10% average improvement. I trust solid scientists to do even better when we truly understand how to make biochar most effective. . The above numbers are also not taking account of numerous other biochar financial benefits - possibly of equal societal magnitude 12. Where are the most inappropriate assumptions in the above? Is $200 or $400 billion per year a bargain or out of the question? Apologies for a rush response (that I tried hard to keep short). Ron On Oct 30, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Tom Wigley wrote: > Dear all, > > Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible > unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the > atmosphere. > > Some simple calculations are attached. > > Tom. > > ++++= > > On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: >> List and Brian: >> >>I just noted a mis-statement. See below. >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson > <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote: >> >>> Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my >>> yesterday’s response to you >>> >>> BC1: */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. /* >>>> >>> *[RWL1: Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see >>> below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT >>> arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for >>> increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable >>> at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric >>> carbon.* >> >>RWL: The last word was supposed to be “moisture” - NOT “carbon”. >> Apologies. I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”. >> >> Ron >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. > <350ppm.doc> -- 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] Retooling the Planet: The False Promise of Geoengineering, by ETC Group
Andrew and list: Thanks for bringing this older (no references after 2009) ETC document to our attention. There are a few statements I can agree with. But the final (16th) paragraph lumps all the “Geo” technologies together in a non-analytical fashion as it tries to tar them all through 7 “reasons” to say “No” to geoengineering. Below is my view of how they have mis-analysed biochar with this seven-part list. I hope list members can find fault with my short (biochar-only) rebuttals on the seven ETC “reasons”. I also hope others will similarly analyze the list in terms of other SRM and CDR approaches (where I claim no expertise). The final paragraph of the forwarded chapter reads (in italics) with my responses as underlined regular font: "While the following list is not comprehensive, there are compelling reasons to say no to geoengineering: 1. Too-perfect excuse:Geoengineering offers governments an option other than reducing green-house gas emissions. For many industrial advocates,geoengineering means “buying time” to avoid action on emissions reduction." Both sentences comprise an argument against SRM, not CDR - and especially not against biochar. Biochar proponents seem to be uniformly urging a rapid stoppage of fossil fuel use. 2. "Large-scale: For any geoengineering technique to have a noticeable impact on the climate, it will have to be deployed on a massive scale, and any unintended consequences are also likely to be massive. We don’t know how to recall a planetary-scale technology." Yes, massiveness is needed and, fortunately, is possible. Massive benefits can occur with biochar, and no “unintended consequence” misbenefits seem to have been observed or proposed.Biochar can be cut off quickly - and application can be policed. 3. "Unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations—which are responsible for 90 percent of historic emissions—are the ones with the budgets and technology to execute geoengineering’s gamble with the planet. There is no reason to trust they will have the rights of more vulnerable states or peoples in mind." The first sentence is a pro-biochar ethical argument.Biochar provides local benefits (energy and soil improvement) at least as large as the global atmospheric benefits. Evidence going back thousands of years is that biochar is desired and worth the extra effort to farmers. 4. "Unilateral: Many geoengineering techniques could be relatively simple to deploy, and the technical capacity to do so could be in some hands (of individuals, corporations, states) within the next ten years It is urgent to develop a multilateral mechanism to govern geoengineering, including establishing a ban on unilateral attempts at climate modification." The first sentence is (as above) a pro-biochar argument. The biochar industry is developing its own (governing) certifications - addressing important global soil improvement issues. Energy production will necessarily be quite near the biomass supply. Biochar can impact all forms of energy. 5. "Unreliable: Geoengineered interventions could easily have unpredicted consequences due to mechanical failure, human error, inadequate understanding of Earth’s climate, future natural phenomena (such as storms or volcanic eruptions), transboundary impacts, irreversibility, or funding failures." Only the first two items in this list apply to biochar - and they apply to virtually every possible human activity. With a knowledge base growing rapidly, biochar seems one of the most reliable of all technologies. Farmers are some of the world’s most cautious peoples. 6. "Treaty violation: Many geoengineering techniquesare “dual use” (i.e., have military applications). Any deployment of geoengineering by a single state could be a threat to neighboring countries and, very likely, the entire international community. As such, deployment could violate the U.N. Environmental Modifcation Treaty of 1978, which prohibits the hostile use of environmental modification." It seems very unlikely that a “hostility” claim could be made about biochar. 7. "Commercializing the climate: Competition is already stiff in the patent offces among those who think they have a planetary fix for the climate crisis. If geoengineering’s “Plan B” were ever put into motion, the prospect of it being monopolized is terrifying." Agreed that there are numerous patent applications related to biochar - but technological progress seems more desirable than undesirable.Pyrolysis (charcoal-making) is one of the oldest of technologies; many valuable char-making approaches are now in the public domain. There is no reason to believe a monopoly is likely for biochar. Overall conclusion: None of the seven ETC-proposed negative “Geo” attributes apply in any important way to biochar. Ron(hoping f
Re: [geo] Adapting to rather than avoiding or fixing Hell and High Water
Greg cc list: 1. To answer your final question - yes, I wish the article had somehow found a way to mention SRM and CDR. But in reading the background material for the small 27-person meeting in 2012 at AGCI that led to this paper, I see that their climate world is broken up into two and only two parts: Mitigation and Adaptation. I think they would say that all SRM is within Adaptation (no part in Mitigation). CDR is probably mostly there also, but some that are renewable energy producing can be in both “halves” - in both the Adaptation and Mitigation halves. This set of comments is designed to suggest that biochar is an ideal “poster child” for the Adaptation side of the split. 2. This short article (and the 2012 meeting) was clearly announced to be only on the single topic of adaptation. We should not assume that any of the authors feel adaptation dos NOT include either SRM or CDR. See http://www.agci.org/programs/past_scientist_workshops/about_the_workshop/sciSess_details.php?recordID=280 3. The sponsoring Aspen group has previously covered Geo topics (in 2009 and 2010). Ken C is on the AGCI 4-person board. Perhaps he can find a way to have a similar summer meeting that would please this list in 2015 (the 2014 schedule card is likely already filled up). 4. The many PPts and videos show a heavy influence of two important US climate organizations (and I don’t see much “Geo” either place): http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap15-biogeochem.pdf http://globalchange.gov/what-we-do 5. At the site at #2, there is a good seven paragraph description of the workshop. The sixth paragraph gives five questions (white on a black background), which match up well with the 6 subheadings of the Science paper given below by Greg. To make my case that biochar fits well (I claim exceedingly well) in the Adaptation half of our national climate dialog, I also show one "typical" sentence from each of the six subsections (shown in bold). I was surprised that the six quotes have a social science aspect - clearly a focus of the 2012 study and the 2013 paper. 1:What types of adaptation decisions are emerging and can these be categorized to help identify the social and natural science information needed to support them? Understand Decision Processes and Knowledge Requirements “Organizational, cognitive, political, ethnographic, and decision sciences research is needed to clarify the problem, the values of participants, and the context in which the information will be applied.” B. Identify Vulnerabilities “A georeferenced data system for factors such as population, economic status, preparedness, natural capital, and location of sensitive infrastructure needs to be established and maintained to identify vulnerable human communities and environments.” 2: What are the physical and social science requirements and capabilities to support different types of adaptation decisions? C. Improve Foresight About Climate Hazards and Other Stressors “Social sciences can characterize human contributions to climate change through emissions and land use and inform mechanisms for improving interactions between climate scientists and potential users.” 3: How does adaptation fit within the context of mitigation, especially with regards to risk management? D. Adaptation Science in Action “Researchers in Australia developed a plant functional trait database and modeled habitat suitability under climate scenarios for naturalized and invasive plants to enable land managers to make better-informed decisions about land management at a national and regional level.” 4: How do we monitor progress to know if adaptation is working? E. Identify Barriers, Broaden the Range of Adaptation Options, and Promote Learning "For measures focused on governance or livelihoods, indirect proxy variables must be defined.” 5: Moving forward, what is the science agenda for adaptation, for both social science and physical science? F. Measures to Establish Adaptation Science "More broadly, sustained support for problem-oriented fundamental research on adaptation needs to be increased at research agencies." Ron On Nov 16, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6159/696.summary > > CLIMATE CHANGE > Hell and High Water: Practice-Relevant Adaptation Science > R. H. Moss et al. > Informing the extensive preparations needed to manage climate risks, avoid > damages, and realize emerging opportunities is a grand challenge for climate > change science. U.S. President Obama underscored the need for this research > when he made climate preparedness a pillar of his climate policy. Adaptation > improves preparedness and is one of two broad and increasingly important > strategies (along with mitigation) for climate risk management. Adaptation is > required in virtu
Re: [geo] Adapting to rather than avoiding or fixing Hell and High Water
Charles: The 2012 meeting and the subsequent Science article assumed only two possible “buckets” to place terms like SRM and CDR: A= Adaptation and M=Mitigation. The article only talks about A. I am not sure they would agree that “CI=climate intervention” is necessarily A (large solar or wind farms might fall under the term “CI” and these are certainly “M”). Similarly for your term “CR=climate remediation” as being synonymous with M. I think some might say “CR” sounds as much like “A” as “M". I am not going to get into these - as the issue for this list is only the term CDR, which I feel is broad enough to have some CDR technologies in both “A” and “M” categories. Greg’s point (and most on this list?) might be that the categories CDR and SRM are different from both “A” and “M”.. But the Science article authors chose differently (only two categories (“A” and “M”) are possible; CI and CR are not permissible “buckets") - and so there is room for debate on where SRM and CDR should be located. My argument is that some CDRs (such as biochar) are both “A” and “M”. I presume this will be bothersome to some observers - if they want a clean break between “A” and “M”. So I am disagreeing with your second sentence - but not your first. Ron On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Charles H. Greene wrote: > While SRM could fall under climate intervention or adaptation, I think that > CDR is better described as climate remediation rather than mitigation. > > Chuck Greene > > On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > >> Greg cc list: >> >>1. To answer your final question - yes, I wish the article had somehow >> found a way to mention SRM and CDR. But in reading the background material >> for the small 27-person meeting in 2012 at AGCI that led to this paper, I >> see that their climate world is broken up into two and only two parts: >> Mitigation and Adaptation. I think they would say that all SRM is within >> Adaptation (no part in Mitigation). CDR is probably mostly there also, but >> some that are renewable energy producing can be in both “halves” - in both >> the Adaptation and Mitigation halves. This set of comments is designed to >> suggest that biochar is an ideal “poster child” for the Adaptation side of >> the split. >> >>2. This short article (and the 2012 meeting) was clearly announced to be >> only on the single topic of adaptation. We should not assume that any of >> the authors feel adaptation dos NOT include either SRM or CDR. See >> >> http://www.agci.org/programs/past_scientist_workshops/about_the_workshop/sciSess_details.php?recordID=280 >> >>3. The sponsoring Aspen group has previously covered Geo topics (in 2009 >> and 2010). Ken C is on the AGCI 4-person board. Perhaps he can find a way >> to have a similar summer meeting that would please this list in 2015 (the >> 2014 schedule card is likely already filled up). >> >>4. The many PPts and videos show a heavy influence of two important US >> climate organizations (and I don’t see much “Geo” either place): >> http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap15-biogeochem.pdf >> http://globalchange.gov/what-we-do >> >> 5. At the site at #2, there is a good seven paragraph description of the >> workshop. The sixth paragraph gives five questions (white on a black >> background), which match up well with the 6 subheadings of the Science paper >> given below by Greg. To make my case that biochar fits well (I claim >> exceedingly well) in the Adaptation half of our national climate dialog, I >> also show one "typical" sentence from each of the six subsections (shown in >> bold). I was surprised that the six quotes have a social science aspect - >> clearly a focus of the 2012 study and the 2013 paper. >> >> 1:What types of adaptation decisions are emerging and can these be >> categorized to help identify the social and natural science information >> needed to support them? >> Understand Decision Processes and Knowledge Requirements >> “Organizational, cognitive, political, ethnographic, and decision >> sciences research is needed to clarify the problem, the values of >> participants, and the context in which the information will be applied.” >> B. Identify Vulnerabilities >> “A georeferenced data system for factors such as population, economic >> status, preparedness, natural capital, and location of sensitive >> infrastructure needs to be established and maintained to identify vulnerable >> human communities and environments.” >> &g
[geo] Re: biochar as CDR and related nomenclature issues: CDRS = CDR + S (carbon dioxide removal + storage)
Ken and list: The only way I can see to respond is paragraph by paragraph. Apologies in advance, but there are some important topics below for biochar. On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Folks, > > The question about whether biochar is a CDR technique and therefore > "geoengineering" raises some interesting issues. > > Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques involves to processes that are in > principle separable: [RWL0: Change “to” to “two”?] > > 1. Carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere (or oceans) > 2. Storage of that carbon in a long-lived pool. [RWL1: Agreed (maybe). But I see a problem with “1” mentioning CO2, and “2” mentioning C. I’d prefer that both mention C - or make it clear that from an atmospheric perspective they are interchangeable terms. Later in this dialog, I am claiming “ removal” and “storage” are two terms for the same atmospheric benefit that biochar provides.] > > Carbon can be removed from the atmosphere using biological strategies (e.g., > land plants, phytoplankton) or chemical strategies (e.g., direct air capture, > accelerated chemical weathering). [RWL2: I am worried that “pyrolysis” is not mentioned also in the concluding clause. I would replace “or” with “and/or”?] > Carbon so removed must then be stored in a long-lived reservoir. Carbon can > be stored in a reduced form (e.g., biochar, living forests) or in an oxidized > form (e.g., CO2 injected in geologic reservoirs, Fe-fertilized biomass that > has oxided into dissolved inorganic carbon in the deep ocean). [RWL3: There are also proposals to store raw, unmodified biomass in the deep oceans or on land in deep trenches, where living organisms and O2 levels are sparse. The word “store” might imply that the carbon can be taken out of storage. This is essentially impossible with biochar (and is considered an asset that it can’t).] > > Carbon stored in an oxidized form can be largely in the form of molecular CO2 > (perhaps dissolved) or can be part of another compound such as CaCO3 (perhaps > dissolved). [RWL4: OK. Biochar analysts would add also a third option - as a highly recalcitrant “product” that is “mostly” (>80%) pure carbon.] > > What makes something CDR approach is a system property (i.e., air capture > that vents back to the atmosphere is not a CDR approach; geologic CO2 storage > without air capture is not a CDR approach; but put the two together and you > have a CDR approach). [RWL5: OK. I certainly think of biochar as a system (with system elements described below)] > > On this taxonomy, I would consider biochar as a way of storing reduced carbon > for long periods of time. Under this interpretation, biochar could be part of > a CDR system, but as a process in-and-of-itself, biochar is an approach for > carbon storage. Biochar does no carbon dioxide removal, so cannot itseld be a > CDR technique. [RWL6: a. Sentence 1: No one claims biochar is as sure a storage mechanism as BECCS; biochar is at best thought of as leaky storage - but (with the right (high temperature) char) quite slow leakage - and not a simply described leakage (not a simple exponential decay). b. Sentence 2: Opening clause - agreed. Second clause - maybe not understanding a nuance here. I am not sure what “in-and-of-itself” means. It sounds like biochar could sometimes be not part of a system - whereas I think it always is (the system parts not yet mentioned are photosynthesis and avoidance (via pyrolysis) of decomposition of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin). Lastly, I can agree “biochar is an approach for carbon storage”. But this should not preclude a storage label as also having a removal label. c.Sentence 3: Perhaps the key sentence. I argue that “approved” (low H:C ratio) biochar does in fact “remove" carbon dioxide for a sufficiently long time that, at least during this “non-storage” period (can be 1000 years), the carbon is NOT in the atmosphere. The word “storage” would seem inappropriate - when no-one is claiming that the “removal” is at all permanent. Only that the temporary removal is long enough to be beneficial in a societal policy sense. We are discussing semantics here. Another part of the semantics is whether carbon removal (going back to RWL1) is essentially the same as carbon dioxide removal in every atmospheric sense. I think it is - in part since many of us talk about 800 Gt C in the atmosphere, not using the CO2 equivalent which is 44/12 = 3.67 times larger. > > Therefore, it may make sense to talk about biochar as a carbon dioxide > storage approach. As part of a system of biological carbon capture by land > plants and storage using biochar, biochar can be part of a CDR system, but > biochar itself is not a CDR system. [RWL7: a. Sentence 1: I can agree if a storage (especially a leaky storage) can also count as a removal. Glad to
Re: [geo] Re: biochar as CDR and related nomenclature issues: CDRS = CDR + S (carbon dioxide removal + storage)
Keith cc list 1. Since this is a thread with a biochar theme, I thought we should compare a hypothetical biochar scenario with your solar power satellite (SPS) scenario. 2. Because char is lighter than oil (I assume relative density of 1/3), I got 1200 km3 of char, assuming 400 Gt of carbon needing to be removed for a 100 ppm drop in CO2. This assumes almost as much has to come out of the ocean as the atmosphere. Was your assumption similar on ocean CO2 release? 3. To achieve the 1200 km3 of char, and an assumed depth of a uniform char layer of 2.5 cm (roughly an inch) requires spreading over about 20% (2.4 Gha) of the global land area. Yours would be a thinner layer of course, but an oil would have to be deep underground to avoid conversion back to CO2. Also a despoil sequestration can provide no out-year benefits. 4. Assuming that about half of biomass carbon will go to char and half to energy (at 30 GJ/tonne C), means that the 2.5 cm layer (400 Gt C) will also provide a beneficial (carbon neutral) release of about 12,000 EJ. 5. You estimate about 300 TWyrs for the SPS scenario. I calculate (using 5 kWh = 18 MJ [about the energy in 1 kg wood] and 3600 seconds in an hour) about 1 TWyr = 30 EJ (we are globally using near 600 EJ/yr in 2013), so the 12,000 EJ is about 400 TWyr to compare to your 300 TWyrs. The difference is that the biochar scenario supplies 1/3 more (not requires that much more). This is also handling the required ocean carbon - I am not sure of your “ocean” assumption. You suggest a new 15 TW for 20 years; this is 8 TW for 50 years. >From here on is an extension of the SPS scenario 6. If we accomplish the 400 Gt C transfer at about today’s fossil input rate of 8Gt C/yr (about 1% removal rate), all with biochar only) this would supply in a carbon neutral sense about 240 EJ/yr = about 40% of today’s total supply. (The SPS scenario would also be carbon neutral.) But biochar also supplies out-year carbon negative benefits from increased above and below-ground living matter. This augmentation is not well known at all, but assuming 2 Gt C per year of afforestation, and placed-char having this assumed eventual out-year doubling potential, then 3 Gt C/yr of placed-char would be sufficient to meet the 8 Gt C/yr goal (this assumes zero fossil and land disturbance positive contributions). 7. Because of this projected doubling of char impact, we are down to 3*30 = 90 EJ/yr of supplied energy - about 15% of today’s supply - which is in addition to today’s approximately 10% through biomass of 60 GJ/yr. Biomass contributions in the neighborhood of 25% appear in some projections for 2050. 8. The above was to try to get an annual average biomass tonnage of carbon, with each tonne of carbon in wood supplying 1/2 tonne of carbon in biochar and 9 GJ. So 3 Gt C/yr of biochar sequestration requires 6 Gt of C in wood-input (or about 12 Gt dry biomass or 24 Gt of wet biomass). This amount of input wood provides a new 54 EJ to be added to today’s roughly 60 - approaching a needed doubling in wood supply going to energy. 9. The total needed added supply is 2 (afforestation) + 2*3 (biochar) = 8 Gt C, which is to be compared with today’s global NPP of about 60 Gt C/yr. Today’s standing biomass is about 500 Gt C, so this would increase to perhaps 650 by a combination of afforestation and biochar annual and short rotation feedstock. Today’s roughly 1500 Gt C of below ground carbon would similarly increase by 50 years * 2 Gt C/yr = 100 Gt C. Together, after 50 years, these assumptions change from about 2000 Gt C up to 2250 Gt C. This (1/4% per year) seems conservative, compared to the annual productivity improvements seen for grain crops over the last 50 years. Disclaimer: These are only intended as rough numbers to correspond to the SPS scenario. Obviously there should be a ramping period in both scenarios. The most important difference is the sign on the energy contribution.It would be interesting to compare costs; none are shown here, but my guess is that the bio alternative would be considered cheaper and nearer to commercial readiness. Ron On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Some years ago I calculated how much energy it would take to convert > 100 ppm of CO2 into synthetic oil which could be stored in old oil > fields safely for millions of years. > > 100 ppm of CO2 would be 470 cubic km of the stuff. It's what humans > added to the atmosphere since ~1960. > > Had to define a new measure of energy, it would take about 300 TW > years (check it if you want to quote it). > > I was doing this in the context of space based solar power. If you > kept building power plants in space beyond replacing fossil fuels, to > another 15 TW, it would take 20 years to put 100 ppm back in the > ground. > > Much less energy if you take it out as CO2, but less of a blowout problem
Re: [geo] Re: biochar as CDR and related nomenclature issues: CDRS = CDR + S (carbon dioxide removal + storage)
