[geo] Re: [CDR] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Greg Rau]

Guys, if it’s not about CDR, please don’t post to the CDR list.ThanksGreg R.ModeratorSent from my iPhoneOn Feb 15, 2024, at 4:45 PM, Gregory Slater  wrote:Okay, thanks again Ron.  Looks good..but, you don't get my $25 X-Prize unless you specify how many aircraft, of what make(s), to what set of altitudes at what set of latitudes, with how many kg of SO2 (or whatever) per flight, at what set of flight frequencies...etc... to get the job done today.  Or if it's MCB, or whatever, or a combination of methods, what are the equivalent set of details on those to drop global mean temperature by 1 deg and reduce sea level rise rate by an order of magnitude (or whatever).  I want those details written out.  I want the detailed 'recipe' or 'prescription' that you could hand to someone and tell them to go do it, and he goes off and drops the global mean temperature by a degree in the shortest time possible from tonight.  I want the irreducibly simplest, klugiest, fastest set of directions which gets us to 1 deg C below where we are now in the shortest time from tonight.  Quickest mods to a set of existing aircraft models specified.  In the mean time, one can be building Wake Smith's super fleet or whatever, but until that's ready you're doing it with all these kluges.Why can't we at least generate that set of specs?GregOn Feb 14, 2024, at 4:36 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Agreed Greg! This is the HPAC position, this is from the cooling paper (bolding is mine - there is similar language in the Vision document and in the open letters):"To moderate global warming before key impacts become irreversible, a climaterestoration plan that returns global warming to well below 1°C in the near-term needs to beadopted and then promptly implemented. Such a plan would need to have threecomplementary components:1. Deployment of near-term direct cooling influences, particularly focused at first onreducing amplified warming in the polar regions and the Himalayas,2. Accelerated reductions of GHG emissions, including especially an early focus onmethane and other short-lived warming agents, and3. Building capacity to reduce the legacy concentrations of CO2 , methane, and otherGHGs in the atmosphere and oceans."Best,RonOn Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:12 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:Well, okay, but David Keith is arguing in the opposite direction than me.  He's saying, '...so we got time'.  I'm saying we drop global mean temp by a degree today, and then we'll actually test for the existence of tipping points in the real world, rather than sit on our butts speculating about their possibly existence. - GregOn Feb 14, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Hi Greg,And as you may recall, there was enormous push back on David Keith's view, that I don't think is credible, at that HPAC meeting (see McKay, Lenton, etc. papers).  In any case, an easy response is that of Doug McMartin when asked about David's view during his (Doug's) HPAC presentation. Can we afford to risk the chance that warming above 1.5 C (or whatever warming we have now!) will (is) leading to crossing irreversible and extremely harmful tipping points (like sea level rise as you've pointed out)?  The obvious answer is that it would be (is) lunacy to assume this kind of risk for human civilization and our fellow living species - whether it pans out or not. Best,RonOn Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:40 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:Hi Ron,Well, yes, the 'tipping point thing' is presumably key.  From my pedestrian understanding, there's ~50+ ft of sea level rise in the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets alone, so if indeed we've passed whatever relevant 'tipping point' for those ice sheets (for example, undercutting the coastal structure of these sheets in some way, or whatever) then, apparently, we could now cool the earth by 40 deg C at this point, and these sheets would still inexorably melt away.  On the other hand, as you know, David Keith told HPAC staright up that ice sheet tipping points are bulls**t.  Who has the final authoratative word on whether we're past those or other tipping points?  Fas ar I can tell, it's all vapor at this point,  and that therefore 'as far as we know' SAI can stop (not just freaking 'mitigate' (hate that utterly defeatist word!) ) the inevitable 40+ feet of sea level rise - and I'm sticking to that until there's something authoratative on ice sheet tipping points.  We're still not helpless victims of the inevitable ice sheet melt.Please correct any misinformed or delusion points in the above.Greg On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Hi Greg, The problem is that some melting processes, once set in motion, become irreversible on human time scales as reforming the ice would require extremely cold temperatures over extended periods of time. The ice will not be restored by simply going back to pre-industrial temps (technically called ‘hysteresis’ , ‘path 

[geo] GE: Hearts and Minds - Why did the Saami Council oppose Harvard’s SCoPEx experiment?