Keith etal Thanks for the added material. It seems we understand the differences well, so I will keep this short. 1. Re my #2: You found 1 ppm CO2 as 5.20 Gt CO2. Multiplying by 12/44 would give 1.42 Gt C, whereas I had 2.13 Gt C ( a number I have seen many times - such as at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=908 ) 2. Re #4: I think we can live with electricity prices appreciably higher than 2 c/kWh.Coal has an environmental cost sometimes reported at 15 c/kWh. Nuclear seems unlikely to ever get anywhere near (is on a negative learning curve). I like your two cites, but think we can only get 2c with energy efficiency (but good luck on proving you can do it with SPS) Biochar has a chance at good economics when used with CHP - where smallness is a virtue. Other (re your final added material): I have followed the SPS concept since the early 1970s, after hearing Dr. Peter Glaser of AD Little. I am in no position to comment on it now, but certainly hope that you can achieve the 2 c/kWh target. That would be wonderful. In a little googling today I was reminded that the Japanese have made a major commitment -which must be very satisfying to you. Using that electricity, with CO2, to create a “disposable” carbon negative liquid for deep underground storage was a new CDR concept to me. This presumably could really be called storage - as it could be pumped back out presumably. I found one Spanish company doing something similar - but with an intent to consume, not store that oil. On this list there has been some important contributions from Prof. Socolow on the costs of air capture - apt to be appreciably higher than given in your reference. I look forward to following this concept - but it still seems pretty far away. Unfortunately, no out-year continuing benefits; rather like BECCS, but with a different liquid/ Your last paragraph created an opportunity to offer a few additional CDR comments. -The largest (partly) biochar company (see www.coolplanet.com) is producing a liquid fuel with a process that can also involve extra hydrogen, but is not at all like Fischer-Tropsch. They are projecting the lowest liquid biofuel prices I have seen (not $50/barrel - but under $100) , and support from major oil companies - There is at least one firm using electricity to make char - with a microwave system. Possibly some (magnetron) parallels with SPS there? In general, the fact that pyrolysis is exothermic could keep most biochar coming from strictly thermal approaches. Ron On Nov 20, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> Keith cc list >> >> 1. Since this is a thread with a biochar theme, I thought we should >> compare a hypothetical biochar scenario with your solar power satellite >> (SPS) scenario. >> >> 2. Because char is lighter than oil (I assume relative density of 1/3), >> I got 1200 km3 of char, assuming 400 Gt of carbon needing to be removed for >> a 100 ppm drop in CO2. This assumes almost as much has to come out of the >> ocean as the atmosphere. Was your assumption similar on ocean CO2 release? > > No. From the notes here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485 > > "The area of the earth is ~5.1 x 1014 square meters; air pressure is > ~100,000 N/m2. The force would be ~5.1 x 1019 and the mass > (force/acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2) is ~5.2 x 1018kg or 5.2 x 1015 t. > One ppm would be 5.2 x 109 t and 100 ppm would be ~520 billion > tonnes." I agree that if the CO2 came down 100 ppm, the oceans would > be giving up that much again. > > Call it a 1000 B tons of CO2. Carbon is 12/44 of CO2, or about 270 > billion tons of carbon. Amorphous carbon has a density around 2 tons > per cubic meter so the volume would be around135 B cubic meters, about > 1/t0th of your estimate but that's close enough for this kind of > thought experiment. > >> 3. To achieve the 1200 km3 of char, and an assumed depth of a uniform char >> layer of 2.5 cm (roughly an inch) requires spreading over about 20% (2.4 >> Gha) of the global land area. Yours would be a thinner layer of course, but >> an oil would have to be deep underground to avoid conversion back to CO2. >> Also a despoil sequestration can provide no out-year benefits. > > Right. Oil on the surface would be a bad idea of course. Oil has the > advantage that you can pump it where char has to be moved around as a > solid. On the other hand, you make char as close as you can to the > fields where you are going to bury it. > >> 4. Assuming that about half of biomass carbon will go to char and half to >> energy (at 30 GJ/tonne C), means that
Fwd: [geo] Up in air: $impact/tonne CO2 emitted
> Ken, Greg, Geo: Apologies for delay in response caused by visiting family, but I hope we can keep Greg's “ethics” dialog open a bit longer. I am pretty sure that Prof. Caldeira’s remarks below are intended to say we should not rely on net present value computations to justify proceeding with any part of geoengineering - as that approach can leave out so much - and can lead to a justification for inaction. But I am also pretty sure that he has some different philosophical approaches to justify some geoengineering activities. This is to ask (not just Ken) what those are. Polluter pays? Is there a way to modify the White House SCC number - which is endorsed by the Administration's OMB - to include any of the values Ken finds missing? Ron > > From: "Ken Caldeira" > To: "RAU greg" > Cc: "geoengineering" > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:10:09 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Up in air: $impact/tonne CO2 emitted > > > Maybe we can discuss this after we establish > > (1) the value of species soon to become extinct, and > > (2) the value of a few millennia of rising sea levels. > > While we are at it, we might discuss the ethics of maximizing > net-present-value when we reap the benefits while others pay the costs. (I'm > all for maximizing NPV when the proceeds accrue to me and the costs are borne > by you, but I feel ethically bound to get your permission first. When > somebody figures out a way to get permission from future generations, please > do let me know.) > > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > From below: "The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at $37 > per metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes."" > > Anyone care to add their 2 cents? A rather crucial measure that will > determine the net value of any action taken on CO2. > Greg > > CLIMATE: > White House calls for comments on estimated social cost of carbon > Jason Plautz, E&E reporter > Published: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 > The Obama administration opened the comment period yesterday on its > controversial estimate of the cost of carbon emissions after industry groups > asked for a full rulemaking process on the figure. > Groups will have until Jan. 27, 2014, to submit comments on revisions to the > social cost of carbon estimate, which seeks to quantify the cost to society > of each ton of carbon emissions in property damage, health care costs, lost > agricultural output and other expenses. > Republicans and industry representatives had raised concerns that a May 2013 > revision to the SCC -- which calculated the cost to be $38 per metric ton of > CO2 by 2015 compared with the 2010 estimate of $23.8 per metric ton -- would > be used by the administration to determine the cost-effectiveness of a host > of new regulations. They asked for a full comment period and rulemaking > process to evaluate the estimate, despite the fact that it is not in fact a > rule. > Howard Shelanski, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory > Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, announced the > comment period earlier this month after previously saying there would not > need to be one under the law (E&ENews PM, Nov. 4). > Shelanski defended the process used by the administration's interagency > working group, saying the May estimates "reflect values that are similar to > those used by other governments, international institutions and major > corporations." > The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at $37 per metric > ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes." > Environmentalists had commended the White House for not opening a full > rulemaking process, even while questioning whether the administration had > chosen values that were too low to fully reflect the risk from rising > greenhouse gas emissions. > > > -- > 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. > > > > -- > 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 htt
Re: [geo] CRS on GE
Ken, cc Greg, list 1. I agree this particular CRS sentence you picked out (shown in context below) was objectionable. I thank you for pointing it out. But there is plenty in this report on CDR - which is often totally missing in reports on geoengineering. I have met the principal author, Kelsi Bracmort, and believe that she well knows the subject matter and this one sentence is caused by the need for brevity. Here the emphasis is on governance (presumably requested by some Committee - or maybe CRS is just getting ready). I think there is adequate recognition in this report that CDR and SRM need be handled differently. I recommend CRS and this report - as the sentence is not representative. 2. To prove my point, here is one excerpt from p 22, showing that they do know how to separate the two parts of geoengineering (bolding is mine): "Different technologies may require different methods for oversight. To the extent that CDR technologies are similar to known and existing ones, their development and implementation may be adequately governed at the domestic level by existing U.S. laws. Air capture technologies are similar to those of carbon capture and sequestration for power generation. Biochar and biomass sequestration face similar life cycle analyses and regulatory issues to biofuels. ………... In addition, the scope, dispersions, and interventions of most SRM technologies are very likely to cause significant effects across national boundaries. While land surface albedo modification could potentially be managed under national regulatory frameworks, other technologies may trigger transboundary issues. While some existing treaties address atmosphere and space, their enforcement has rarely been tested." (I believe they have above in underlining correctly spotted the two principal regulatory issues for biochar - and few such broad policy papers do.) 3. The report’s emphasis on governance (and not the CDR/SRM technology differences) shows up in the conclusion: Conclusion (pp 29-30 - three paragraphs on the last two pages (after 126 footnotes) - showing they are not always so good at separating CDR and SRM. Ken’s sentence (highlighted) is not alone in this final section; there is no separation into CDR and SRM anywhere in these three paragraphs. But it is present in most other parts of the 32 pages. The highlighting is by myself.) "Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific innovation, requires careful deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of international agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many geoengineering technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Very few studies have been published documenting the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. Some foreign governments and private entities have expressed an interest in pursuing geoengineering projects, largely out of concern over the slow progress of greenhouse gas reductions under the international climate change agreements, the possible existence of climate “tipping points,” and the apparent political or economic obstacles to pursuing aggressive domestic greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. However, in the United States, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. Consequently, to the extent that some federal agencies and U.S. states have begun addressing geoengineering projects, they are doing so in a largely piecemeal fashion. If the U.S. government opts to address geoengineering at the federal level, there are several approaches that are immediately apparent. First, it may continue to leave geoengineering policy development in the hands of federal agencies and states. Second, it might impose a temporary or permanent moratorium on geoengineering, or on particular geoengineering technologies, out of concern that its risks outweigh its benefits. Third, it might develop a national policy on geoengineering by authoring or amending laws. Fourth, it could work with the international community to craft an international approach to geoengineering by writing or amending international agreements. That the government can play a substantial role in the development of new technologies has been manifested in such areas as nanotechnology, nuclear science, and genetic engineering. " 4. My preference is for the first and fourth approaches, but all of these obviously are going to be pushed by different elected officials. My experience (I once worked for Congress) is that the CRS staff are very careful in preparing papers like this, as they h
Re: [geo] CRS on GE
Ken etal I also did not mean to criticize. Thank you for all your efforts to gain precision. Repetition is the key (and still may be hopeless). Ron On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > I did not mean to criticize the authors. > > I meant to point out how the use of the word 'geoengineering' to refer to > approaches that do not pose any novel risks or governance challenges leads > even careful people to say imprecise things that they don't really mean. > > > On Monday, December 9, 2013, Ronal W. Larson wrote: > Ken, cc Greg, list > > 1. I agree this particular CRS sentence you picked out (shown in context > below) was objectionable. I thank you for pointing it out. But there is > plenty in this report on CDR - which is often totally missing in reports on > geoengineering. I have met the principal author, Kelsi Bracmort, and > believe that she well knows the subject matter and this one sentence is > caused by the need for brevity. Here the emphasis is on governance > (presumably requested by some Committee - or maybe CRS is just getting > ready). I think there is adequate recognition in this report that CDR and > SRM need be handled differently. I recommend CRS and this report - as the > sentence is not representative. > > 2. To prove my point, here is one excerpt from p 22, showing that they do > know how to separate the two parts of geoengineering (bolding is mine): > > "Different technologies may require different methods for oversight. To the > extent that CDR > technologies are similar to known and existing ones, their development and > implementation may > be adequately governed at the domestic level by existing U.S. laws. Air > capture technologies are > similar to those of carbon capture and sequestration for power generation. > Biochar and biomass > sequestration face similar life cycle analyses and regulatory issues to > biofuels. > …… them>…... > In addition, the scope, dispersions, and interventions of most SRM > technologies are very likely to > cause significant effects across national boundaries. While land surface > albedo modification could > potentially be managed under national regulatory frameworks, other > technologies may trigger > transboundary issues. While some existing treaties address atmosphere and > space, their > enforcement has rarely been tested." > > (I believe they have above in underlining correctly spotted the two > principal regulatory issues for biochar - and few such broad policy papers > do.) > > 3. The report’s emphasis on governance (and not the CDR/SRM technology > differences) shows up in the conclusion: > > Conclusion (pp 29-30 - three paragraphs on the last two pages (after 126 > footnotes) - showing they are not always so good at separating CDR and SRM. > Ken’s sentence (highlighted) is not alone in this final section; there is no > separation into CDR and SRM anywhere in these three paragraphs. But it is > present in most other parts of the 32 pages. The highlighting is by myself.) > > "Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific > innovation, requires careful > deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of > international > agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many > geoengineering technologies are > at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing > global temperatures has > yet to be proven. Very few studies have been published documenting the cost, > environmental > effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. > Nevertheless, if > geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the > potential to cause > significant transboundary effects. > > Some foreign governments and private entities have expressed an interest in > pursuing > geoengineering projects, largely out of concern over the slow progress of > greenhouse gas > reductions under the international climate change agreements, the possible > existence of climate > “tipping points,” and the apparent political or economic obstacles to > pursuing aggressive > domestic greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. However, in the United States, > there is limited > federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. Consequently, to the > extent that some > federal agencies and U.S. states have begun addressing geoengineering > projects, they are doing so > in a largely piecemeal fashion. > > If the U.S. government opts to address geoengineering at the federal level, > there are several > approa
[geo] Fwd: Special Issue Forest and Climate
List: 1. I believe this new Elsevier special issue on REDD+ (announcement below) relating forests and climate has more relationship to geoengineering than most “geo" publications I see. This is despite the fact that I have so far failed to even see any mention of geoengineering, much less the world of biochar - which (along with a few other CDR approaches) does have a strong connection to many REDD+ topics. The main reason for suggesting its relevance to this list is that REDD+ has now apparently been successfully advanced at the Warsaw meetings. If Geoengineering is to follow through UNFCCC circles, this special issue would seem to have some pertinent policy-related messages for this list’s members. I have found lots for biochar. 2. Three of the addressees below wrote the first lead article, which summarizes the twelve remaining articles. I have only skimmed them so far, but they seem to cover the REDD+ topic very well - from many perspectives and many countries. After saying something about fossil fuels, the lead authors (Buizer, Humphreys, and de Jong) say (reformatted and emphasis added by me for clarity): However, in the domain of forest–climate politics we consider four partially overlapping issues as critical for future policy development: (1) The focus on carbon and the associated growing demand for legibility of forest carbon is at odds with the more holistic policy needed to address the myriad of other problems associated both with forests and with climate change. (2) There are still significant implementation problems connected to the different forest–climate policy scenarios – such as non-permanence, leakage, strategic setting of baselines and corruption – which are jeopardising their effectiveness. (3) Land rights and carbon rights issues remain unresolved and the emergence of REDD+ may undermine secure tenure rights, may not benefit forest dependent communities and could divide them further. (4) There are tensions between global policies on deforestation and climate change, and the intensive kinds of local participation required in order to take the context-specific types of action that different communities want. 3. The last paragraph of this first article says (again my added emphases - trying to show geo parallels): "Political conflicts over forests have been and continue to be the product of different, apparently irreconcilable, expectations and claims from different actors over the various public and private goods and benefits that forests provide. Contention is played out at different spatial levels, from the local to global. Ongoing efforts to resolve problems related to forest–climate policies preceded negotiations about REDD+ and other measures to curb greenhouse gasses. However, REDD+ threatens to displace progress by a focus on measurability that is overly focused on carbon stocks. This needs to be balanced by attention to other equally important forest values, which are in danger of being subjugated by the narrow focus on the climate-change mitigation role of forests. " 4. I suggest re-reading both of the above italicized excerpts with a mental replacement of the words “forests” and “REDD+” with “geoengineering" (and/or your choice of “SRM" and "CDR”). For me, replacing with “biochar” makes a near perfect match, although biochar has barely started within the UNFCCC/IPCC process. These 13 chapter authors (more than 3 dozen) seem to be at least a decade ahead of what I sense for geoengineering or biochar - on policy topics. 5. Yesterday I was rejected for some late afternoon no-fee downloads. Today, however, I was again accepted. I wouldn’t wait too long if something sounds interesting at the site below - which gives four or five “Highlights" for eight of the papers. The abstracts will presumably be freely available for years. As given below, the key address for the 13 papers is > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14629011/35 Ron Begin forwarded message: > From: Wil de Jong > Subject: Special Issue Forest and Climate > Date: December 9, 2013 at 9:58:41 AM MST > To: "Forest Policy Info Mailing List" > Cc: Marleen Buizer , "David.Humphreys" > , "t.sankarap...@elsevier.com" > > Reply-To: Wil de Jong > > Dear colleagues > > We announce the publication of a Special Issue of Environmental > Science and Policy (Volume 35, January 2014) titled: Climate change > and deforestation: The evolution of an intersecting policy domain. > > The Special Issue contains 13 papers that address potential synergies > and policy conflicts between forest conservation and restoration and > climate change mitigation. The papers focus on REDD in tropical forest > countries, but also on problems of climate–forest policies > implementation and governance in Canada, the USA, the UK and > Australia. > > Given the outcomes of the latest Climate Change Conference in Warsaw
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for CCS. I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - translating this over to the world of biochar. 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency, has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for a scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could be the back end as well of some biomass electrical generating systems where pyrolysis rather than combustion is employed; then about half the C in the input biomass would be released as CO2. 3. Because charcoal is not 100% carbon, one would have to pay less than about $125 /tonne of char to receive a break-even sequestration credit of $100/tonne C. (Or stated conversely, if you paid $100/tonne char, the sequestration value should not be more than $80/tonne C (in a societal sense, the farmer/forester, will of course try to minimize the cost of the char The point of these quick computations is to say that there would be lots of farmers and foresters willing to put char in the ground if the going rate for sequestration were roughly $100/tonne C (or $27/tonne CO2 or $80/tonne char). That is - I am claiming the long term value to the farmer/forester and society would exceed these “$100” numbers. Ron On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > The basic idea is: > > CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in > the ocean) > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved? > > I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by > many decades. > > Keith > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin > wrote: > > > > > > I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. > > This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have promise. > > And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies. > > > > > > > > Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I > > can. > > > > > > > > Elton Sherwin > > > > Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute > > > > Cell: 650.823.9221 > > > > www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org > > > > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM > > To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk > > Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley > > > > > > Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > > weathering as a CCS approach > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using accelerated > > limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and > > dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the > > alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate. > > > > > > > > They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had much > > lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers and > > suchlike. > > > > > > > > This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I > > have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/ > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the > > nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010: > > http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html > > > > > > ___ > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution for Science > > > > Dept of Global Ecology > > > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > > > > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > > > > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this messa
Re: [geo] A Curious Asymmetry. Social Science Expertise and Geoengineering (CGG Working Papers).