[Greg Rau]

https://www.c2g2.net/asa-larsson-blind/?utm_source=Carnegie+Climate+Governance+Initiative_campaign=92a857209e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_02_15_06_42_medium=email_term=0_d7ddd02ed0-92a857209e-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]
"There is a need for technology development, and there is clearly a need and we 
see that in climate discussions broadly, the great importance of research.  
This is not something that we question at all. 

What we do oppose is the direction toward technologies that do not actually 
target the root causes of climate change and the great amount of resources that 
are put into what could be seen as feeding into the idea of a quick fix and the 
over belief of technology being the main solution, also then taking away the 
importance of the parallel transition of the society toward a more sustainable 
way of living.  We cannot downplay the need for change and we need to realize 
that the solution of this crisis is a change in societal structures. 

Of course we need new technologies and of course we also need research, and we 
need to listen to the researchers.  We have extensive research saying that we 
need to cut emissions and that we need to change the economical structures on 
Earth, scrutinize power balances, and take action, and they have been saying 
that for quite some time now. 

Our fear is that when we now have researchers saying that we might not need to 
change that much and that we could actually with new technology monitor and 
manage the whole Earth to the extent of also controlling the atmosphere.  For 
me that is not learning from what researchers have been saying what we need to 
do now, that we need to take a step back, to find a way back to respect the 
boundaries of Earth, that we have overused the world’s resources, we have 
overexploited for too long, and that is what has been putting us into this 
climate crisis.  It is the mindset of humans entitled to control everything on 
earth and not needing to respect the Earth’s boundaries. 
Whatever we do now should be guided by the principle and the guiding question: 
Is this a measure that will help get us back on-track in respecting the 
boundaries of the Earth’s resources, even if it is in the long term?  I don’t 
see that this kind of technology does that actually.
GR So, by analogy we shouldn't learn how to treat lung cancer because it 
doesn't address the "root cause" - smoking?  Would be interesting to get their 
take on CDR.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/316839185.1803069.1676490087907%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [geo] The next climate war? Statecraft, security, and weaponization in the geopolitics of a low-carbon future

[Greg Rau]

On the other hand, what are the security concerns if we fail to deploy effective CDR and/or SRM? GregSent from my iPhoneOn Dec 17, 2022, at 1:12 AM, ayesha iqbal  wrote:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X22002255Authors Benjamin K. Sovacool, Chad Baum, Sean Lowa14 December 2022Highlights•Deployment of negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies gives rise to geopolitical applications.•Some options have military applications.•Other options have potential weaponization, misuse, and miscalculation risks.•We examine such existing and prospective security risks using a novel conceptual framework.AbstractThe impacts of global climate change on international security and geopolitics could be of historic proportion, challenging those of previous global threats such as nuclear weapons proliferation, the Great Depression, and terrorism. But while the evidence surrounding the security impacts of climate change is fairly well-understood and improving, less is known about the security risks to climate-technology deployment. In this study, we focus on the geopolitical, security, and military risks facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering options. Although controversial, these options could become the future backbone of a low-carbon or net-zero society, given that they avoid the need for coordinated or global action (and can be deployed by a smaller group of actors, even non-state actors), and that they can “buy time” for mitigation and other options to be scaled up. We utilize a large and diverse expert-interview exercise (N = 125) to critically examine the security risks associated with ten negative emission options (or greenhouse gas removal technologies) and ten solar geoengineering options (or solar radiation management technologies). We ask: What geopolitical considerations does deployment give rise to? What particular military applications exist? What risks do these options entail in terms of weaponization, misuse, and miscalculation? We examine such existing and prospective security risks across a novel conceptual framework envisioning their use as (i) diplomatic or military negotiating tools, (ii) objectives for building capacity, control, or deterrence, (iii) targets in ongoing conflicts, and (iv) causes of new conflicts. This enables us to capture a far broader spectrum of security concerns than those which exist in the extant literature and to go well beyond insights derived from climate modelling or game theory by drawing on a novel, rich, and original dataset of expert perceptions.KeywordsClimate engineering, Carbon dioxide removal, Negative emissions technologies, Solar radiation management, Greenhouse gas removal, Energy and geopolitics, Climate change and international relationsSource: ScienceDirect 



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAOyeF5tFNhN7MMzi%3DE-NT%3DURDkG05d%3D1rHE1G-L7RtzX8YsJ-g%40mail.gmail.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3943AC41-6208-42F0-AF3A-E1315F145A7A%40sbcglobal.net.

[geo] Space Bubbles?

[Greg Rau]

| 
https://medium.com/predict/can-mits-space-bubbles-completely-stop-climate-change-9dbd1ead4e83


"You may have noticed that the world is falling apart, and it is all our fault. 
Humanity’s greed and gluttony have caught up with us, and planet-scale karma is 
heading our way fast. We are trying hundreds of new cutting-edge technologies 
in hopes of slowing down or even stopping this catastrophe, but as of yet, we 
have not found the silver bullet to solve this problem. Thankfully, a team at 
MIT thinks they have found the answer. They’re looking to put giant bubbles in 
space to blot out the sun. But how does this stop climate change? Are “Space 
Bubbles” really a one-stop climate solution? And is this mad idea even 
feasible?" |

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/248519641.143751.1656520341678%40mail.yahoo.com.

[geo] NYTimes: Air Pollution Can Mean More, or Fewer, Hurricanes. It Depends Where You Live.

[Greg Rau]

Lessons for SRM?:
Air Pollution Can Mean More, or Fewer, Hurricanes. It Depends Where You Live.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/climate/air-pollution-hurricanes.html?referringSource=articleShare

“ Over the past four decades, the new research shows, the decline in pollution 
in the form of tiny aerosol particles from transportation, energy production 
and industry in North America and Europe was responsible for the increased 
numbers of hurricanes and other tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic.
Over the same period, increasing pollution from the growing economies of India 
and China had the opposite effect, reducing hurricane activity in the Western 
North Pacific, the study found.”

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/E799C09A-3E4D-44F5-AA01-9457EE24E786%40sbcglobal.net.

Re: [geo] Re: Emission reduction remains public’s preferred approach to climate change

[Greg Rau]

Thanks for the depressing news, Kevin. But buck up, DOE is placing a $3.5B bet 
(with public money) that DAC is going to save the day:  
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b9362d89d5abb8c51d474f8/t/6261d1890b76863f1047a2dd/1650577901659/Carbon180-SettingDAConTrack.pdf
 
So SRM isn’t going to get all the glory. Anyway, Civilization ho?
Greg

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2022, at 12:11 AM, Kevin Lister  wrote:
> 
> When thinking about fantasies,  it's important to think about probabilities. 
> 
> About 10 years ago I calculated the probability of making the necessary cuts 
> in CO2 emissions using game theory and the concept of interconnected games.  
> This works out at 6E-63 for any given year.
> 
>  To persist, for n years, then it is (6E-63)^n. Thus for an agreement to hold 
> for any reasonable time,  then the probability of success is less than 
> finding a single atom from all the atoms that make the universe. 
> 
> I am obviously delighted that the "Majority of Americans continue to favor 
> reducing greenhouse gas emissions, " but while the world has one hot war and 
> multiple Cold Wars ongoing there will be no cuts in emissions,  only 
> increases. The remaining question is how much. 
> 
> The Guardian has a disturbing article today that validates this  prognosis 
> and my 10 year old calculations, see 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/may/11/fossil-fuel-carbon-bombs-climate-breakdown-oil-gas?CMP=twt_gu_source=Twitter_medium.
> 
> The brutal reality is that it is SRM or nothing.  We urgently need to 
> understand if an SRM solution can be deployed quicker than the planet will be 
> destroyed.  
> 
> Regards, 
> Kevin
> 
> On Thu, 12 May 2022, 00:54 'Jessica Gurevitch' via geoengineering, 
>  wrote:
>> I would be surprised if anyone on this list wouldn’t prefer emission 
>> reductions.  While we’re fantasizing, why not prefer that we got emissions 
>> to zero 50 years ago? I prefer that! But whether or not there would be an 
>> overshoot (I call it a lag effect) if we immediately stopped putting GHGs 
>> into the atmosphere….we are clearly not doing that. So it’s sort of like 
>> saying, how many people would prefer having a high income without working? 
>> Most people probably would prefer it. I’m not sure it’s the right question. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On May 11, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Phil M  wrote:
>>> Apparently they haven't been told that this will not save them...
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 3:39:16 PM UTC+2 Alan Robock wrote:
 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/05/10/emission-reduction-remains-publics-preferred-approach-to-climate-change/
 
 Emission reduction remains public’s preferred approach to climate change
 by Barry G. Rabe and Christopher Borick
 