Andrew cc list: 1. Thanks again for spotting an interesting paper. I will take a slight exception to a summary using the single sentence from the abstract that you gave (below). This is NOT a paper about geoengineering. Not even SRM. It is only about the sulfur compound approach. It has zero on the technology - all social science. Which is the best part of the paper, since I don’t see enough social science expertise very much. The first author, Dr. Heyward, has moved this month to a new position at University of Warwick. This new paper and several other pertinent ones are available there for easy download at https://warwick.academia.edu/ClareHeyward 2. There is a lot here on the politics of decision making (egalitarian vs hierarchical vs individualist etc) - that I found helpful. Introduced both to explain the past and forecast the future. 3. The authors also have a section on a paper reporting on a series of focus groups discussing the governance of the SRM option. The cite is: Macnaghten, P. and Szerszynski, B. ‘Living the Global Social Experiment: An analysis of public discourse on geoengineering and its implications for governance’, Global Environmental Change, 23: 465–74. I found a no- fee pre-publication version of paper at: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10782/1/10782.pdf?DDD14+dgg5sa+dgg4lp+dul4eg My quick skimming of this suggests considerable future governance problems - that are repeated less forcefully by Drs. Heyward and Rayner. I introduce this topic in hopes some list member can identify some similar focus group (or any other) analysis on the CDR side of Geoengineering. 3. This list briefly mentioned more than a year ago an earlier paper by Dr. Heyward that introduced another term beyond mitigation, CDR, SRM, and adaptation: the term was “rectification” - a concept that I think needs to be more in our thinking on the governance of geoengineering. There was plenty of other material of a social science character in all these papers - that I recommend (and urge more of for CDR) Ron On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Heyward, Clare; Rayner, Steve (2013): A Curious Asymmetry. Social Science > Expertise and Geoengineering (CGG Working Papers). > > "This article traces the development of geoengineering discourses and > highlights the technocratic overtones of the previous climate change and > environmental discourses that facilitated the advent of geoengineering > research as a serious policy option." > > > -- > 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. > -- 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] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
Andrew, Greg, and list: 1. Just half an hour before your message, I received the following message from Dr. Tom Goreau (a friend and collaborator) which announces one of the better short (15 minute) videos I have seen on biochar (and there are hundreds): The video on Cool Planet Biochar at the Harvard Community Garden is ready to post! Thanks for your help in getting this link out. http://youtu.be/8EEMknQSjD4 Thomas J. Goreau, PhD President, Global Coral Reef Alliance President, Biorock Technology Inc. Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 gor...@bestweb.net www.globalcoral.org Skype: tomgoreau Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 [RWL: Dr. Goreau (mainly now active in coral issues -explaining why excess atmospheric carbon is important to him) has himself done extensive soil work in the Amazon. He lives blocks from this project.] 2. You also just sent in a message you didn’t like from Dr. Rachel Smolker. I will respond shortly to that. I couple the topics since Dr. Smolker is one of the two main critics of biochar (which is mentioned by name twice in her latest piece). Needless to say, I don’t think she, nor Dr. Vandana Shiva, have done anything at all like what is shown and talked about in the video. I have never read/seen either talk about their personal experiences with biochar. In contrast, the Harvard student in the video talks about his pepper plants being 4 times larger. Ron On Dec 14, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > I'm not sure any of these approaches currently compare well to soil > conservation, energy efficiency, etc., which probably explains the lack of > development. > > One point about detailed costs: transport isn't necessarily much of a problem > if you're near a river. Plastic wrapped bales of biomass or char probably > will float to the plant eventually - and the only cost is a boatman to free > up tangled bales once in a while. This helps keep plant scale up. > > As always, biomass burning has to be compared with the side benefits from > char, which provide additional value. These may be highly non homogeneous. > > A > > On Dec 14, 2013 4:39 AM, "Greg Rau" wrote: > In response to numbered topics: > 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated > for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined > every proposal we've offered. > > 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 > ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery > about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty > volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons > NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. > > 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the > effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or > biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle > coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions > of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up > the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: Ken Caldeira ; Greg Rau > Cc: Keith Henson ; Elton Sherwin > ; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" > ; Geoengineering > ; Andrew Lockley > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > weathering as a CCS approach > > Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott > paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 > $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather > than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I > believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for > CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any > commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - > translating this over to the world of biochar. > > 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass > replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the > term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller > plants to keep biomass transport cost
Re: [geo] Geoengineering The Sky is Not 'Normal' - HuffPo
Andrew and list: Those of us on the list working with biochar know Dr. Smoker (an American co-director of the London-based BiofuelWatch (BFW)) well. She and BFW principally are associated with biochar, which they (mistakenly) couple with biofuels. But, without writing in detail about geoengineering at the BFW site, they share all the beliefs of ETC, well known on this site. ETC (and HOME) seem to rely solely on BFW when they argue against biochar. I actually feel pretty good about biochar’s chances when I see how weak the argument is. On Dec 14, 2013, at 3:42 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > Poster's note : geoengineers are doing it for the money, and we are anti > mitigation (rather than frustrated mitigators). More unfounded tosh from > highbrow liberal mainstream media that should know better. > [RWL1: I’d be cautious about using satire as in sentence #1. “Tosh” (trash and bosh?) is new to me, but accurate. But I would blame the Huffington Post mostly for not supplying a counter view. This is BFW, not “Huffpost” speaking. A few inserts below - limited to her mentioning biochar or places where biochar differs. I hope others will note other inaccuracies for other geo approaches. > http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4378849 > > Geoengineering The Sky is Not 'Normal' > > Rachel SmolkerDec 06, 2013In the wake of the climate negotiations in Warsaw, > the consensus appears near universal: the international process is not going > to deliver, and it is up to countries and communities to go it on their own. > [RWL2: I gather that REDD+ made considerable progress. I see biochar as fitting in well with REDD+, especially in helping with local acceptance and the democratic process. BFW also opposes REDD+. The last IPCC report mentioned both SRM and CDR - so there is hope there as well. I see no “consensus” on her conclusion. > For some, that means taking serious and dramatic steps to reduce emissions. > For others, like Bangladesh or the island nations, it means finding a way to > survive the consequences of climate change with little help from the > international community. For all of us, it means facing a future of weather > extremes, crop failures and potential disruption of virtually everything on > an unprecedented scale. For advocates of climate geoengineering, the failure > of global agreement is wind in their sails: "More reasons" why drastic > measures such as spewing sulphate particles into the stratosphere, or > "fertilizing" the ocean with iron filings, or burning and burying billions of > tons biomass (as biochar or "bioenergy with carbon capture and storage") > should be seriously considered and research should be gloriously funded. > RWL3: I fail to find “wind in my sails”. Her metaphor was not intended satirically, unlike the last sentence. On this list I have never seen the failure=wind thought expressed. Anyone on this list claim they don’t want to “reduce emissions”? Don’t want to help Bangladesh? Biochar is not produced by “burning” - a technical detail she knows well. > Of course the converse argument is that if global agreement on addressing > climate change cannot be achieved, how can we possibly expect any global > consensus on, or governance of "technomanagement" of the atmosphere where the > risks of serious negative consequences, for some people in some places, at > least, are so grave?This worries me profoundly, and apparently others as > well. It is why faculty from Johns Hopkins University and American University > recently launched a new, Washington DC based "Climate Geoengineering > Consortium".The stated goal of the consortium, perhaps laudable, is "to > generate space for perspectives from civil society actors and the wider > public, to produce a heightened level of engagement around issues of justice, > agency, and inclusion." Perhaps I am too skeptical, but "generating space" > for a debate seems a bit vague. This new consortium recently organized a > meeting, slated as a "closed door" meeting of civil society representatives. > Closed meetings for civil society always make me a little nervous. Especially > when the topic is planetary scale interference with the global commons -- the > life support systems of our planet!I'm not sure really how I ended up on the > list of invitees, but I decided to attend. The meeting was held in a stark > space at Johns Hopkins, with the requisite sleek furnishings and snack plates > wrapped securely in sparkling plastic. Nobody in attendance was a shade > darker than a bowl of oatmeal, all were dressed in drab, illuminated by > glowing computers, tablets and smartphones. Represented were staff from Johns > Hopkins and American University, as well as the conservative American > Enterprise Institute (Lee Lane), Bipartisan Policy Center, NASA (Mike > McCracken), the renowned blogger, Joe Romm, and long time (but now retired) > Friends of the E
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
Greg and list (and acknowledge several other commentators) Thanks. Few inserts below. For others - the term AWL is Accelerated Weathering of Limestone. Three general questions only comments added to the original three: a. At this site: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Rau_Knauss.html You show increasing acidification, but much slower than the standard approach. Now, at the $30 price, we can really move towards alkalinity? b. Why only sea water and coastal areas? This restriction is not seen in the balancing equations given by Ken and yourself. c. At the site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0c, given by you today, there is the added production of H2 and a cost over $100/tonne CO2. Is this approach not as favored as the one below? On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > In response to numbered topics: > 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated > for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined > every proposal we've offered. RWL: Bummer. Maybe this dialog will open the topic again. I also think biochar can beat the same $30 price (using any accounting period greater than a year or two), because of important additional out-year advantages, and the chance to produce, not consume, energy. > > 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 > ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery > about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty > volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons > NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. [RWL: I want to replace your combustion equation: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. with one for pyrolysis (plus use of the pyrolysis gases) biomass + heat --> energy + char + CO2 ---> char + CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> char + ocean alkalinity. Getting rid of a larger proportion of CO2 would be a major plus - and apparently at not much greater cost. I am not claiming that combined biochar + AWL comes with no additional costs, but the per tonne cost may not change much. My reading says that pyrolysis can provides fewer volatiles than combustion (if the pyrolysis gases are being used productively - as for electrical production). One friend (Alex English) has reported on a retrofit pyrolysis system for heating (plus char) that was cleaner than the replaced NG. > > 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the > effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or > biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle > coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions > of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up > the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) [RWL: Deal. I’ll start contacting a few of my billionaire friends - as soon as you give the go-ahead. > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: Ken Caldeira ; Greg Rau > Cc: Keith Henson ; Elton Sherwin > ; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" > ; Geoengineering > ; Andrew Lockley > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > weathering as a CCS approach > > Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott > paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 > $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather > than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I > believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for > CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any > commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - > translating this over to the world of biochar. > > 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass > replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the > term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller > plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency, > has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for > a scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could > be the back end as well of some bioma
Re: [geo] Open access : The geoengine: geoengineering and the geopolitics of planetary modification
Andrew: Again thanks. I enjoyed the article by Dr. Yusoff. She briefly mentions CDR, but this article is mainly on SRM - as are the three following articles. All are open access. All give many other cites on SRM issues. One conclusion I have from skimming through these is that we should give thanks to someone in the UK for supporting this sort of social science academic work. My plea is for something similar on CDR from the social science community. Where do I go to find social scientists talking about CDR? To help those interested mainly in the SRM part of geoengineering, here are the other three: #2. Bronislaw Szerszynski, etal http://www.envplan.com/openaccess/a45649.pdf Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix Abstract. In this paper we argue that recent policy treatments of solar radiation management (SRM) have insufficiently addressed its potential implications for contemporary political systems. Exploring the emerging ‘social constitution’ of SRM, we outline four reasons why this is likely to pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics: that the unequal distribution of and uncertainties about SRM impacts will cause conflicts within existing institutions; that SRM will act at the planetary level and necessitate autocratic governance; that the motivations for SRM will always be plural and unstable; and that SRM will become conditioned by economic forces. (zero use of the term “CDR” (or any of its parts). #3; http://www.envplan.com/openaccess/a45647.pdf Environment and Planning A 2013, volume 45, pages 2817–2824 doi:10.1068/a45647 Geoengineering knowledge: interdisciplinarity and the shaping of climate engineering research Bronislaw Szerszynski, Maialen Galarraga Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Department of Sociology, Bowland North, Lancaster University LA1 4YT, England; e-mail: b...@lancaster.ac.uk, m.galarr...@lancaster.ac.uk No mention of either SRM or CDR - good on need for interdisciplinarity. #4. http://www.envplan.com/openaccess/a45646.pdf Geoengineering and geologic politics Nigel Clark Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, England; e-mail: n.cla...@lancaster.ac.uk Same - no mention of SRM and CDR; good on politics of geoengineering Ron On Dec 15, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=/a45645 > > doi:10.1068/a45645 > Yusoff K, 2013, "The geoengine: geoengineering and the geopolitics of > planetary modification" Environment and Planning A 45(12) 2799 – 2808 > > The geoengine: geoengineering and the geopolitics of planetary modification > > Kathryn Yusoff > > Abstract. > > As an introduction to a theme issue on the politics and practices of > geoengineering, this paper outlines a framework for thinking about the > ‘geoengine’ that underpins concepts of planetary modification. It reviews > some of the ways in which geoengineering has been framed as a technological, > governance, and promissory discourse and examines the contradictions inherent > within some of these framings. Questioning some of the motivations and forms > of participation that are evident in the governance of geoengineering, and > its current challenge to existing forms of global democracy, the paper > speculates on the wider geopolitical implications of operating at the scale > of the planet, and what this means for how we currently understand the ‘geo’ > in geopolitics. While there is a big mismatch between the restricted > decision-making processes around geoengineering and the potential scope and > impact of those decisions, there are also opportunities for geographers to > make incisive contributions to this debate to change what geoengineering is > and becomes as a material–discursive practice. This paper suggests that only > by attending to the geo-ontological formations inherent in the fabrication of > an engineerable earth, can a new geopolitics be accommodated within political > thought that takes account of a much more active ‘geoengine’ that is being > opened to political and material modification. > > Keywords: geoengineering, climate change, geopolitics, geophilosophy, weather > modification, Anthropocene > > > -- > 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. -- 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...@googlegrou
Re: [geo] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley
Andrew and list 1.I have been meaning to comment on this article by Dr. Andrew MacDougall, that you cited in October. I was reminded by it being referenced in the last Science issue (Dec. 6, p 1149) I received. The article is NOT behind a paywall. It is at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2013GL057467/asset/grl51021.pdf?v=1&t=hp8v0lqy&s=27b2334b807e010482b6e4fa3f41a8703797473f 2. I took the main result to be quite negative for CDR. But there still some positives to gain from an analysis I believe can be improved. The faults I find are only in the papers four scenarios, which are: a) that only as much carbon can be removed from the atmosphere as was inserted (no explanation on why this limit), and b) is to be taken out as a “mirror” of the way it was inserted (and I am not understanding details of the mirror, but this seems highly unrealistic), and c) requires going back to 280 ppm (not the usual 350 ppm) d) looking at very high out year peaks, that are inconsistent with the concept of CDR. 3. I am of course unhappy that there is nothing about biochar in this article (for out-of-date reasons), but the specifics of the CDR approach are not critical and are not I believe in the model. There are a number of useful references to somewhat similar papers. There is no sense of “Irreversibility”. So I am still hoping to see modeling as detailed as in this paper, that includes the potential for more soil carbon. There are some out year freebies with biochar that have not been modeled by any group, to my knowledge. To the best of my knowledge none of the removed CO2 ends up in soil. The model is better than many by including Arctic methane release. The long time periods to reach the year-1850 conditions are because of the four faults I am claiming above in the four assumed scenarios. These should be readily fixable. 4. The positives that I think we can take from the article relate to what can happen with more realistic scenarios, which should have these four features, that replace the above #2 assumptions: a) No limitations on the amounts that can eventually be removed from the atmosphere. (The required removal amounts are a very small percentage of CO2 in the oceans, or allowed deep underground - and I know of no reason that soil carbon couldn’t be doubled or tripled without harm.) b) Use annual removals that emphasize speed and are reasonably least cost - not a “mirror” of anything. (For biochar options, the limiting speed at first will be the manufacture of pyrolysis hardware - which presumably could have a doubling time at first measured in months. For sure, the output of such factories will not be time-independent, so the growth rate should not be linear. When a production plateau will be reached is a function of costs and benefits, which can be controlled by policy decisions ($10 or $100/tonne CO2, etc). This can be handled parametrically, with numbers like 1, 10 or more Gt C/yr being assumed and costed. The important point is that for decades I think we can assume an annual increase in removal, not the annual decrease that (I think) is in the MacDougall model. I would hope for a model that talks of getting to 350 ppm well before 2100. c)First investigate the 350 ppm end point; continue to 280 ppm as a second stage effort. (350 ppm just because there has been so much emphasis on that number. 280 ppm should certainly be modeled as well.) d) I would restrict attention at first only to the two lowest of the new IPCC AR5 peak scenarios. I believe his present analyses already adequately argue against the two higher. 5. So, I hope that Dr. MacDougall or others will extend his analyses in these directions. The cause of CDR can be enhanced by trying to achieve what some climate scientists are saying we need to do - or showing why it cannot be. Lower ultimate costs will result by striving for speed and avoiding terms like “the year 3000” (in the abstract). To repeat, I am not intending to be critical of this paper. I believe the results are reasonably correct for the assumed scenario. I am suggesting we need also to look at scenarios that are much less restrictive. Ron On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057467/abstract > > Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: > can a Holocene-like climate be restored? > > Andrew. H. MacDougall > > DOI: 10.1002/2013GL057467 > > Geophysical Research Letters > > Keywords: > > Holocene;Climate warming;Reversibility > > Abstract > > Most climate modelling studies of future climate have focused on the affects > of carbon emissions in the present century or the long-term fate of > anthropogenically emitted carbon. However, after carbon emissions cease there > m
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering The Sky is Not 'Normal' - HuffPo