 "Americans continue to favor reducing greenhouse gas emissions as their 
 preferred approach for staving off the worst impacts of climate change, 
 according to new public opinion findings. The public remains considerably 
 more skeptical of any pivot from mitigation toward climate policy that 
 prioritizes adaptation, use of geoengineering that releases particles into 
 the atmosphere in attempting to deter warming, or subterranean carbon 
 storage. These findings emerge from the Winter 2022 National Surveys on 
 Energy and Environment (NSEE). ..."
 -- 
 
 Alan Robock
 
 Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
 Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
 Rutgers UniversityE-mail: 
 rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
 
  
 
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d5ea9102-9a10-4ba1-a62a-f84588fc9107n%40googlegroups.com.
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/B37FA2E0-CFF1-48E9-8595-10B316DC892F%40stonybrook.edu.
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> 

[geo] CP - Magnitude, frequency and climate forcing of global volcanism during the last glacial period as seen in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores (60–9 ka)

[Greg Rau]

https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/18/485/2022/
“ Large volcanic eruptions occurring in the last glacial period can be detected 
by their accompanying sulfuric acid deposition in continuous ice cores. Here we 
employ continuous sulfate and sulfur records from three Greenland and three 
Antarctic ice cores to estimate the emission strength, the frequency and the 
climatic forcing of large volcanic eruptions that occurred during the second 
half of the last glacial period and the early Holocene, 60–9 kyr before 2000 CE 
(b2k). Over most of the investigated interval the ice cores are synchronized, 
making it possible to distinguish large eruptions with a global sulfate 
distribution from eruptions detectable in one hemisphere only. Due to limited 
data resolution and large variability in the sulfate background signal, 
particularly in the Greenland glacial climate, we only list Greenland sulfate 
depositions larger than 20 kg km−2 and Antarctic sulfate depositions larger 
than 10 kg km−2. With those restrictions, we identify 1113 volcanic eruptions 
in Greenland and 737 eruptions in Antarctica within the 51 kyrperiod – for 
which the sulfate deposition of 85 eruptions is found at both poles (bipolar 
eruptions). Based on the ratio of Greenland and Antarctic sulfate deposition, 
we estimate the latitudinal band of the bipolar eruptions and assess their 
approximate climatic forcing based on established methods. A total of 25 of the 
identified bipolar eruptions are larger than any volcanic eruption occurring in 
the last 2500 years, and 69 eruptions are estimated to have larger sulfur 
emission strengths than the Tambora, Indonesia, eruption (1815 CE). Throughout 
the investigated period, the frequency of volcanic eruptions is rather constant 
and comparable to that of recent times. During the deglacial period (16–9 ka 
b2k), however, there is a notable increase in the frequency of volcanic events 
recorded in Greenland and an obvious increase in the fraction of very large 
eruptions. For Antarctica, the deglacial period cannot be distinguished from 
other periods. This confirms the suggestion that the isostatic unloading of the 
Northern Hemisphere (NH) ice sheets may be related to the enhanced NH volcanic 
activity. Our ice-core-based volcanic sulfate records provide the atmospheric 
sulfate burden and estimates of climate forcing for further research on climate 
impact and understanding the mechanism of the Earth system.”

GR- correlate ice core D/H and 18O/16O with sulfate and you get a pretty good 
idea of the sensitivity of global/local T to atmospheric SO2 loading?


Sent from my iPhone

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/418694F8-54B2-4315-9F89-80DA53D9068E%40sbcglobal.net.

[geo] Fwd: Human history and volcanoes/natural SRM?

[Greg Rau]

> 
> https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-clues-from-the-past-prompt-new-look-at-history
> 
> “ The study found that 62 of 68 dynastic collapses⁠ occurred soon after 
> Northern Hemisphere volcanic eruptions, an outcome that had only a 
> one-in-2,000 chance of happening if the eruptions and collapses were 
> unrelated. Chinese have traditionally cited the withdrawal of the “mandate of 
> heaven” to explain the cold weather, droughts, floods, and agricultural 
> failures that seemed to accompany the fall of dynasties. The paper contends 
> that those phenomena have a climatic explanation.”

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/A79DAF02-A3BA-45D1-ADDA-C2844E6C3518%40sbcglobal.net.

[geo] GE: Hayhoe and Keith weigh in

[Greg Rau]

> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=osFltE6zxkM
> 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/B4F47963-C451-488F-8BB0-FC125656A5DF%40sbcglobal.net.

[geo] Geoengineering: Who Should Control Our Atmosphere? | Climate One

[Greg Rau]

https://www.climateone.org/audio/geoengineering-who-should-control-our-atmosphere

J. Pasztor, D. Keith, et al weigh in.


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5C7A7CA9-9051-4C6F-87DC-DC48EC2EE801%40sbcglobal.net.

Re: [geo] Heterogeneous Reactivity of HCl on CaCO3 Aerosols at Stratospheric Temperature

[Greg Rau]

 2HCl + CaCO3 ---> CaCl2 + CO2 + H2O.   How is this a good thing for GHGs and 
GW?Greg
On Monday, August 2, 2021, 03:52:35 PM PDT, Geoeng Info 
 wrote:  
 
 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00151


Heterogeneous Reactivity of HCl on CaCO3 Aerosols at Stratospheric Temperature

   
   - Han N. Huynh
 and    
   - V. Faye McNeill
   - 
   - 
   -

   -

   - Abstract
Recently proposed as a possible alternative to sulfate particles for 
stratospheric solar radiation management (SSRM), calcite (CaCO3) aerosols have 
been modeled to have minimal negative impact on both stratospheric ozone level, 
through heterogeneous chemistry, and stratospheric temperature. However, the 
heterogeneous chemistry of CaCO3 aerosols with relevant trace gases, such as 
HCl, at stratospheric conditions is still underexamined. We studied the 
kinetics of HCl uptake on airborne CaCO3 aerosols at stratospheric temperature, 
207 ± 3 K, by performing experiments under dry conditions using an aerosol flow 
tube coupled with a custom-built quadrupole chemical ionization mass 
spectrometer (CIMS) for HCl detection. The reactive uptake coefficient for HCl 
was measured to be 0.076 ± 0.009. This exceeds the reactive uptake coefficient 
of 0.013 ± 0.001 that we previously reported for this system at 296 K, 
consistent with the expected negative temperature dependence of gas uptake on 
solid surfaces. This finding suggests an initial strong reactive uptake of HCl 
gas on CaCO3 aerosol surfaces in the stratosphere


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpaROQJnv3ZD0ZqfMcZzegkw492mxCUktv_nnQEN3MLRGA%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/146902550.2022050.1627946808075%40mail.yahoo.com.

[geo] Re: [CDR] Intended consequences statement

[Greg Rau]

“Conservationists and other stakeholders should codesign conservation 
interventions to advance biodiversity goals and achieve intended consequences.”

Is CDR included in the interventions contemplated? 
Why/why not? What is the effect of global warming on biodiversity independent 
of other anthro effects? Aren’t the most biodiverse communities found in warm 
climates (water permitting)?
Greg