List and Michael: 1. Thanks to Michael for alerting us to today’s report on the meeting that started this “normal-normalization” thread. I found the report well done, but with the usual qualification that most (80%-90%?) of the report summary refers to geoengineering as being the same as SRM. The report authors do a good job of defining the differences, but I found lots of comments that didn’t relate to CDR in general, much less to the different CDR types. For instance biochar involves the word “soil”; I didn’t read or hear “soil” once. Next time, I hope “dcgeo" can redo this sort of session talking only about CDR - I think there will much more agreement among the participants. I also recommend a different format; have experts there as in a legal trial - offering pro and con with a chance for cross examination of statements. 2. I thank the sponsors for doing a good (and quick) job in giving a better feel of the meeting through the report. The video was good - but not much on civil society. The four experts (one can listen to in a lengthy audio) did a good job on SRM and climate topics- but again little on CDR and barely anything (in this panel) on the topic of civil society activities. They were: Will Burns (Johns Hopkins), Simon Nicholson (American University), Kate Sheppard (Huffpost reporter), Joe Romm (Climate Progress) 3. There were five questioners: 1. Brent Blackwelder - Friends of the Earth - asked about Power structures. Romm raised issue of possible oil company support for SRM; referenced Ken Caldeira several times. I think Joe said that SRM is not apt to happen 2. Jane Long - Bipartisan Policy Center; Q on impact of geoengineering in policy discussions; Romm said not much happening. Sheppard disagreed a little, noted CIA funding NAS studies 3.Robert Olsen - Center for Alternative Futures Studies noted his paper for Woodrow Wilson - Q to Joe Romm on soft systems http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/report-release-geoengineering-for-decision-makers 4. Paul Rapner (?) of American University Q on slippery slope 5. Mike McCracken - Q on natural SRM analogs; Romm expressed view that CDR was "fantastically expensive” (I think he is wrong). McCracken said he’s not worried about legal liabilities. It would be great to see a transcript of this video. I didn’t hear much new, but this was good on DC politics, which I don’t follow. 5. I spent some time on trying to summarize the report - but gave up. It is well done, but I found nothing in it to help with rebutting Dr. Smolker. I strongly recommend it for better understanding the wide spread of views - but I don’t think much of the report applies to CDR, and especially to biochar. I hope the next such program will. 6. Thanks to Professor Nicholson for the following response to Dr. Smolker. Perhaps panelist Sheppard ( a Huffpost reporter) can find a way to also get some of that flavor before Huffpost readers. I have now read a number of Ms Sheppards columns (they are almost daily) and they are a far cry from the views of Dr. Smolker. We should not transfer Dr. Smolker’s views over to Huffpost. 7. I tried to post a comment and was told I was “not verified and to try again”. I couldn’t find anything to do - maybe I will be eventually “verified". What i tried to send was this: I am afraid that the earlier comments on Dr. Smolker's opinion piece have failed to appreciate that the topic was civil society's involvement with Geoengineering, not on geoengineering itself. A report on the meeting was released today - full of good information on civil society - and a little on geoengineering (especially some good citations). But none of that report addresses Dr. Smolker's extreme unhappiness with that meeting. Fortunately, there was also release today by one of the meeting organizers, American University Professor Simon Nicholson, responding to Dr. Smolker. I urge Huffpost readers interested in this topic to read: http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2013/12/15/simon-nicholson-why-civil-society-engagement-with-geoengineering-is-crucial/ The word "disservice" appears several times - I believe quite appropriately. This site can also lead you to today's report. This "dcgeo" site also has a lengthy video of a panel that included Huffpost reporter Kate Sheppard. Ms Sheppard provides a much more balanced view of the geoengineering topic, especially in responding to five questions at the end. Ron 8. There were 17 prior comments - the last on the 9th. Maybe 2 that had merit. Dr. Smolker responded to one of those this way on the 9th (and I am not able to understand much but especially the LLL connections): There is a huge difference between every individual's action that "puts something into the atmosphere with unknown consequences" and a directed, deliberate effort to significantly alter the entire global a
Re: [geo] Open access "Geoengineering and geologic politics" Environment and Planning A
Andrew, list, adding Nigel as cc I am pleased we are seeing more articles like this (not limited to the abstract) from social scientists. I am concerned however when only the word “geoengineering” appears. This is to ask Nigel whether his thoughts on geoengineering are meant to apply to both the SRM and CDR parts of “geo”. There are statements here that I don’t see applying to all forms of “geo”. Ron On Dec 18, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=/a45646 > > doi:10.1068/a45646 > > Clark N, 2013, "Geoengineering and geologic politics" Environment and > Planning A 45(12) 2825 – 2832 > > Geoengineering and geologic politics > > Nigel Clark > > Abstract. > Early engagement with geoengineering by social scientists indicates a certain > suspicion over the motives and modes of operation of scientific research in > the field. In part, this reflects the prominence of the critique of the > politics of emergency in recent social and political thought: a thematisation > that links securitisation measures with foreclosures of the political. This > paper turns the attention back on the social sciences, arguing that recent > styles of ontological and political thought do not prepare us well for > engaging with geologic issues in general, and geoengineering in particular. > It is suggested that, rather than viewing geoengineering discourses and > imaginaries as a retreat from politics, we might view them as playing an > important role in opening up new kinds of politics oriented towards earth > systems and their dynamics. This new ‘geologic politics’ involves a turn from > issues hinging on territorial divisions of the earth’s surface toward the > strata that compose the deep temporal earth. As a political challenge, the > question of how to live with dynamic and stratified earth systems not only > promises to extend the scope of politics, but also points to the ‘inhuman’ > limits of the political per se. > Keywords: geoengineering, climate change, geologic politics, earth systems, > politics of emergency > > Full-text PDF size: 227 Kb > > > -- > 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. -- 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] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley
List cc Keith and Greg 1. This is #3/3 in a string today - all with some relationship to the MacDougall article). Not sure of the etiquette here as Keith was only addressing Greg and myself. But Greg responded to the full list and I think/hope Keith would like that I do the same. Keith has talked of his proposed low-cost electricity approach earlier on this list. 2. As background, readers interested in Keith’s electricity production views should look at material at https://docs.google.com/file/d/1PHkFACumTHyfMPOfIDhAY46vPe_mt8zNmy3i2ZsOnHgqZqpGuMpSh3JaJsCO/edit I also found a video covering the same. 3. I am pretty sure that Keith is one of the world experts on this solar satellite topic. He certainly has had a long history of various space-oriented activities. 4. See also two responses below. On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> Keith cc Greg >> >> I appreciate your enthusiasm for the solar satellite approach, but I have >> my hands more than full with CDR (and specifically biochar). > > What you really need is a way to turn off the current flow of CO2 into > the atmosphere. *Then* biochar or other ways to lower the CO2 have a > chance to work. But that's not going to happen as long as people need > energy to stay alive unless there is a way to replace the energy from > fossil fuels. It's the reason Hansen and the rest of them have > recognized nuclear energy. That will work if you are willing to put > up with a meltdown a year. RWL1. Readers will find that Keith’s approach is quite expensive (many trillions of $) and not likely ready soon. The above site shows a new lower cost way to put hardware in space. My view is that today's renewables can do the job at an acceptable cost - but I wish Keith luck if he can do the fossil fuel replacement job cheaper. I concur on his statements about nuclear - which I believe has no or small connection to geoengineering. Keith has previously proposed a way to make a fuel starting with CO2 and his low cost electricity. Again not a “Geo” topic -but maybe someone can offer other approaches on either the CDR or fossil replacement tasks? > >> What was the >> reason the Japanese dropped their program? > > I don't know, but it really doesn't matter. The program they were > working on would not lead to displacing fossil fuels. The > Skylon/laser propulsion/power satellite approach *might*. > > I calculated how much energy it would take to capture and safely > sequester 100 ppm of CO2. Have you run this calculation? [RWL: The first answer is that biochar doesn’t require ANY energy - as pyrolysis is exothermic. But assuming Keith wants to know how energy and char work together, I can say they are NOT partners; more of one means less of the other (biochar is a partner with soil improvement). But if half of the initial carbon produces energy (and released CO2), then 100 ppm of CO2 requires about 400 Gt C to be put in the ground (we have had other dialog on this number). The energy content of the other 400 Gt C is valued at about 30 GJ/tonne C. (of course not all useful). Thus the theoretical available energy is about 12,000 E18 Joules. Hopefully, we can get started soon enough that we need less than 100 ppm. Hopefully there will be a suite of CDR approaches, that will be using PV, wind, hydro, geothermal (and some non-biochar biomass) What is your own calculation on “how much energy it would take”? (I presume all of an opposite sign?) Ron > > (The next addressed today to Greg and myself, with one response each from > Greg and myself) >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> Would you be interested in an engineering proposal to end the use of >> fossil fuels? >> >> Warning, it does so by substituting a cheaper energy source. >> >> Keith Henson >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Greg Rau wrote: >> >> Delayed response from me also. Just saw a brief review of this paper in my -- 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] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley
List: cc Greg and Keith 1.Note a piece (labeled #1/3) just sent that gives some background on this. Another backgrounder coming for some dialog after this (labeled #3/3). This is #2/3. 2. This message from a few hours ago from Greg might benefit from a little background. The site Greg gives (http://qz.com/154196) and quotes from is a blog piece (today) at a site called “Quartz” by a reporter named Eric Holthaus. I am pretty sure Greg had reacted favorably (talking about “revolution”). I reacted that way. An interesting article by Holthaus, who probably is expressing a view held by a majority on this list. 3. Below, in Greg’s excerpt, there is brief mention of Jim Hansen’s calling for faster action. There is a good bit more at the “qz” site. I wanted to emphasize this dialog because Hansen talks of CDR in terms of many hundreds of dollars per ton CO2 removed. He is ONLY talking about DAC (artificial trees). Greg and I are talking costs that are almost an order of magnitude lower. So, like Drs. Matthews and Solomon, Dr. Hansen has not helped the dialog on CDR with that view of costs. I am pretty sure that Greg agrees with Dr. Hansen on the need for thinking of a 1 degree C rise - not 2 degrees; I do. I presume many on this list do. 4. I hope we can have more dialog on costs and timing of all CDR approaches 5. My next note (#4/3) tries to close this loop with the partly side conversation with Keith Henson, which is shown in full below. Ron On Dec 20, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Greg Rau wrote: Greg Rau To: Rongretlarson Larson, Keith Henson Cc: Geoengineering Reply-To: gh...@sbcglobal.net Re: [geo] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley > While perhaps worthy of a new thread, I'll insert the following link as an > example of why CDR (and all other CO2 management methods) can't be ignored. > Obviously, we need a radical change in our energy systems, but lots of CO2 > emissions and very long term planetary damage will be done before these are > in place. Hence, very proactive CO2 management must be considered (a > revolution in thinking, spending, researching, evaluating and maybe > implementing; not necessarily along the lines advocated in this article) > > from http://qz.com/154196 > "And only last week, a conference of climate scientists in London explored > the theme of “radical emissions reduction” after noting that “nothing that > we’ve said or done to date about climate change has made any detectable dip > whatsoever”. Via a weblink, author Naomi Klein compared the fight against > climate change with the struggle against South African apartheid, and said, > “an agenda capable of delivering radical emissions reductions will only > advance if accompanied by a radical movement.” > + > Fed up with slow (or in some cases, backwards) progress on climate change, > environmental advocates are mulling desperate measures. Emerging at the head > of this pack is arguably the world’s most prominent climate scientist: James > Hansen, a former NASA researcher turned activist. > + > In a provocative study published earlier this month, Hansen and a group of > colleagues make the case for why radical action is needed. The now commonly > embraced international target of keeping global warming at a maximum of > 2°Cabove pre-industrial levels—a hard-won, but politically negotiated goal—is > actually much too high, Hansen says, and we should instead aim for 1°C. That > would be barely a blip higher than current levels of global warming (around > 0.8°C), but still the highest level ever experienced over the 10,000-year > course of human civilization. ”Our objective is to define what the science > indicates is needed, not to assess political feasibility,” the paper says." > more follows - see link > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: Keith Henson > Cc: RAU greg > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:20 AM > Subject: Re: [geo] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric > carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall > - GRL - Wiley > > Keith cc Greg > >I appreciate your enthusiasm for the solar satellite approach, but I have > my hands more than full with CDR (and specifically biochar). What was the > reason the Japanese dropped their program? > > > > Ron > > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> Would you be interested in an engineering proposal to end the use of >> fossil fuels? >> >> Warning, it does so by substituting a cheaper energy source. >> >> Keith Henson >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Greg Rau wr
Re: [geo] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley
Andrew(s) and list Thanks very much for a very complete response. See below. On Dec 21, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Andrew MacDougall wrote: > Hello Dr. Larson, > > Thank you for your interest in my research. To answer your questions: > > “a) that only as much carbon can be removed from the atmosphere as was > inserted (no explanation on why this limit), and” > > This evidently was not clear enough in the paper but there is no limit to > how much carbon is removed from the atmosphere using CDR. The model is > prescribed the atmospheric CO2 concentration at a given date and diagnoses > net human emissions from the carbon cycle. The totals for removal are seen > in table 1. In all cases more carbon needed to be removed that had > originally been emitted to the atmosphere to return atmospheric CO2 to 280 > ppm. [RWLa: My apologies. I was stuck on the word “mirror”. And getting back exactly to 350 pp (not 280 ppm) levels. I did read Table 1, but didn’t express myself well. You did. My comment assumed that the predicted future arctic CO2 was similar to fossil CO2. > >"b) is to be taken out as a “mirror” of the way it was inserted (and > I am not understanding details of the mirror, but this seems highly > unrealistic), and" > > The mirror is an intentional simplification. There are off course an > infinite number of possible pathways to remove CO2. The path actually > taken would likely depend on technology, desirable cooling rate, and the > industrial capacity of a possibly damaged and impoverished civilization. I > selected mirrored scenarios because they are simple but less idealized > than either instant removal of CO2 or linear removal of CO2. [RWL: Understood and agreed. There has to be a realistic ramp-up (sigmoid?) phase that will be the hardest to justify.My motivation here was to say we are in an emergency situation and need to move as fast as possible. The simplification of mirroring makes the task look impossible to those who won’t read your paper carefully. > >"c) requires going back to 280 ppm (not the usual 350 ppm)" > > I initially did conduct unpublished model runs where I returned > atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm. However, I found the models to > difficult to evaluate as the climate was never in equilibrium with 350 > ppm. To evaluate the differences between the final climate and the > Holocene climate I needed to use the pre-industrial climate as a known > baseline. Also note that in the simulations that where published the > Greenland ice sheet does not restabilize until 280 ppm is reached > (although this could be a hysteretic effect). [RWL: Agreed that modeling the end game will not be easy. If we ever get serious about CDR, there will be more difficulty stopping gracefully than starting. But if we can stop fossil use, presumably we can start that up again relatively painlessly. I hope any others who have performed simulations like you will also comment on the best ways to model a close-out. It was the very far-off dates associated with 280 and mirroring that I was worried about. I am fearful of those objecting to CDR saying it is useless, when they see terms like the years 2800 and 3000. The fact that there are “infinite number of possible pathways” should be great news to doctoral candidates and faculty advisors. So yours is a helpful first step. > > " d) looking at very high out year peaks, that are inconsistent with > the concept of CDR." > > I do not see how high peaks are inconsistent with the concept of CDR. CDR > is a technology that can be deployed at whatever time that society deems > that it needs to be deployed (and the society has the resources to deploy > the technology). [RWLd1: I come from a position (like Jim Hansen, 350.org, etc) that we should have started long ago. I feel that the economics are so much better if we start early, that these larger RCP scenarios may imply to some that waiting is better. If the second is appreciably more costly than the lowest, then (to save modelers like you time and energy), we can concentrate on the lower. But I presume the higher numbered RCPs are not that much more difficult. I am just hoping to put most emphasis on the lower ones. If anyone sees any merit in waiting in the belief that the RCP 6.0 and 8.5 scenarios make sense, I hope to hear why. > Note also that the new IPCC scenarios the Representative Concentration > Pathways prescribe concentration pathways not emissions pathways. It is > possible the follow any of the RCPs while deploying technology to capture > a significant fraction of anthropogenic emissions. One could for example > remove emissions such that an emission total that would otherwise lead to > RCP 8.5 instead lead to RCP 6.0. [RWLd2: I guess I follow this. This is also saying that the fossil-phaseout pattern is not any easier to predict than the CDR introduct
Re: [geo] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley
Keith, cc Greg and list Few inserts below. On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:07 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> List cc Keith and Greg >> >> 3. I am pretty sure that Keith is one of the world experts on this solar >> satellite topic. He certainly has had a long history of various >> space-oriented activities. > > There are many people more knowledgeable than I am on the subtopics. > Jordin Kare, for example, knows much more about laser propulsion. But > I have put the whole thing into an economic model and made minor > contributions here and there. [RWL3: I have looked up Dr. Kare’s new company (see http://lasermotive.com/ ) and am impressed by its various successes. There could be a role in agroforestry for seeding. > >> 4. See also two responses below. >> RWL1. Readers will find that Keith’s approach is quite expensive (many >> trillions of $) and not likely ready soon. > > That's not in my writings on the topic. The economic model may not be > right, but it shows that the venture needs only $60 billion to become > profitable. That a bit over half the largest energy project now going > and only twice what China put into building Three Gorges Dam. > > As for "soon", it looks like the first power from space will take > about 6 years, break even slightly short of 8 years and 500% ROI in > ten years. Fast ramp up takes it to replacing the energy from fossil > fuels in 22 years. The power companies have to spend trillions on > replacement power plants anyway, this is just a cheap way to build > carbon free sustainable power. Of course it will never be ready > unless it is started, and for that to happen, it needs to be > recognized as a practical engineering project. > > That's going to take some effort, including psychological, acceptance > that there can be a positive, energy rich future. I *think* there are > solutions to the identified problems, but there may be a showstopper > not yet found..So beat on it folks. [RWL1’: I hope you are right. But most of this is not (yet) “Geoengineering”. So far all mitigation. > >> The above site shows a new lower >> cost way to put hardware in space. My view is that today's renewables can >> do the job at an acceptable cost - > > I don't think this is the case. Gail Tverberg, widely known as "Gail > the Actuary" on The Oil Drum blog has this article out. > > http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/266116/oil-prices-lead-hard-financial-limits > > Couple of months ago at a conference in Baltimore I pinned Gail down > and she gave $30-50/bbl oil as an acceptable range for energy cost. > Synthetic oil can be made for that cost from electric power of 1-2 > cents per kWh. That means power satellites can cost up to $1600/kW > and lift cost to GEO can be no more than $100/kg, one percent of > current cost for communication satellites, but well under the > theoretical physics limits. > > But there is no possibility I know of for getting power from ground PV > or wind down to 1-2 cents per kWh. For PV, consider > http://htyp.org/File:Solar_PV_Experience.jpg The lower limit for PV > is around 60 cents per watt or $600/kW. That's a good number till you > multiply it by 4-5 to get the cost for full time power. When you use > an optimistic 4, the number is $2400/kW. The rough formula to get > cents per kWh is to divide by 80,000 which gives you 3 cents. That's > about twice as high as is needed for cheap synthetic oil and that's > after truly heroic installation of ground PV, decades into the future. [RWL1”:I am familiar with Ms. Tverberg and this experience curve. You’ll find disagreement on the lower limit for future PV costs. But this is (mostly) off this list's areas of interest. I say mostly, because the SRM and CDR approaches will have similar curves, and I have seen none. It would be great to have predictions for the right starting points and slopes (that for wind is about half as steep). > >> but I wish Keith luck if he can do the >> fossil fuel replacement job cheaper. I concur on his statements about >> nuclear - which I believe has no or small connection to geoengineering. >> Keith has previously proposed a way to make a fuel starting with CO2 and his >> low cost electricity. Again not a “Geo” topic -but maybe someone can offer >> other approaches on either the CDR or fossil replacement tasks? > > There is a direct connection. A process that can make cheap synthetic > oil from CO2 out of the air can pump the cheap oil back into empty oil > fields. It stayed there for geological times,
Re: [geo] OPEN - Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored? - MacDougall - GRL - Wiley
too popular as it would unshackle oil > importing nations from the oil producing ones and thus encourage global > production beyond the net emissions of CO2 and thus may possibly create a > global cooling trend. > > > > > > > Regulating the average global temperature could be directly coupled to marine > biofuel production and use. And, establishing global warming governance > through biofuel production does seem to be the most equitable form of > governance for both the environmental issues and global energy issues. > > As a side note on the development of the math; I'm still trying to work out > just how much CO2 would be consumed/stored/cycled in the large scale > photobioreator array scenario (aka. Large Scale Mariculture-LSM). The organic > fertilizer (comprised of fish tank solid waste, spent micro algae and > halophytes from the oil press and enhanced with biochar derived from > micro/macro algae and halophytes) is complicating the math as the fertilizer > can be viewed as sort or long term carbon storage derived from both fuel > production and non-fuel production streams. Also, just estimating the effects > of the fertilizer on the crop land mycorrhizal growth (and subsequent carbon > storage) is an interesting and protracted challenge. > > The bottom line is that the technology is available and the basic science is > well understood. A recommendation to move forward on prototyping such a > system does seem to be realistic. Also, focusing in upon an instillation > large enough to meet the energy needs of the State of Hawaii would provide a > scale large enough to be worth institutional/governmental/corporate level > investment while providing ample scope of operations for scientific > investigations. The BoE estimate of the LSM instillation cost is (currently) > around $45M per km2 with a 7 year break even time frame. The confidence > factor on that estimate is around 75%. > > > > > > I've attached a well done study on why micro algae biofuel is typically not > considered competitive with FFs. Moving to the convergence zones and using > mass produced HDPE dual walled photobioreactors addresses the main > operational limiting factors listed in the paper. The use of non-biofuel > product profits to offset biofuel production costs is a new approach and is > currently being evaluated. > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Michael > > > On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:07:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > > List cc Keith and Greg > > > > 1. This is #3/3 in a string today - all with some relationship to the > > MacDougall article). Not sure of the etiquette here as Keith was only > > addressing Greg and myself. But Greg responded to the full list and I > > think/hope Keith would like that I do the same. > > No problem. I was just trying not to be presumptuous and/or off topic. > > > Keith has talked of his > > proposed low-cost electricity approach earlier on this list. > > > > 2. As background, readers interested in Keith’s electricity production > > views should look at material at > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/1PHkFACumTHyfMPOfIDhAY46vPe_mt8zNmy3i2ZsOnHgqZqpGuMpSh3JaJsCO/edit > > > > I also found a video covering the same. > > > > 3. I am pretty sure that Keith is one of the world experts on this solar > > satellite topic. He certainly has had a long history of various > > space-oriented activities. > > There are many people more knowledgeable than I am on the subtopics. > Jordin Kare, for example, knows much more about laser propulsion. But > I have put the whole thing into an economic model and made minor > contributions here and there. > > > 4. See also two responses below. > > > > > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Ronal W. Larson > > wrote: > > > > Keith cc Greg > > > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for the solar satellite approach, but I have > > my hands more than full with CDR (and specifically biochar). > > > > > > What you really need is a way to turn off the current flow of CO2 into > > the atmosphere. *Then* biochar or other ways to lower the CO2 have a > > chance to work. But that's not going to happen as long as people need > > energy to stay alive unless there is a way to replace the energy from > > fossil fuels. It's the reason Hansen and the rest of them have > > recognized nucl
Re: [geo] Report release- A Civil Society Meeting on Geoengineering
Jim: While you are responding to Michael, I hope you can also answer some non-financial questions I asked on 27 September. Ron On Dec 21, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Michael Hayes wrote: > Jim, > > You seem to be posturing yourself and your group as experts on the subject > and thus should be entitled to a place at the expert table. Over the years > your group appears to have done nothing but use the debate to raise money to > support your salaries and the publication of comically false and misleading > material. > You questioned Michael/Wil on the funding issue and thus it does seem > appropriate to ask you to disclose, in round numbers, just how much money you > have raised on the back of this one issue over the years. And, what exactly > is your solution to the GW issue (besides producing scary posters)? > Best, > > Michael > > > On Monday, December 16, 2013 2:44:06 PM UTC-8, JimETC wrote: > Hi Andrew > > Thats a strange question. > > What comes to mind: ETC Group participated at the EU Trace meeting in Potsdam > in May earlier this year, We have participated in the many negotiations > around Geoengineering organised through the UN Convention on Biological > Diversity, I participated in a discussion on 'soft geoengineering' at the > Woodrow Wilson Centre last November, we participated in the Geoengineering > our Climate conference on Ottawa in Jan 2012. There are probably others. > > We also asked to participate in IPCC meetings in Peru but civil society was > excluded. > > We have also turned down participation in geoengineeirng meetings that we > felt were not legitimate. > > Best > > Jim > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> Jim >> >> Please can you clarify when ETC has participated in good faith in any >> geoengineering forum not packed out with geoengineering opponents? >> >> A >> >> On Dec 16, 2013 10:23 PM, "jim thomas" wrote: >> Michael, >> >> I think you should clarify to the list that your meeting included only a >> partial and handpicked group of 'civil society groups' for what was billed >> as a closed door invitation-only meeting. Also the meeting was organised not >> by civil society itself but by an academic consortium. >> >> Civil Society organisations that have been working for many years on this >> topic were pointedly not invited (ETC Group included). Indeed both your >> report linked below and what was reported to participants at the event >> conveniently omitted to mention that civil society has already been engaging >> significantly in this topic for many years now - at international fora as >> well locally where geoengineering tests have been carried out. Indeed there >> is an existing international coalition of civil society groups calling for a >> ban on real world geoengineering Experiments. Why the fiction of a 'clean >> slate' ? >> >> At least one participant esubsequently expressed concerns that the real >> point of the meeting was to promote 'normalization' of geoengineering: >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-smolker/geoengineering-is-not-normal_b_4378849.html >> >> One detail that appears missing from the WGC report and website concerns >> funding - How was this closed door, hand-picked meeting (and the project >> that houses it) funded? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jim Thomas >> ETC Group. >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 16, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Michael Thompson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> The Washington Geoengineering Consortium is pleased to share the summary >>> and synthesis report of a November 4, 2013, Civil Society Meeting on >>> Geoengineering. >>> >>> The meeting brought together around 40 people from major environmental, >>> development, and justice NGOs, to consider the challenges and opportunities >>> presented by geoengineering technologies. >>> >>> The conversation included civil society reluctance to engage with >>> geoengineering, the risks and benefits of such engagement, who wins and who >>> loses in a geoengineered world, and how civil society actors might frame >>> the conversation around geoengineering. >>> >>> The Civil Society Meeting on Geoengineering was the first in a series of >>> consultative events that the WGC has planned. If you want to stay informed >>> about future meetings, please add your name to our mailing list, and see >>> our events page. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Wil Burns >>> Simon Nicholson >>> Michael Thompson >>> >>> -- >>> 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 togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> Jim Thomas >> ETC Group (Montreal) >> j...@etcgroup.org >> +1 514 27
[geo] Re: BP geologist says peak oil is here
List: 1.A friend just sent me this on peak oil: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/23/british-petroleum-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession/print which leads one to a no-fee introductory article, with an oblique relationship to geoengineering, at: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179.full The future of oil supply Richard G. Miller1⇑ and Steven R. Sorrell2 2. There seems to be nothing in this introductory article directly relating to Geoengineering, save this one paragraph on biofuels: "Finally, biofuels offer promise as well as potentially lower environmental impacts, but expansion of production is constrained by the large land areas required22 and the probable conflicts with food production. Commercially produced biofuels also have a lower net energy yield than conventional oil, implying the need for a 50–600% increase in primary energy inputs to produce an equivalent volume of transportation fuels [72]. While several studies suggest that ‘second-generation’ biofuels could provide up to a quarter of global transport fuel by 2050 [73], these projections are sensitive to key assumptions [74] and would require significant technological breakthroughs." where end-note 22 says: "22. For example, replacing US gasoline consumption with corn-based ethanol would require approximately two million km2 of cropland, which is 15% larger than the total US farmland area. Moreover, this calculation neglects the primary energy required to produce, transport, process and deliver the ethanol which appears to be only slightly less than the energy obtained from using it [71]. Hence, corn-based ethanol production is heavily subsidized in energy (as well as monetary) terms, making large-scale substitution impractical over the longer term." and citations 71-74 are: ↵ Murphy D, Hall CAS, Powers B. 2011 New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol. Environ. Develop. Sustain. 13, 179–202. (doi:10.1007/s10668-010-9255-7) CrossRef ↵ Deng S, Tynan GR. 2011 Implications of energy return on energy invested on future total energy demand. Sustainability 3, 2433–2442. (doi:10.3390/su3122433) CrossRefWeb of Science ↵ Timilsina GR. 2014 Biofuels in the long-run global energy supply mix for transportation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20120323. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0323) ↵ Slade R, Saunders R, Gross R, Bauen A. 2010 Energy from biomass: the size of the global resource. London, UK: Energy Research Centre.Search Google Scholar 3. Citation 3 (73) is the only biofuel paper in this special edition. Its abstract (the only part available until you pay) says: > "Various policy instruments along with increasing oil prices have > contributed to a sixfold increase in global biofuels production over the last > decade (2000–2010). This rapid growth has proved controversial, however, and > has raised concerns over potential conflicts with global food security and > climate change mitigation. To address these concerns, policy support is now > focused on advanced or second-generation biofuels instead of crop-based > first-generation biofuels. This policy shift, together with the global > financial crisis, has slowed the growth of biofuels production, which has > remained stagnant since 2010. Based upon a review of the literature, this > paper examines the potential long-run contribution of biofuels to the global > energy mix, particularly for transportation. We find that the contribution of > biofuels to global transportation fuel demand is likely to be limited to > around 5% over the next 10–15 years. However, a number of studies suggest > that biofuels could contribute up to a quarter of global transportation fuel > demand by 2050, provided technological breakthroughs reduce the costs of > sustainably produced advanced biofuels to a level where they can compete with > petroleum fuels. 4. Author Timilsina is at the World Bank. It seems likely that this report: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/12/30/000158349_20101230134933/Rendered/PDF/WPS5513.pdf is substantially the same as the (behind a paywall) paper #3 (73). I have only skimmed this report. It appears to be well done and has had review by recognized authorities. I find no mention of any CDR activity (and especially none for biochar). Anyone able to tell if this is essentially the same as the just released paper? A good bit here on EROI. My perception is that this could be quite good for biochar + biofuels. (not so good for bioethanol from corn) Anyone have that data? The Timilsina report specifically does not include the next cite, which must have been offered as a more positive (it is very positive) biomass-futures note by a reviewer or editor. 5. The citation 4 (74) by Slade etal is free and is at http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_f
Re: [geo] Re: BP geologist says peak oil is here
Keith: Glad you are supportive of biochar. But I have to also defend biofuels - as they can come at little added cost if you want to make charcoal (or vice versa - char production can follow biofuels). Also I think you are gong to have a very hard time convincing many on this list that you can economically remove atmospheric carbon with any form of photovoltaics. Yes on fuel production with PV - at least on a theoretic basis - but this is not a list concerned with fuels. I have seen no evidence that any PV (wind is today cheaper) approach to biofuels is cheaper than the biomass/photosynthesis approach being touted by folks such as at www.coolplanet.com - who also co-produce charcoal/biochar. Ron On Dec 23, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > "Arguments pro or con?" > > Biochar, especially if made using carbon free energy (such as solar > from space), is a good idea in any case because of the soil > improvement. > > Biofuels are not. The problem with biofuels ultimately stems from the > low efficiency of photosynthesis. You could get at least 5 times as > much fuel from a given area by covering it with solar cells and making > fuel via Fisher-Tropsch using hydrogen and carbon dioxide > > If you quit using coal for electric power, an intermediate step in > getting off fossil fuels is to using coal and hydrogen to make liquid > fuels. The same plants can be upgraded to using CO2 as more solar > power from space comes on line. > > BTW, if people have good arguments as to why space solar power with > the parts lifted by propulsion lasers does not make engineering or > economic sense, I would appreciate hearing those arguments. The > proposal in its current form only dates from last April. > > Admitted, it's an awful big project, but at present there do not seem > to be any showstoppers. Most of the really hard problems such as > pointing and tracking big lasers were cleared away by the huge > engineering effort that went into the SDI back in the late 80s. > > But that doesn't mean all the problems were identified, so if you can > think of ones that have not been brought up before, by all means, add > them to the list. > > Keith > > PS Background was mentioned here recently, > https://docs.google.com/file/d/1PHkFACumTHyfMPOfIDhAY46vPe_mt8zNmy3i2ZsOnHgqZqpGuMpSh3JaJsCO/edit > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> List: >> >> 1.A friend just sent me this on peak oil: >> >> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/23/british-petroleum-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession/print >> >> which leads one to a no-fee introductory article, with an oblique >> relationship to geoengineering, at: >> http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179.full >> >> The future of oil supply >> >> Richard G. Miller1⇑ and >> Steven R. Sorrell2 >> >> >> >> 2. There seems to be nothing in this introductory article directly relating >> to Geoengineering, save this one paragraph on biofuels: >> "Finally, biofuels offer promise as well as potentially lower >> environmental impacts, but expansion of production is constrained by the >> large land areas required22 and the probable conflicts with food production. >> Commercially produced biofuels also have a lower net energy yield than >> conventional oil, implying the need for a 50–600% increase in primary energy >> inputs to produce an equivalent volume of transportation fuels [72]. While >> several studies suggest that ‘second-generation’ biofuels could provide up >> to a quarter of global transport fuel by 2050 [73], these projections are >> sensitive to key assumptions [74] and would require significant >> technological breakthroughs." >> >> where end-note 22 says: >> "22. For example, replacing US gasoline consumption with corn-based ethanol >> would require approximately two million km2 of cropland, which is 15% larger >> than the total US farmland area. Moreover, this calculation neglects the >> primary energy required to produce, transport, process and deliver the >> ethanol which appears to be only slightly less than the energy obtained from >> using it [71]. Hence, corn-based ethanol production is heavily subsidized in >> energy (as well as monetary) terms, making large-scale substitution >> impractical over the longer term." >> >> and citations 71-74 are: >> >> ↵ >> >> >> Murphy D, >> Hall CAS, >> Powers B. >> >> 2011 New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI
Re: [geo] NOAA's Arctic 2013 report
Greg and list (adding Peter Flynn) 1. Thanks for bringing this NOAA report to our attention. Clearly a worsening situation - especially in ice volume (as area/extent have to soon radically go to zero to follow the non-linear path of ice volume.Until today I hadn’t thought of anything new to add. 2. This is following up on the discussion many months ago of the idea broached by Prof. Peter Flynn of thickening the arctic ice by added layering from above with salt water ice flooding. (snow-making likely to not be as energy efficient) The only new thought is using moth-balled submarines from navies around the world (especially the US and Russia, who have the most - and we can use either active or mothballed). 3. I don’t expect lots of different navies to jump at this, but I think a test may be achievable from some navy - and we only need one. It seems to me this could/should be the cheapest approach to adding ice - with the sub moving every day or few days to a new spot, concentrating on those locations which are most likely to be salvageable with a small additional thickness. The experts seem to have a good handle on thicknesses. One sub isn’t enough, but there are probably a hundred if globally we really get scared of the total loss of arctic ice for even months on end. (I believe a “zero” area in September is likely in 2-3 years) 4. The main modification to the sub is for a low head high volume pump - a head of less than a meter generally, given the small percentage of the ice above water level. The size of one or more units has to be limited by the max sub (nuclear?) power output when stationary. 5. I have added Prof. Flynn to get his reaction. (And thank him also for his recent useful biomass paper sent to this list - with a later note coming on that). Ron On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131212_arcticreportcard.html?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_5817279106236063746#%21 > > According to a new report released today by NOAA and its partners, cooler > temperatures in the summer of 2013 across the central Arctic Ocean, Greenland > and northern Canada moderated the record sea ice loss and extensive melting > that the surface of the Greenland ice sheet experienced last year. Yet there > continued to be regional extremes, including record low May snow cover in > Eurasia and record high summer temperatures in Alaska. > “The Arctic caught a bit of a break in 2013 from the recent string of > record-breaking warmth and ice melt of the last decade,” said David M. > Kennedy, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations, during a press > briefing today at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in San > Francisco. “But the relatively cool year in some parts of the Arctic does > little to offset the long-term trend of the last 30 years: the Arctic is > warming rapidly, becoming greener and experiencing a variety of changes, > affecting people, the physical environment, and marine and land ecosystems.” > Kennedy joined other scientists to release the Arctic Report Card 2013, which > has, since 2006, summarized changing conditions in the Arctic. One hundred > forty-seven authors from 14 countries contributed to the peer-reviewed > report. Major findings of this year’s report include: > > -- > 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. -- 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] NOAA's Arctic 2013 report
ent of the > recent past, and the ability to instantly turn off the ice formation, I think > of this as a geoengineering approach needing the least incremental study. Our > original work on this was focused on the potential to sustain the Gulf Stream > in the event that fresh water influx from ice melting impaired the > downwelling GIN current, so it is not directly related to a program focused > on a wide extension of ice cover. It does, however, have some technical and > economic details, so I have reattached a copy. > > Peter Flynn > > Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. > Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers > Department of Mechanical Engineering > University of Alberta > peter.fl...@ualberta.ca > cell: 928 451 4455 > > > > > > > > > > From: Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net] > Sent: December-26-13 10:14 PM > To: RAU greg > Cc: Geoengineering; Peter Flynn > Subject: Re: [geo] NOAA's Arctic 2013 report > > Greg and list (adding Peter Flynn) > > 1. Thanks for bringing this NOAA report to our attention. Clearly a > worsening situation - especially in ice volume (as area/extent have to soon > radically go to zero to follow the non-linear path of ice volume.Until > today I hadn’t thought of anything new to add. > > 2. This is following up on the discussion many months ago of the idea > broached by Prof. Peter Flynn of thickening the arctic ice by added layering > from above with salt water ice flooding. (snow-making likely to not be as > energy efficient) > > The only new thought is using moth-balled submarines from navies around the > world (especially the US and Russia, who have the most - and we can use > either active or mothballed). > > 3. I don’t expect lots of different navies to jump at this, but I think a > test may be achievable from some navy - and we only need one. It seems to me > this could/should be the cheapest approach to adding ice - with the sub > moving every day or few days to a new spot, concentrating on those locations > which are most likely to be salvageable with a small additional thickness. > The experts seem to have a good handle on thicknesses. One sub isn’t enough, > but there are probably a hundred if globally we really get scared of the > total loss of arctic ice for even months on end. (I believe a “zero” area in > September is likely in 2-3 years) > >4. The main modification to the sub is for a low head high volume pump - > a head of less than a meter generally, given the small percentage of the ice > above water level. The size of one or more units has to be limited by the > max sub (nuclear?) power output when stationary. > >5. I have added Prof. Flynn to get his reaction. (And thank him also for > his recent useful biomass paper sent to this list - with a later note coming > on that). > > Ron > > > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > > > http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131212_arcticreportcard.html?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_5817279106236063746#%21 > > According to a new report released today by NOAA and its partners, cooler > temperatures in the summer of 2013 across the central Arctic Ocean, Greenland > and northern Canada moderated the record sea ice loss and extensive melting > that the surface of the Greenland ice sheet experienced last year. Yet there > continued to be regional extremes, including record low May snow cover in > Eurasia and record high summer temperatures in Alaska. > “The Arctic caught a bit of a break in 2013 from the recent string of > record-breaking warmth and ice melt of the last decade,” said David M. > Kennedy, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations, during a press > briefing today at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in San > Francisco. “But the relatively cool year in some parts of the Arctic does > little to offset the long-term trend of the last 30 years: the Arctic is > warming rapidly, becoming greener and experiencing a variety of changes, > affecting people, the physical environment, and marine and land ecosystems.” > Kennedy joined other scientists to release the Arctic Report Card 2013, which > has, since 2006, summarized changing conditions in the Arctic. One hundred > forty-seven authors from 14 countries contributed to the peer-reviewed > report. Major findings of this year’s report include: > > -- > 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googl
Re: [geo] Severe warming ahead?