> On Apr 19, 2021, at 4:00 PM, Geoeng Info  wrote:
> 
> https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./csp2.371
> 
> INTENDED CONSEQUENCES STATEMENT
> As the biodiversity crisis accelerates, the stakes are higher for threatened 
> plants and animals. Rebuilding the health of our planet will require 
> addressing underlying threats at many scales, including habitat loss and 
> climate change. Conservation interventions such as habitat protection, 
> management, restoration, predator control, translocation, genetic rescue, and 
> biological control have the potential to help threatened or endangered 
> species avert extinction. These existing, well‐tested methods can be 
> complemented and augmented by more frequent and faster adoption of new 
> technologies, such as powerful new genetic tools. In addition, synthetic 
> biology might offer solutions to currently intractable conservation problems. 
> We believe that conservation needs to be bold and clear‐eyed in this moment 
> of great urgency.
> 
> Proposed efforts to mitigate conservation threats often raise concerns about 
> potentially harmful unintended consequences. For some highly documented 
> strategies based on conservation principles, such as biological control, 
> conservation translocations, and restoration of natural fire regimes, 
> evidence to date suggests that careful planning produces the intended 
> consequences while avoiding adverse unintended consequences. For example, 
> better identification and mitigation of risks has resulted in no severe, 
> negative, unintended consequences for conservation translocations and 
> biological control releases over the last 30 years in the United States 
> (Novak et al., 2021).
> 
> This progress, especially after the well‐publicized harmful interventions 
> from the early history of the field, has been made by improving conservation 
> intervention techniques, scientific understanding of dynamic interactions in 
> complex ecosystems, and early stakeholder engagement. The substantial history 
> of intervention should encourage us to thoughtfully pursue novel approaches 
> to conservation as the technology advances, focusing on the future we want, 
> rather than being daunted by the future we fear.
> 
> In June 2020, Revive & Restore convened a group of 57 conservationists, 
> wildlife biologists, restoration specialists, conservation geneticists, 
> ethicists, and social scientists to propose a new framework for the future of 
> conservation, focused on intended consequences. There was broad consensus 
> that developing and employing what might be considered controversial genetic 
> technologies will require a commitment to responsible decision‐making that 
> respects the diversity of perspectives, interests, and values among different 
> stakeholders. To encourage working confidently with emerging tools and 
> technologies, we propose a framework that increases inclusivity and embraces 
> conservation innovation.
> 
> The participants of the Intended Consequences Workshop agree that:
> Conservationists and other stakeholders should codesign conservation 
> interventions to advance biodiversity goals and achieve intended consequences.
> A broader definition of risk and the development of new risk assessment tools 
> will facilitate appropriate risk identification and mitigation during 
> intervention planning and implementation.
> Inaction and delay also incur consequences. The risks of inaction must also 
> be identified and taken into consideration.
> Being transparent about social and cultural values is essential to success 
> because science alone cannot tell us what we should do.
> Inclusive engagement with communities and stakeholders, including indigenous 
> peoples and marginalized groups, allows for a thoughtful exploration of 
> diverse visions for future ecosystems and the path to a vibrant and resilient 
> nature.
> A code of practice for genetic interventions that weighs ecological and 
> social risks, and potential benefits, will help conservationists, funders and 
> the public make informed decisions for responsible and innovative action.
> The code of practice should evolve with new knowledge, additional experience, 
> and further deliberation via an inclusive process.
> Monitoring results, both positive and negative, will help conservationists 
> design successful interventions, manage uncertainty, and codify lessons 
> learned along the way.
> These initial points of agreement, along with an evolving code of practice, 
> can help guide future conservation interventions and inspire 

[geo] 'Counterintuitive': The planet warmed as virus reduced CO2

[Greg Rau]

> https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063724319 
> 

"While levels of CO2 and other gaseous pollutants were falling, so were 
emissions of aerosols that contain particles of sulfates, nitrates, black 
carbon and dust.
When economies are roaring along, aerosols, led by soot and sulfate ions, tend 
to brighten clouds. That helps them reflect the sun's heat back into space.

So with the absence of aerosols more sunlight fell on Earth. That made the 
planet slightly warmer, especially near industrial countries like the U.S. and 
Russia."

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/EFA6099E-2C66-4C74-84A8-C9180803B004%40sbcglobal.net.

[geo] The testimony of trees: How volcanic eruptions shaped 2000 years of world history

[Greg Rau]

> https://phys.org/news/2020-09-testimony-trees-volcanic-eruptions-years.html 
> 

"Researchers have shown that over the past two thousand years, volcanoes have 
played a larger role in natural temperature variability than previously 
thought, and their climatic effects may have contributed to past societal and 
economic change."

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/74155A04-99F9-4121-8CF8-A30C2C9EAB77%40sbcglobal.net.

Re: [geo] The Ethics of “Geoengineering” the Global Climate

[Greg Rau]