Greg etal: 1. Dr. Sherwood gives a short (<3 min) video summary of his new findings at several places, such as: http://climatestate.com/2013/12/31/planet-likely-to-warm-by-4c-by-2100-scientists-warn/ 2. Realclimate has a good support for the new paper today from Drs. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/comment-page-1/ 3. The idea of a higher sensitivity is driving them wild at WUWT. Ron On Jan 2, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html > > Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing > Steven C. Sherwood,Sandrine Bony & Jean-Louis Dufresne > Nature 505, 37–42 (02 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12829 > > Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean > temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of > research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity > estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for > a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate > projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in > the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show > that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the > lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in > climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is > that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as > the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing > strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from > observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity > of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is > significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, > thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future > warming. > > -- > 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. -- 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] Report release- A Civil Society Meeting on Geoengineering
Stephen, Andrew, Michael, list: cc Prof JM-A) I want to take a different tack. I think we need to engage more with Prof. Martinez-Alier - who is a serious scholar. I believe a number of CDR approaches could work for peasants. I am sure that biochar can - especially for EROI reasons (being an investment, with long term payback - in units of both dollars and tonnes C)). I think I can eventually find his EROI paper at no cost, so have not yet read it - but the EROI topic is a valid one. Paying for CDR or SRM is not necessarily in the category of “carbon credits”. We are talking about paying someone for cleaning up our pollution - and peasants can be the main beneficiaries of our past polluting activities. It need not be payment to continue to pollute. Although he has below (and earlier) come to the ETC defense, he clearly has a different perspective. I hope he will write back with more on EROI (or anything else about which he has concerns with SRM or CDR). Ron On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:04 AM, Stephen Salter wrote: > Andrew > > I think that you are being unfair to the ETC group. If their proposal was > implemented it would lead to a large reduction in world population which is > the original and main source of the climate problem. Pol Pot had exactly the > right approach but insufficient determination. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of > Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 > (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > On 04/01/2014 10:35, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> Whatever the merits or otherwise of peasant agriculture, it's no argument >> against geoengineering. Food is roughly 20pc of the anthropogenic global CO2 >> budget. That still leaves an inconvenient 80pc hanging around, even if we're >> (unrealistically) meeting all our food requirements from carbon free peasant >> agriculture. This is of course unless you assume that peasant agriculture >> is so inefficient that massive transfer of labour to agriculture is needed. >> What you'd be proposing there would be more like the Khmer Rouge >> deindustrialisation. This is not something any society will do willingly. >> Even if we emulate the delightful Khmer Rouge, all this does absolutely zip >> about the historic carbon that's already in the air. >> >> In short, this peasant agriculture argument is non starter, a hoax solution, >> a distraction in the geoengineering debate. I await a serious suggestion >> from ETC as to how to deal with dangerous global warming without >> geoengineering. >> >> A >> >> On Jan 4, 2014 6:30 AM, "Joan Martínez Alier" >> wrote: >> The meaning of the statement "peasant agriculture cools down the earth" is >> (to some extent) made clear in J.Martinez-Alier, The EROI of agriculture and >> its use by the Via Campesina, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (1), >> January 2011 , 145-160. >> >> When the Via Campesina makes such a statement, they refer to the whole food >> system(including transport), not only to agriculture. >> >> Via Campesina is not in the least in favour of paying "carbon credits" to >> peasant farmers. Via Campesina is against the carbon trade. >> >> See for instance >> >> http://viacampesina.net/downloads/PAPER5/EN/paper5-EN.pdf >> >> http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4789-yet-another-un-report-calls-for-support-to-peasant-farming-and-agroecology-it-s-time-for-action >> >> I agree with Michael Hayes that more work is needed to support (or discard) >> the hypothesis that "peasant agriculture cools down the earth". jma >> >> > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > -- > 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. -- 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] Regulating Geoengineering in International Environmental Law
Andrew and list: Yours was behind a paywall. Because Finland has one of the world’s strongest biomass/bioenergy programs, this looked interesting enough to see what could be obtained at no cost. This just to save others some time, by Dr. Yamineva - but no paywall. 1. I found this that looks quite good on climate finance by Dr. Yamineva and Dr.Kulovesi at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159195 The New Framework for Climate Finance Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Breakthrough or an Empty Promise? Yulia Yamineva University of Eastern Finland - Department of Law Kati Kulovesi University of Eastern Finland - Law Department October 9, 2012 with a final paragraph reading: As this chapter shows, a tectonic divide between developed and developing countries has shaped the negotiations and the legal and institutional framework for climate finance under the UNFCCC. Developing countries have been deeply dissatisfied with the GEF as an operating entity of the financial mechanism and with the ineffectiveness of SCCF and the LDC Fund. Developing countries’ ambition for greater involvement and “having a say” in the decision-making over financial assistance has critically influenced the reforms to the Convention’s architecture. The reformed climate finance architecture reflects a compromise between these two camps while non- outcomes echo the most politically sensitive issues. Clarity on unresolved issues should be achieved speedily as its absence will hinder any progress made in the delivery of funds to developing countries in the future. 2. Same (and I learned something) on Russia and climate topics at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159197 Climate Law and Policy in Russia: A Peasant Needs Thunder to Cross Himself and Wonder Yulia Yamineva University of Eastern Finland - Department of Law October 9, 2012 Erkki J. Hollo, Kati Kulovesi & Michael Mehling (eds.), Climate Change and The Law (Forthcoming) University of Eastern Finland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 8 3. Using id numbers near these did not turn up anything else that was not behind a pay wall Ron On Jan 5, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.lexxion.de/en/verlagsprogramm-shop/details/3991/329/cclr/cclr-3/2013/%C2%B4regulating-geoengineering-in-international-environmental-law.html > > Tuomas Kuokkanen and Yulia Yamineva > > ´Regulating Geoengineering in International Environmental Law > > Journal: Carbon and Climate Law Review - Issue: 3/2013 - pp. 161-167 > > Geoengineering can be viewed in two ways: as a potential cause for further > environmental harm or as an option for addressing climate change in addition > to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So far, the existing legal response in > multilateral environmental agreements has been in the former domain. This > article shows that this approach does not necessarily provide comprehensive > legal regulation of geoengineering as it appears to leave many governance and > regulatory gaps. At the same time, developing a new legal instrument on > geoengineering does not seem to be feasible for a number of political and > other reasons. Therefore, we propose that the most appropriate option for the > time being would be to continue with the current approach but enhance > inter-regime cooperation and interaction. The article discusses possible > formats for such regime cooperation. > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Gender and Geoengineering - Buck - 2013 - Hypatia - Wiley
Andrew and list cc Holly Buck 1. I meant to respond earlier after reading the Christmas day piece below (which no longer is free and my draft is somehow blocked by my computer, although saved). I read it because I have been much impressed by other material by Ms. Buck. I didn’t find anything new and surprising re “Gender and Geoengineering”, but agree that Geoengineering would undoubtedly benefit from increasing attention from more women like Ms Buck (now getting her PhD at Cornell). 2. Last night I (purely by chance) was able to skim through a 1995 collection of essays called “Ecopsychology" (edited by Theodore Roszak), and found quite a few references to Gender. This is to ask Holly (who has contributed before, and I guess will know this field) to tell us more about Ecopsychology and geoengineering (gender included, but not restricted to gender).Obviously this list will be interested in this discipline’s view of both SRM and CDR. Googling says there are plenty of entries for the marriage of Ecopsychology and Geoengineering, but I need a tutor. 3. Thanks in advance. Ron On Dec 25, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./hypa.12083/abstract > > Buck, H. J., Gammon, A. R. and Preston, C. J. (2013), Gender and > Geoengineering. Hypatia. doi: 10./hypa.12083 > > Abstract > > Geoengineering has been broadly and helpfully defined as “the intentional > manipulation of the earth's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate > change or its warming effects” (Corner and Pidgeon , 26). Although there > exists a rapidly growing literature on the ethics of geoengineering, very > little has been written about its gender dimensions. The authors consider > four contexts in which geoengineering appears to have important gender > dimensions: (1) the demographics of those pushing the current agenda, (2) the > overall vision of control it involves, (3) the design of the particular > technologies, and (4) whom geoengineering will most affect and benefit. After > detailing these four gender dimensions, we consider three ways in which the > geoengineering discourse could be enriched if it became more sensitive to > issues of gender. These include increasing the focus on the concrete other, > recognizing the socially transformative potential of geoengineering > technologies, and engaging in value-sensitive design. Although ultimately > remaining agnostic on the desirability of geoengineering, the paper brings > gender considerations into a discussion from which they have been > conspicuously absent. > > > -- > 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. -- 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] Gender and Geoengineering - Buck - 2013 - Hypatia - Wiley
be helpful to anyone interested in either selling or tearing down any part of geoengineering. Maybe also on gender issues. I don’t want to get into this too far, but have to note that our two US political parties have a close gender correlation in membership and climate beliefs. I guess maybe similarly in higher degree for the tea party wing? Sorry I couldn’t spend more time on these several topics. Again, Holly, thanks. Ron > > > cheers, > Holly > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > Andrew and list cc Holly Buck > >1. I meant to respond earlier after reading the Christmas day piece below > (which no longer is free and my draft is somehow blocked by my computer, > although saved). I read it because I have been much impressed by other > material by Ms. Buck. I didn’t find anything new and surprising re “Gender > and Geoengineering”, but agree that Geoengineering would undoubtedly benefit > from increasing attention from more women like Ms Buck (now getting her PhD > at Cornell). > >2. Last night I (purely by chance) was able to skim through a 1995 > collection of essays called “Ecopsychology" (edited by Theodore Roszak), and > found quite a few references to Gender. This is to ask Holly (who has > contributed before, and I guess will know this field) to tell us more about > Ecopsychology and geoengineering (gender included, but not restricted to > gender).Obviously this list will be interested in this discipline’s view > of both SRM and CDR. Googling says there are plenty of entries for the > marriage of Ecopsychology and Geoengineering, but I need a tutor. > >3. Thanks in advance. > > Ron > > On Dec 25, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./hypa.12083/abstract >> >> Buck, H. J., Gammon, A. R. and Preston, C. J. (2013), Gender and >> Geoengineering. Hypatia. doi: 10./hypa.12083 >> >> Abstract >> >> Geoengineering has been broadly and helpfully defined as “the intentional >> manipulation of the earth's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate >> change or its warming effects” (Corner and Pidgeon , 26). Although there >> exists a rapidly growing literature on the ethics of geoengineering, very >> little has been written about its gender dimensions. The authors consider >> four contexts in which geoengineering appears to have important gender >> dimensions: (1) the demographics of those pushing the current agenda, (2) >> the overall vision of control it involves, (3) the design of the particular >> technologies, and (4) whom geoengineering will most affect and benefit. >> After detailing these four gender dimensions, we consider three ways in >> which the geoengineering discourse could be enriched if it became more >> sensitive to issues of gender. These include increasing the focus on the >> concrete other, recognizing the socially transformative potential of >> geoengineering technologies, and engaging in value-sensitive design. >> Although ultimately remaining agnostic on the desirability of >> geoengineering, the paper brings gender considerations into a discussion >> from which they have been conspicuously absent. >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- 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] Yale blog on SRM
Greg and list: 1. I’ll let others answer the “fair?” question. In general, I am pleased with what e360.yale have been doing. 2. I mostly was pleased that the word “geoengineering” was mostly (not always) preceded by “solar” in the article cited by Greg. Not pleased that the word “CDR” never once appears. 3. But in the fourth paragraph from the end, we read (emphasis added): "This led to a 2008 Convention on Biological Diversity moratorium against iron fertilization, which in 2010 was expanded to any geoengineering." 4. To the best of my knowledge, there is no-one anywhere paying attention to this “moratorium” re biochar. Biochar’s main opponents are even saying there has not been enough testing. My question is whether ETC (which led the CBD fight) or anyone feels we should pull the biochar community into (an ETC-CBD) line? Ron On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > Barking mad or a necessity? Fair and balanced - you decide. > Greg > > http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_5827066925661843458#%21 > > > "... Raymond Pierrehumbert has called the scheme "barking mad." " > > "...Robock argues that while modeling and indoor experiments should be > pursued, outdoor field trials are problematic. "You can’t see a climate > response unless an experiment is so large as to actually be geoengineering," > Robock says." > > "Keith concludes that it "makes sense to move with deliberate haste towards > deployment of geoengineering," so long as early work supports the theoretical > promise of the technique. Caldeira is less bullish, saying, "Climate change > is not going to extinguish us as a species. Geoengineering will always be a > decision, not a necessity." " > > -- > 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. -- 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] Yale blog on SRM
Ken etal - see below On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Ron, > > Biochar is a storage strategy that can be applied at any scale. It is > possible that biochar could be part of a geoengineering system, but if > someone were to set up a little biochar facility in their backyard to improve > soil quality and store a little carbon while doing so, few observers would > consider this to be a "geoengineering" project. [RWL1: Agreed, but the field tests are getting bigger rapidly. When should anyone (especially ETC) be saying they are too big? An authoritative report on the present status of biochar field testing is http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Field_Studies_Final_May_2013.pdf, which says some are on-going, with reports likely soon. Mentioned because some are likely soon (I thought already) at 100’s of hectares. I believe the scale of biochar use in Japan could already be called large scale, with dozens of rice hull pyrolysis units selling biochar in large quantities. But (I hope obviously), I am mainly trying to explore how ETC and others respond to the article's one sentence (below) using the words “CBD” and "any geoengineering" > Similarly, geologic CO2 storage can be part of a carbon geoengineering (i.e., > CDR) system if it were hooked up to a large scale biomass energy facility, > and this were replicated at global scale, but geologic CO2 storage in itself > is not considered "geoengineering" under most definitions. [RWL2: I recognize that the “S” in BECS or BECCS has been used to mean both “storage” and “sequestration”. I don’t think it should make any difference in my main question of whether the sentence I quoted below about coupling “moratorium” with “any” includes BECS/BECCS. I think ETC would likely say yes to a moratorium on BECS - but I am interested in opinions on geologic storage as they might affect discussion of biochar, since both require the same resource. I’d also appreciate hearing more on using “storage” vs “sequestration”. > I would therefore advocate that biochar be considered a candidate carbon > storage medium, and argue that biochar research and experiments do not in > themselves constitute geoengineering research and experiments. I would argue > that biochar field experiments are no more geoengineering field experiments > than are, say, experiments aimed at looking at carbon stored by > reforestation, etc. [RWL3: Of course I appreciate your efforts to resolve these semantic issues. Thanks for your efforts there. But I still see a difference in a) whether biochar and BECCS are geoengineering and b) how they are to be governed. I don’t believe anybody benefits if biochar is removed from the list of geoengineering technologies; this is the best forum I know to compare and discuss both SRM and CDR options. So I have to respectively disagree with your last sentence (and I include reforestation - which use can/must be a major part of biochar discussions). I don’t see how biochar's inclusion should depend on”research and experiments” (in your first sentence) and full-blown early implementation with financial support (my goal). But maybe that was not your intent. A little off topic, but googling to respond on “large scale”, I found an interesting “Nordic Biochar Conference" coming up in about a month in Finland, that I don’t think has been well publicized. Finland could be the first country to really go large scale with biochar.See http://www.njf.nu/filebank/files/20130405$191103$fil$QsY7Gv05Ha3cMV4m3EYo.pdf Again thanks for your response and apologies for disagreeing in part. Ron > > Best, > > Ken > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > Greg and list: > > 1. I’ll let others answer the “fair?” question. In general, I am pleased > with what e360.yale have been doing. > >2. I mostly was pleased that the word “geoengineering” was mostly (not > always) preceded by “solar” in the article cited by Greg. Not pleased that > the word “CDR” never once appears. > > 3. But in the fourth paragraph from the end, we read (emphasis added): > "This led to a 2008 Convention on Biological Diversity moratorium > against iron fertilization, which in 2010 was expanded to any geoengineering." > > 4. To the best of my knowledge, there is no-one anywhere paying attention > to this “moratorium” re biochar
Re: [geo] Yale blog on SRM
Bruce etal 1. Yes, 1000 t/ha is an interesting large number for biochar. I have seen numbers of 250 and 300 t C per ha for terra preta. 2. I noted this conference mainly because there are few occasions to see a full booklet of biochar abstracts prior to a biochar conference. 3. I was a little disappointed, after skimming today. There was very little on geoengineering (on CDR), and a lot called biochar that would not be allowed at most biochar conferences. The term “biochar” was being used for biomass total combustion - nothing going into soils. Better the name “bio-coal” as in one paper, but still wondering why presented at this conference. Also saw the word “Pyrochar” for the first time; had a very high conversion temperature. 4. Some of the best geoengineering work re biochar is being done in the UK - and I saw nothing from those biochar experts. There were considerable papers from Germany, which has done good biochar work, but most was on what I usually see called HTC (Hydrothermal Carbonization), but there also called “hydrochar”. An international nomenclature is not yet worked out - in part because of translation difficulties, since the English “charcoal" and “coal” have many permutations. 5. Quite a bit on biochar related to phosphorus and nitrogen retention or release, which I have not seen earlier. 6. I am afraid that most of the results confirm that biochar will be making more sense where the soils are worse than in the Nordic countries. I saw no major downers, but not as many positives as usual. Still, it is nice to see so many working on the topic - and wish I could be there to see more of the results that were promised Ron On Jan 10, 2014, at 6:27 AM, French, Bruce wrote: > Regarding the abstracts provided in the announcement for the conference in > Finland, on page 10 of your > link:http://www.njf.nu/filebank/files/20130405$191103$fil$QsY7Gv05Ha3cMV4m3EYo.pdf > “S1-2 Soil nutrient enrichment in a half century old “Terra Preta” in > Sweden” discusses the results from biochar additions totaling 1000 t/ha after > 50 years; a good window into what might be expected for use by the ag sector > (at high latitudes?). > Bruce > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 9:36 PM > To: Ken Caldeira > Cc: RAU greg; Geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Yale blog on SRM > > Ken etal - > > see below > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Ken Caldeira > wrote: > > > Ron, > > Biochar is a storage strategy that can be applied at any scale. It is > possible that biochar could be part of a geoengineering system, but if > someone were to set up a little biochar facility in their backyard to improve > soil quality and store a little carbon while doing so, few observers would > consider this to be a "geoengineering" project. > [RWL1: Agreed, but the field tests are getting bigger rapidly. When > should anyone (especially ETC) be saying they are too big? An authoritative > report on the present status of biochar field testing is > http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Field_Studies_Final_May_2013.pdf, > which says some are on-going, with reports likely soon. Mentioned because > some are likely soon (I thought already) at 100’s of hectares. > I believe the scale of biochar use in Japan could already be called large > scale, with dozens of rice hull pyrolysis units selling biochar in large > quantities. > But (I hope obviously), I am mainly trying to explore how ETC and others > respond to the article's one sentence (below) using the words “CBD” and "any > geoengineering" > > > Similarly, geologic CO2 storage can be part of a carbon geoengineering (i.e., > CDR) system if it were hooked up to a large scale biomass energy facility, > and this were replicated at global scale, but geologic CO2 storage in itself > is not considered "geoengineering" under most definitions. > [RWL2: I recognize that the “S” in BECS or BECCS has been used to mean > both “storage” and “sequestration”. I don’t think it should make any > difference in my main question of whether the sentence I quoted below about > coupling “moratorium” with “any” includes BECS/BECCS. I think ETC would > likely say yes to a moratorium on BECS - but I am interested in opinions on > geologic storage as they might affect discussion of biochar, since both > require the same resource. I’d also appreciate hearing more on using > “storage” vs “sequestration”. > > > I would therefore advocate that biochar be considered a candidate carbon > storage medium, and argue that biochar r
Re: [geo] Case Study by Holly Buck on Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration
List with ccs 1. Thanks to Sean for the alert of a paper I think is important. Important on two grounds - the Haida/OIF controversy (I am not qualified to discuss, but think we have not heard enough) and the use of the term “Geoengineering” (where I have been regularly commenting and also think we have not heard enough). Ms Buck is knowledgeable on both - and from a social science perspective, again about which we do not hear enough. 2.Ms Buck’s last few sentences sum up the article and issues well: "It is not possible to separate out “geoengineering” activities from these socio-ecological concerns; nor is it possible to cleave it from natural resource use and access, which are at the heart of this project.[30] [RWL: [30] is open source at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art24/ (no time yet to read, but looks highly pertinent) In conclusion, this case has pointed to the mounting set of problems with the umbrella term “geoengineering.” As a linking term, “geoengineering” served to connect the salmon restoration project not just with solar radiation management, but with imaginaries of global control, fossil fuel industry corruption, conservative think tanks, and a whole web of signifiers that are unconnected with this specific project save the semantic link. In this case, it was useful for activists to link the project to solar radiation management and other contentious strategies. Yet it is absurd to link these techniques— with their varying scales, mechanisms, and motivations— and at the same time keep them separate from “usual” planetary-scale modifications, such as runoff from industrial agriculture or deep-sea trawling. The umbrella term is useful in that it invites comparison of different possible approaches to address climate change. Still, the evolution of the umbrella term “geoengineering” into something more coherent and analytically stable is probably due." . 3. I think/hope I am in agreement with Ms. Buck, re the use of the term “Geoengineering” to appropriately include both SRM and CDR. The problem is too often the use of “geoengineering” to refer only to “SRM”. I have yet to see the reverse problem, with CDR. It seems too late to redefine “geoengineering, but I would not want to anyway. As Ms Buck is pointing out, we just have to make sure that decisions on both sides of the “Geo” world are made on more than costs related only to carbon. We need more papers on doing either, neither, both, or in-between. I have yet to see an adequate metric for comparing SRM and CDR on costs. Any out there? My suspicion is that the method will be one based on life cycle costs - and for this comparison, the problems are horrendous, if you include co-benefits such as carbon neutral energy and soil improvements. Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Geoengineering Our Climate (eds. Blackstock, Miller and Rayner) wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For the Geoengineering Our Climate? Working Paper Series, Holly Buck (Cornell > University) has written a case study on the Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration, > titled: "Village Science Meets Global Discourse: The Haida Salmon Restoration > Corporation's Ocean Iron Fertilization Experiment". > > In this short study, she explores the tension between citizen / village-scale > science and institutional science, the media response to the event, the > slippery definition of geoengineering, and repercussions for governance. > > The article can be read and downloaded at: > http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/01/14/village-science-meets-global-discourse-case-study/ > > > Best wishes to all, > > Sean Low > > -- > 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. -- 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] Polar Ice Melting Prompts US Military To Protect New Waterways
Bruce and list My impression(quick skim only) is that the May White House document http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf doesn’t say anything definitive. True? Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 2:08 PM, French, Bruce wrote: > US Military Responds To Arctic Ocean Melting: Polar Ice Melting Prompts US > Military To Protect New Waterways [Maps] > By David Kashi > on January 13 2014 11:07 AM > > http://www.ibtimes.com/us-military-responds-arctic-ocean-melting-polar-ice-melting-prompts-us-military-protect-new-1536942 > > > It is safe to assume that investors in polar resource exploitation can be > expected to resist any future geoengineering efforts. > > Bruce > > -- > 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 togeoengineering+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.
Re: [geo] Meanwhile: 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise
Greg etal Because this paper is behind a paywall, I can barely glean from their figures that they may be looking at a fifty year time horizon. Did they look at all at either SRM or CDR when using the term “irreversibility? (quotes in the original - why?) Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/13-2 > Antarctic Glacier's 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' > to Sea Level Rise > New study on Pine Island Glacier shows 'striking vision of the near future,' > says co-author > - Andrea Germanos, staff writer > An Antarctic glacier is melting "irreversibly," offering "a striking vision > of the near future," a new study shows. > The study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at > Pine Island Glacier, the largest single contributor to sea-level rise in the > Antarctic. > The team of scientists used three ice flow models to look at the glacier's > grounding line, which separates the grounded ice sheet from the floating ice > shelf. > The grounding line, which has already retreated by about 10 kilometers in the > last decade, "is probably engaged in an unstable 40 kilometer retreat," the > study finds. > The glacier "has started a phase of self-sustained retreat and will > irreversibly continue its decline," said Gael Durand, a glaciologist with > France's Grenoble Alps University and study co-author. > Durand says the findings show "a striking vision of the near future. All the > models suggest that [the glacier's] recession will not stop, cannot be > reversed and that more ice will be transferred into the ocean.” > Agence France-Presse adds: > A massive river of ice, the glacier by itself is responsible for 20 per cent > of total ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet today. > On average, it shed 20 billion tonnes of ice annually from 1992-2011, a loss > that is likely to increase up to and above 100 billion tonnes each year, said > the study. > "The Pine Island Glacier shows the biggest changes in this area at the > moment, but if it is unstable it may have implications for the entire West > Antarctic Ice Sheet," Planet Earth Online reports study co-author G. Hilmar > Gudmundsson from the National Environment Research Council's British > Antarctic Survey as saying. > "Currently we see around two millimeters of sea level rise a year, and the > Pine Island Glacier retreat could contribute an additional 3.5 - 5 > millimeters in the next twenty years, so it would lead to a considerable > increase from this area alone. But the potential is much larger," Gudmundsson > warned. > > -- > 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. -- 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] Case Study by Holly Buck on Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration
Greg, cc Holly and list 1. I agree with all you say about avoiding the term “geoengineering”. I do the same. 2. But I see no way to eliminate its use - especially because there are so many who want to retain it. The genii is out of the bottle. The yolk and the white (already scrambled) can no longer be put back in the egg. 3. This is to ask Holly if she has any further (coherency/stability) thoughts on her final sentence below (that won’t detract from her thesis) - to start the “due” evolution. Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > As for Holly's parting comment: > The [An?] umbrella term is useful in that it invites comparison of different > possible approaches to address climate change. Still, the evolution of the > umbrella term “geoengineering” into something more coherent and analytically > stable is probably due." > > Agree that geoengineering is no longer descriptive or useful. As we've > previously discussed, how about "climate intervention" to include all > potential methods of mitigating or avoiding AGW? Even this does not capture > all of the rationale for CO2 management in that ocean acidification is not > addressed by the preceding "umbrella". In any case in describing my work my > tack has been to avoid the use of "geoengineering" and to explicitly state > what it is I'm trying to do - "CO2 removal", CO2 management", "CO2 > mitigation", etc and let the evaluation of socio-ecological risks and > benefits be based on the specific actions I'm proposing, and not biased by > the real or imagined risk/benefit of some totally different approach like > SRM. > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: Geoengineering > Cc: geoengineeringourclim...@gmail.com; Holly Buck > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [geo] Case Study by Holly Buck on Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration > > List with ccs > >1. Thanks to Sean for the alert of a paper I think is important. > Important on two grounds - the Haida/OIF controversy (I am not qualified to > discuss, but think we have not heard enough) and the use of the term > “Geoengineering” (where I have been regularly commenting and also think we > have not heard enough). Ms Buck is knowledgeable on both - and from a social > science perspective, again about which we do not hear enough. > > 2.Ms Buck’s last few sentences sum up the article and issues well: > > "It is not possible to separate out “geoengineering” activities from these > socio-ecological concerns; nor is it possible to cleave it from natural > resource use and access, which are at the heart of this project.[30] [RWL: > [30] is open source at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art24/ > (no time yet to read, but looks highly pertinent) > In conclusion, this case has pointed to the mounting set of problems with the > umbrella term “geoengineering.” As a linking term, “geoengineering” served to > connect the salmon restoration project not just with solar radiation > management, but with imaginaries of global control, fossil fuel industry > corruption, conservative think tanks, and a whole web of signifiers that are > unconnected with this specific project save the semantic link. In this case, > it was useful for activists to link the project to solar radiation management > and other contentious strategies. Yet it is absurd to link these techniques— > with their varying scales, mechanisms, and motivations— and at the same time > keep them separate from “usual” planetary-scale modifications, such as runoff > from industrial agriculture or deep-sea trawling. The umbrella term is useful > in that it invites comparison of different possible approaches to address > climate change. Still, the evolution of the umbrella term “geoengineering” > intolaunch something more coherent and analytically stable is probably due." > . >3. I think/hope I am in agreement with Ms. Buck, re the use of the term > “Geoengineering” to appropriately include both SRM and CDR. The problem is > too often the use of “geoengineering” to refer only to “SRM”. I have yet to > see the reverse problem, with CDR. >It seems too late to redefine “geoengineering, but I would not want to > anyway. As Ms Buck is pointing out, we just have to make sure that decisions > on both sides of the “Geo” world are made on more than costs related only to > carbon. We need more papers on doing either, neither, both, or in-between. > I have yet to see an adequate metric for comparing SRM and CDR on costs. Any > out there? My suspicion is that the method will be one based on life cycle > costs - a
Re: [geo] Meanwhile: 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise
Keith etal (adding in John Nissen and Peter Flynn ) 1. Most interesting. I own a solar thermal system with the same heat pipe theory at work - and would have never carried it over to your Pine Island example. This to answer your first question on my part. Thanks. 2. Adding John and Peter because of their interest in the northern equivalent. I think there we are talking of possibly being able also to add ice just below the existing surface layer, so as to maybe add months to the ice area/extent lifetime. Maybe especially to be located where there is known methane below. 3. One beauty is that this is a closed system. Any cites on the liquids used for the Alaska pipeline? Should be able to design something that floats; totally passive. Has potential multi-year usage even if nothing possible during part of the summer. Maybe a gang could be tied together underwater. 4. Answering your second and final question, I would guess that the idea does qualify as “geoengineering” - but not under the SRM or CDR categories. The Oxford dictionary says: the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming. 5. Since you “obviously" need a three-letter acronym, a few possibilities (has to work at both poles, with both long and short pipes) are: “PIM= Polar Ice Making”, “PPI = Polar Passive Ice-Making”, “PHP = Polar Heat Pipe”, “PHI = Polar Heatpipe Ice-making” . These are maybe not inclusive enough terms. Maybe “TET = Thermal Energy Transfer” or “PET=Passive Energy Transfer” or “POC - Passive Ocean Cooling” Best stop until we hear more about past pipeline economics, and more knowledgable feasibility responses than mine. Again thanks. Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > I wonder if anyone has thought about stopping the Pine Island Glacier > by freezing it to bedrock? > > What it would take is a number of thermal diodes. They were used on > the Alaskan pipeline to keep it from sinking over areas of permafrost. > > All they are is a hole drilled to the bottom of the glacier, lined > with a closed end pipe, a heat radiator on the top and a few gallons > of propane or ammonia. > > The way they work is that when the air is colder than the bottom of > the pipe, the liquid boils at the bottom, sucking out heat, vapors go > up and liquid runs back down. The process stops when it is warmer on > top than at the bottom. > > They are not very expensive, each one (over time) freezes a large area > of the glacier to the underlying rock. > > A floating version can freeze a substantial block of ice out of > seawater in the winter. > > I wonder if this would be considered geoengineering? > > Keith > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> Greg etal >> >> Because this paper is behind a paywall, I can barely glean from their >> figures that they may be looking at a fifty year time horizon. Did they >> look at all at either SRM or CDR when using the term “irreversibility? >> (quotes in the original - why?) >> >> Ron >> >> >> On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Greg Rau wrote: >> >> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/13-2 >> Antarctic Glacier's 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' >> to Sea Level Rise >> New study on Pine Island Glacier shows 'striking vision of the near future,' >> says co-author >> - Andrea Germanos, staff writer >> An Antarctic glacier is melting "irreversibly," offering "a striking vision >> of the near future," a new study shows. >> The study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at >> Pine Island Glacier, the largest single contributor to sea-level rise in the >> Antarctic. >> The team of scientists used three ice flow models to look at the glacier's >> grounding line, which separates the grounded ice sheet from the floating ice >> shelf. >> The grounding line, which has already retreated by about 10 kilometers in >> the last decade, "is probably engaged in an unstable 40 kilometer retreat," >> the study finds. >> The glacier "has started a phase of self-sustained retreat and will >> irreversibly continue its decline," said Gael Durand, a glaciologist with >> France's Grenoble Alps University and study co-author. >> Durand says the findings show "a striking vision of the near future. All the >> models suggest that [the glacier's] recession will not stop, cannot be >> reversed and that more ice will be transferred into the ocean.” >> Agence France-Pres
Re: [geo] Meanwhile: 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise
Keith: Again thanks Re- being able to make thicker ice in the Arctic - from the bottom, not the top. Glad to see you were a decade or more ahead of me. Have you seen the idea in print? I guess the many in use along the pipeline says it doesn’t need further experimental proof. But some of their operating data would be nice. The Antarctic case seems a bit harder - with a need for stiffer, stronger pipe. Any reason the floating Arctic unit couldn’t be made of a thinner plastic and get closer to a $1 or so per foot (with a total of (?) less than 10 feet?) I hope you can find your earlier cost calculations. I think we have a chicken and egg situation. The person finding the money (John Nissen?) will have to have some cost calculations. I like the term “thermal diode”. It gets across the idea well. More like the term “biochar” than the term CDR, however. Speaking of biochar, offhand it seems to offer more value (because of surface area) than the “synthetic wax” you cite below. Would seem to be cheaper even if the wax was also carbon negative somehow. It would be great if anyone could make a synthetic char, starting with CO2. I once read that no-one knows how to make a synthetic volcanic lava (maybe no longer true, anyone? It would make a great material for simple char-making carbon-negative stoves.) Your proposed diode will operate with the “hot” side always around 0 oC, and the cold side dependent on the nighttime air temperature that (not looking anything up) might average -30 or -40 oC. This is about the same as OTEC systems I think, which also use evaporation techniques, but with a needed thousands of feet of large-diameter pipe. I believe the OTEC literature has talked of such low temperature opportunities, but not using the term “diode”. Re 20 per sqmi. For PR purposes, I suggest using the same max number as allowed for fracking wells (16?) Again, thanks, for the new added data. I hope someone can shoot the idea down soon, if obviously not practical. Best of luck also with your satellite power system work. Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> Keith etal (adding in John Nissen and Peter Flynn ) >> >> 1. Most interesting. I own a solar thermal system with the same heat pipe >> theory at work - and would have never carried it over to your Pine Island >> example. This to answer your first question on my part. Thanks. >> >> 2. Adding John and Peter because of their interest in the northern >> equivalent. I think there we are talking of possibly being able also to add >> ice just below the existing surface layer, so as to maybe add months to the >> ice area/extent lifetime. Maybe especially to be located where there is >> known methane below. >> >> 3. One beauty is that this is a closed system. Any cites on the liquids >> used for the Alaska pipeline? > > Ammonia. > > Somewhere, years ago, I read a report on detecting the ones that had > failed because the top of the pipes had filled up with hydrogen and > how they were repaired. I think propane would be as good or better. > >> Should be able to design something that >> floats; totally passive. Has potential multi-year usage even if nothing >> possible during part of the summer. Maybe a gang could be tied together >> underwater. > > Some years ago I ran off an estimate of how much ice would form over a > winter and how much would melt back in the summer. They were really > rough calculations. Searching on the net, it looks like I never > mentioned this idea. The earliest mention in my email files is 2006, > searching my hard drive turned up this from Sept. 2012. > > ^^ > > Why not ask the Engineers? > > Not too many years ago, when people had problems like floods or things > they wanted to do like going to the moon, they asked engineers how to > do it and how much it would cost. Then after some political debate, > they had big companies with thousands of engineers and related > technical workers do the job. The Transcontinental railroad, Panama > Canal, Hover Dam, Manhattan Project, Apollo, you get the drift. > > However, in recent years, people have not been asking the engineers. > There has been a tendency to assume we already know how to fix a > problem. The solutions assumed are usually the "hair shirt" kind with > a religious flavor to them and lots of sacrifice—for other people of > course. > > Just being an old engineer, I can't say how society could be induced > into asking engineers how to solve the problems again. However, on > the off chance that someone might ask, I have put some thinking into > the problems that show up in the daily news.
Re: [geo] Case Study by Holly Buck on Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration
Holly, Greg, and list: See below. On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Holly Buck wrote: > Hi Ron et al, > > Regarding your point 3 - well, I certainly wouldn't be the first to point out > the messiness or flaws in the umbrella term, and don't have too much to say > beyond what you suggested. It seems likely that "geoengineering" will be > maintained as a concept / "socio-technical imaginary" by people who find it > useful— e.g. bloggers who want a sci-fi edge for click-bait, or people who > oppose it and believe that it reveals some essential tendency in the way the > world is working and find it an evocative descriptor of a certain mentality > towards human-earth relationships. It seems likely that people developing > technologies will just use the words for the technologies themselves, as > there's not much added advantage in branding them as "geoengineering" as the > connotation becomes increasingly negative. [RWL: Because of you, I had previously looked into “imaginary” and "sociotechnical imaginary". Big effort on this at Harvard. I found this definition: “collectively imagined forms of social life and social order reflected in the design and fulfillment of nation-specific technological projects.” I think geoengineering fits in there (with “international” replacing “national”) - but I am not yet seeing how this new-to-me discipline helps with reversing present climate trends, or providing hope to youth. The word “geoengineering” still seems accurate to me, but increasingly is a problem, not a help. > > I'm not sure what would change up those tendencies… what's would be > interesting would be to ask a search engine optimization person what they > think. Terminology & language has always evolved with some mix of intention > & organic growth, but now there are a class of professionals who engineer > keywords— and the keywords matter more these days, since the path to > information now often begins with hearing a keyword. [RWL2: I read up a little at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization. I hope someone on the list can see a way to proceed on this path. Not my area, but I can well agree that something better may be lurking out there. The thought came to mind of a more inclusive term - that goes beyond SRM and CDR, but still is between mitigation and adaptation. I don’t see a Geoengineering industry that can hire such experts. Maybe there is a volunteer listening in. See next also on new key words. > > I also think it would be interesting to look more deeply at the > "geoengineers" implied by the word "geoengineering", as it tends to call up a > Cold War command-and-control era figure, which I think is out of date and > somewhat misleading in an era of appreciating uncertainty and complex > systems. This is to some degree what I tried to do in the case study, as I > think talking to people about their motivations and visions can help get at > this question of who "geoengineers" are and what geoengineering is. The case > showed that geoengineering isn't necessarily defined by the people doing the > project, which is out-of-sync with most endeavors (a writer wouldn't be > surprised when she's called a writer, a cook knows they're a cook, and an > engineer probably knows they're an engineer). [RWL3: Your observations certainly hold true for biochar. The term CDR is somewhat familiar, but certainly not geoengineering, to workers in biochar. Biochar papers are mostly about soil improvement, a few from the policy side on sequestration, a few on local development. Few biochar investigators would call themselves engineers - some are certainly scientists, an increasing number are businesspersons. A majority of the testing is probably done through permaculture and similar groups. Sorry to focus on biochar, but we may be typical. I looked up the Gallup most well respected profession data - and found “Nursing” almost always highest - above doctors. But “Geonursing” and "Geodoctoring" don’t yet sound right. I have seen “Geotherapy” in print. “Carbontherapy”? “CO2-therapy”? (CDT?) Fits on the CDR side, but not as an umbrella term. Maybe “Geotherapy” covers enough?? Still rambling thoughts, but if "Geotherapy” maybe could replace “Geoengineering” on the CDR side, would the other be “Solartherapy”? “Heiiotherapy”? “Radiationtherapy” won’t likely work, as the term must already have practitioners. “Solar-radiation-therapy”? (SRT instead of SRM?) Time to give up, with hopes that others have a solution. I hope Greg has more to add on the “umbrella” nomenclature problem. Anyway, Holly, thanks again for your insights as a social scient
[geo] Making ice (change of thread title)
Keith: I go through line by line - but deleting as much as I can. Mine all in bold caps. On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: >> Keith: >> >> Again thanks >> >> Re- being able to make thicker ice in the Arctic - from the bottom, not the >> top. > > I don't see it being the bottom. The ocean is thousands of feet deep > and I can't see making these thing more than a 100 feet, say 30 meters > long. [RWL1: I am projecting only adding like a meter to ice that is already (hypothetically) a meter thick - so it can get through a September area/extent minimum. Most Arctic ice forms from the bottom - only a little from falling snow. Asking Peter for more input here on best thickness change projections. I project something that can be thrown from a helicopter wherever an opening crack appears. Only operates when there is already a little ice. This might work also to extend the area of Antarctic ice, keeping the area/extent up for more months. By not deploying in some areas, you can keep some transport lanes open. > >> The Antarctic case seems a bit harder - with a need for stiffer, stronger >> pipe. Any reason the floating Arctic unit couldn’t be made of a thinner >> plastic and get closer to a $1 or so per foot (with a total of (?) less than >> 10 feet?) > > I doubt it. The floating versions have to stand a fair amount of > pressure just from the water pressure on them. But no matter the > cost, who is going to pay for them? Polar bears? [RWL2: I don’t get the “pressure” issue. These can be relatively thick walled plastic, and the shape is appropriate for compression forces. I don’t see much shear for floating ice a few meters thick. Again - Peter? > >> I hope you can find your earlier cost calculations. I think we have a >> chicken and egg situation. The person finding the money (John Nissen?) will >> have to have some cost calculations. > > It would take a few days with a spreadsheet. I think I figured them > out years ago on the basis of a 5 year ball of ice several hundred > feet in diameter. But that's just the start of the complexity. The > wind blows the ice around and in spite if being in the middle of some > very hard ice, the heat pipes are going to get broken on a regular > basis. > > Make a case that someone would pay for it and I can run off the calculation. > > Then again, you can probably ignore the hardware cost since the legal > expenses are likely to dominate. [RWL3: We have very different geometries in mind - as above, I am hoping for diameters like yours , but only a thickness like a meter. I ask Peter Flynn for support on whether this might seem possible. Re breakage, that would be the purpose of some early testing. I’m afraid in this game there are no design funds - all open source. > >> It would be great if anyone could make a synthetic >> char, starting with CO2. > > That's been done decades ago. NASA had a project that would reduce > CO2 to carbon flakes and oxygen. It's also an energy hog, not as bad > as synthetic wax or oil, but you can't pump char. [RWL4: I don’t want carbon, I want something that has big interior surface area and very low density; charcoal. I have not looked into the NASA literature on recycling CO2 and will. But hope someone can comment. I doubt it will lead to a structure that looks like charcoal (needed to get high CEC - cation exchange capacity and other desirable features that cost nothing with char.). > >> I once read that no-one knows how to make a >> synthetic volcanic lava (maybe no longer true, anyone? It would make a >> great material for simple char-making carbon-negative stoves.) > > Melted rock is easy. But I don't get a "carbon-negative stove." > Plants *and* a char process together are carbon negative, sort of. > The carbon returns to the air in less than geological time. [RWL5. Sorry, I didn’t explain enough on the lava question. I am looking for a very light weight porous but very strong, heat resistive material. I have seen an ideal product that is “sawn”commercially out of a solid lava mountain in Nicaragua. Melted rock is not what is needed - too dense. Any char-making stove (look up the word “TLUD”) can be carbon negative if the char is placed in soil (then changing name to “biochar”). Yes lifetime is an issue, but char is used for anthropological dating going back millions of years. We will be happy with a commonly used value of 1000 - and can live with less. > >> Your proposed diode will operate with the “hot” side always around 0 oC, and >> the cold side depende
Re: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered
Greg and list: Three points: a. My interpretation of the Reuters news today (repeated below) was that it was only about CDR. I didn’t catch a statement there (and I’ve looked) about SRM. Gore is primarily talking SRM.In several books he speaks favorable about biochar (and maybe other CDR - probably afforestation) b. The article by Query had a graphic that apparently came from Climate Central. They need to update it to be in accord with Mr. Gore’s views. c. We have the same continuing problem of not knowing who means what when they use the term “geoengineering.” Ron On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > Al Gore weighs in on the IPCC's new change of heart: Geoengineering 'Insane, > Utterly Mad and Delusional'. > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/16 > Don't sugar coat it, Al. On the other hand Nature will perform her own > geoengineering over the next 100 kyrs in consuming all of the CO2 we end up > emitting. How delusional is it to think we might able to "engineer" a speedup > of this process and alleviate at least some of the suffering in the interim? > Call me mad, but considering how well cap and trade, the Kyoto Protocol, and > the COP process have gone, it would seem rather reckless to dismiss the > possibility/necessity of post-emissions remediation of the CO2 problem > without further study. > Greg > > > From: "Rau, Greg" > To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:18 AM > Subject: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered > > This is apparently from the upcoming IPCC Mitigation volume, or something > else? CDRer's mount up? > > Greg > > http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html > > Sucking CO2 from atmosphere may be only way to meet climate goals, UN report > says > > Published: January 16, 2014 - 5:51AM > Advertisement > Governments may have to extract vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the air > by 2100 to achieve a target for limiting global warming, backed by > trillion-dollar shifts towards clean energy, a draft U.N. report showed on > Wednesday. > > A 29-page summary for policymakers, seen by Reuters, says most scenarios show > that rising world emissions will have to plunge by 40 to 70 per cent between > 2010 and 2050 to give a good chance of restricting warming to U.N. targets. > > The report, outlining solutions to climate change, is due to be published in > Germany in April after editing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > Change (IPCC). It will be the third in a series by the IPCC, updating science > from 2007. > > It says the world is doing too little to achieve a goal agreed in 2010 of > limiting warming to below 2 degrees above pre-industrial times, seen as a > threshold for dangerous floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels. > > To get on track, governments may have to turn ever more to technologies for > "carbon dioxide removal" (CDR) from the air, ranging from capturing and > burying emissions from coal-fired power plants to planting more forests that > use carbon to grow. > > Most projects for capturing carbon dioxide from power plants are > experimental. Among big projects, Saskatchewan Power in Canada is overhauling > its Boundary Dam power plant to capture a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a > year. > > And, if the world overshoots concentrations of greenhouse gases in the > atmosphere consistent with the 2C goal, most scenarios for getting back on > track "deploy CDRtechnologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide > emissions become negative" before 2100, it says. > > Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C since the Industrial Revolution. > > Bioenergy > > To limit warming, the report estimates the world would have to invest an > extra $US147 billion ($164 billion) a year in low-carbon energies, such as > wind, solar or nuclear power from 2010 to 2029. > > At the same time, investments in fossil fuel energy would have to be reduced > by $US30 billion annually. And several hundred billion dollars a year would > have to go on energy efficiency in major sectors such as transport, buildings > and industry. > > By contrast, it said that global annual investments in the energy system are > now about $US1.2 trillion. > > And it says there are huge opportunities for cleaning up, for instance by > building cities that use less energy for a rising world population. "Most of > the world's urban areas have yet to be constructed," it says. > > Overall, the report estimates that the costs of combating global warming > would reduce global consumption of goods and services by between 1 and 4 per > cent in 2030, 2-6 per cent in 2050 and 2-12 per cent in 2100, compared to no > action. > > The IPCC said in September that it is at least 95 per cent probable that > human activities, led by the burning of fossil f
Re: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered
Mark, Greg, Andrew, List Yes to such a group. I offer a motion that you should be the moderator - and hope I have a second. In biochar circles, there is a search for a word to replace “negative” - as not sending as positive a message as we would like. Maybe need some discussion on the “NegCarbon” name. Some group has started to use GGR = Greenhouse Gas Removal - a little broader than CDR. But I am comfortable enough with CDR. I would love to see the “Neg” concept, just not the word “Negative”. I still see no (early easy) way to remove CDR (or NET or GGR) from the definition of “Geoengineering”. I’d rather see biochar (speaking off the record for only one CDR approach) being discussed on this list than not. See also below. Ron On Jan 17, 2014, at 10:25 AM, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: > Andrew, Greg, Ron, > > Any of you game to start a "negcar...@googlegroups.com”? [RWL: See above.] > > It appears we need to create a firewall (canyon, mountain, ocean, big > obstacle) between "geo- and climate-engineering" and CDR, Negative Carbon > Technologies, or whatever we call them. We don't want people hearing or > seeing mentions of CDR in the same paragraph with climate-engineering (the > SRM, clouds, mirrors, OIF, etc.) [RWL: I’m torn. I don/t mind seeing them together. What really bothers me is use of the term “geoengineering” when what is meant is SRM. David Keith does that, but he warns people in the opening of his book, so that is OK. In that book, but I think it still would be better to always be clear on what is being discussed. Yesterday’s discussion of the Reuter article is a case in point. I don’t see how we can promote CDR without having a comparison with SRM - in quantitative terms. > > Better if most mentions of NegCarbon are in paragraphs and articles > discussing mitigation or adaptation. [RWL: Hmm. I guess I understand your point. CDR/GGR is in addition to, not either/or. But I would add SRM as well to mitigation and adaptation as a “better". > > On our part, concerning any mention of any CDR, we should do as my mom would > say about gossip: "Don't say anything, unless you can say something nice." > That might be BECCS with geologic storage of CO2, or biochar, or Ocean > Forests with some silicate mineral storage of bio-CO2 and BECCS geologic > storage of the combusted bio-CH4. [RWL: Totally agree. I hope I have never suggested any CDR/GGR approach should be off the list. > > There is plenty of CO2 to go around. "Mistakes" that are discovered after a > few billion tons of CO2 are stored with a certain technology will not affect > the big picture. We take the Campbell Soup approach. Campbell Soup > advertised "Soup is good food" even though that slogan increased sales of > competitors canned soups. [RWL: I think that is the norm in most industries; can we think of any (large scale) exception? Ron > > Mark > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Ventura, California > www.PODenergy.org > > > Original Message > Subject: Re: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered > From: "Ronal W. Larson" > Date: Thu, January 16, 2014 10:29 pm > To: RAU greg > Cc: Geoengineering > > Greg and list: > > Three points: > > a. My interpretation of the Reuters news today (repeated below) was that it > was only about CDR. I didn’t catch a statement there (and I’ve looked) about > SRM. Gore is primarily talking SRM.In several books he speaks favorable > about biochar (and maybe other CDR - probably afforestation) > > b. The article by Query had a graphic that apparently came from Climate > Central. They need to update it to be in accord with Mr. Gore’s views. > > c. We have the same continuing problem of not knowing who means what when > they use the term “geoengineering.” > > Ron > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > >> Al Gore weighs in on the IPCC's new change of heart: Geoengineering >> 'Insane, Utterly Mad and Delusional'. >> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/16 >> Don't sugar coat it, Al. On the other hand Nature will perform her own >> geoengineering over the next 100 kyrs in consuming all of the CO2 we end up >> emitting. How delusional is it to think we might able to "engineer" a >> speedup of this process and alleviate at least some of the suffering in the >> interim? Call me mad, but considering how well cap and trade, the Kyoto >> Protocol, and the COP process have gone, it would seem rather reckless to >> dismiss the possibility/necessity of post-emissions remediation of the CO2 >
Re: [geo] David Keith and Clive Hamilton debate
Brian etal: Few notes below. On Jan 19, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Brian Cartwright wrote: > 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. [RWL: Re first sentence - if the metric is only atmosphere, soil carbon will lose out. The energy aspect is pretty important, but less so than soils. Agree on the funding (especially in US), but I can’t keep up with the technical paper per day pace of scientific literature for biochar. See the statistics at http://www.biochar-international.org/biblio , 372 in 2013 and that will increase a bit. > > 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? [RWL: We better be careful, though. I see the “prevailing wisdom” moving in the direction you (and I) desire.I’m thinking of the rumor that the IPCC will soon be calling for CDR (in Vol III of AR5). Ron > > 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 > 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 eco
Re: [geo] What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton | ANTHEM
List: cc Ken, Charles, Andrew 1. I finally found the full Sept. 2013 paper at http://clivehamilton.com/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering/ - But you have to find the small “pdf” symbol there. 33 pages with language that is difficult for me as a non-philosopher (e.g. “Being”, enframing, dasein, etc..) To help - there is an interesting long set of Heidegger definitions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology 2. I conclude after several hours of reading that the answer to the paper’s title question would be “I (Heidegger) disapprove”. But I missed such a sentence if it was there. 3. Prof Hamilton has essentially zero mention of the CDR concept - and I think also of biochar, although I am pretty sure Prof. Hamilton has used a word like “benign” in the past for biochar. The iron fertilization concept is mentioned, but I think the words geoengineering and sulfur release are virtually synonymous in this paper. 4. So this note is to ask list members who understand Heidegger the question: "What Would Heidegger Say About CDR (and/or Biochar)?" I looked carefully and am totally unsure - there was considerable reference to “nature”, differences between “world” and “earth”, entropy, etc. I am not asking about Hamilton’s view, but rather Heidegger’s. 5. Here are some quotes I thought pertinent to my above follow-on question (p 19) " Plans to engineer the climate—through the creation of a planetary command centre—are bound to come to grief on the rock of earth because, through all attempts by humans to understand and control the earth, disorder irrupts.” (RWL: Hamilton not Heidegger speaking - and often same below.) (p 20) "It is worth noting that Heidegger’s conception implies a rejection of all ethical naturalism, such as that captured in Aldo Leopold’s maxim: ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. [RWL: Shucks - I liked the Leopold version] > (p22 ) Geoengineering schemes aim to confine Being to the shadows. > (p22) Geoengineering itself is proof that the future is not in our hands, for if it were we would not have the crisis that geoengineering wants to solve. [RWL: Hmm. Here I disagree. I think the future is in our hands. Professor Hamilton is missing the full range of Geoengineering.] .(p26) So we may say that it is not geoengineering itself that is most dangerous, but the ever-tightening grip of Enframing that makes geoengineering thinkable. (p 27-28) Heidegger was not opposed to technology. Yes, it represents the danger, but there can be no going back to the pre-modern because Enframing must take its course. The task is not to oppose technology but to open ourselves to its ontological meaning and the power it has over us.86 We can then free ourselves from technology without rejecting it, and until we free ourselves we cannot make a good judgment about geoengineering. pp 27-28 (p28) Diagnosing an insufficiency of mastery, we plan to expand control over the so-far unregulated parts of the globe—the oceans whose chemical balance we would change, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, the amount of sunlight falling on the Earth. (p28) (p28) "Proposals to engineer the climate system confirm that we have not yet found a way to respond to the climate crisis, except with more of the same. 6. Thanks to Ken (below) for keeping the philosophical discussion alive. But I need more help in understanding Heidegger. I understand Hamilton’s views on SRM, but I remain uncertain on CDR. Ron On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Let's not start insulting philosophers of science here. > > I do not believe that most philosophers of science see it as their role to > discourage inquiry, but rather see their role as doing things such as > analyzing how terms gain meaning and refer to things, how we can establish > the truth or falsity of statements, and so on. They try to make explicit what > is usually implicit in scientific inquiry. > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Charles H. Greene wrote: > When we are on the verge of truly catastrophic climate change, I wonder what > philosophers of science will offer us as an alternative? Obviously, if they > wish to discourage scientists from even exploring possible geoengineering > options, they must have alternatives to offer, right? > > > > > On Jan 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> http://anthem-group.net/2014/01/18/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering-clive-hamilton/ >> >> What Would Heidegger Say About G