 "others insist that the current global order is so unjust that [climate] 
interventions are highly likely to be illegitimate and exacerbate injustice."  
How will legitimacy and justice be advanced if non-geoengineering methods 
continue to prove inadequate, and unproven fears about geo and esp CDR 
deployment continue to go untested (because of those fears)?Greg 
On Thursday, August 13, 2020, 09:51:32 AM PDT, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 
https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethics-of-Geoengineering-the-Global-Climate-Justice-Legitimacy/Gardiner-McKinnon-Fragniere/p/book/9780367501549
1st EditionThe Ethics of “Geoengineering” the Global ClimateJustice, Legitimacy 
and GovernanceBy Stephen M. Gardiner, Catriona McKinnon, Augustin 
FragnièreCopyright Year 2021ISBN 9780367501549Published July 30, 2020 by 
Routledge254 PagesFormatHardbackQuantity1GBP £120.00Prices & shipping based on 
shipping country
Book DescriptionIn the face of limited time and escalating impacts, some 
scientists and politicians are talking about attempting "grand technological 
interventions" into the Earth’s basic physical and biological systems 
("geoengineering") to combat global warming. Early ideas include spraying 
particles into the stratosphere to block some incoming sunlight, or "enhancing" 
natural biological systems to withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a 
higher rate. Such technologies are highly speculative and scientific 
development of them has barely begun.
Nevertheless, it is widely recognized that geoengineering raises critical 
questions about who will control planetary interventions, and what 
responsibilities they will have. Central to these questions are issues of 
justice and political legitimacy. For instance, while some claim that climate 
risks are so severe that geoengineering must be attempted, others insist that 
the current global order is so unjust that interventions are highly likely to 
be illegitimate and exacerbate injustice. Such concerns are rarely discussed in 
the policy arena in any depth, or with academic rigor. Hence, this book gathers 
contributions from leading voices and rising stars in political philosophy to 
respond. It is essential reading for anyone puzzled about how geoengineering 
might promote or thwart the ends of justice in a dramatically changing world.
The chapters in this book were originally published in the journals: Ethics, 
Policy & the Environment and Critical Review of International Social and 
Political Philosophy.
Table of ContentsIntroduction: Geoengineering, Political Legitimacy and Justice
Stephen M. Gardiner, Catriona McKinnon and Augustin Fragnière
1. The Tollgate Principles for the Governance of Geoengineering: Moving Beyond 
the Oxford Principles to an Ethically More Robust Approach
Stephen M. Gardiner and Augustin Fragniere
2. Climate Change, Climate Engineering, and the "Global Poor": What Does 
Justice Require?
Marion Hourdequin
3. Indigeneity in Geoengineering Discourses: Some Considerations
Kyle Whyte
4. Recognitional Justice, Climate Engineering, and the Care Approach
Christopher Preston and Wylie Carr
5. Institutional Legitimacy and Geoengineering Governance
Daniel Edward Callies
6. Legitimacy and Non-Domination in Solar Radiation Management Research
Patrick Taylor Smith
7. Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for 
Sub-State Actors
Sikina Jinnah, Simon Nicholson and Jane Flegal
8. Fighting risk with risk: solar radiation management, regulatory drift, and 
minimal justice
Jonathan Wolff
9. The Panglossian politics of the geoclique
Catriona McKinnon
10. Democratic authority to geoengineer
Holly Lawford-Smith
11. A mission-driven research program on solar geoengineering could promote 
justice and
legitimacy
David R. Morrow
12. Geoengineering the climate and ethical challenges: what we can learn from 
moral emotions and art
Sabine Roeser, Behnam Taebi and Neelke Doorn
Editor(s)BiographyStephen M. Gardiner is Professor of Philosophy at the 
University of Washington, Seattle, and is author of A Perfect Moral Storm: the 
Ethical Challenge of Climate Change and Debating Climate Ethics, as well as 
many articles on climate justice and the ethics of geoengineering.
Catriona McKinnon is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Exeter, 
author of Climate Change and Future Justice and numerous articles on climate 
ethics and justice.
Augustin Fragnière is a trained philosopher and environmental scientist, who 
has published on climate ethics, geoengineering and sustainability theory. 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07D4GG_y4LABaGRRbJupDr9rJmeGQNSGXwnjUjeGCrKOA%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because 

[geo] Diamond dust, climate change, and the hazards of geoengineering - CSMonitor.com

[Greg Rau]

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2020/0123/Should-we-fiddle-with-Earth-s-thermostat-This-man-might-know-how

“You have to be honest and look at the gap between where we are in terms of 
continued emissions and where we need to be, and open the door to ask whether 
and under what conditions we should consider these technologies,” says Peter 
Frumhoff, the chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 
nonprofit science advocacy group, and a member of the committee. “It is the 
worst possible way to address climate change that we need to take seriously.”

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AD7717E0-6735-4845-A573-3C8349E72BC4%40sbcglobal.net.

[geo] Re: [CDR] Newsletter of Week 12 of 2020

[Greg Rau]

 In any case, at least some of the events listed in the newsletter are likely 
to be impacted/cancelled by COVID-19 advisories, so proceed accordingly and 
safely.Greg 
On Monday, March 16, 2020, 08:35:05 AM PDT, Renaud de RICHTER 
 wrote:  
 
 Dear Administrator of climate-engineering.eu
The following conference has nothing to do with geoengineering in the sense you 
and us understand it.
19.11.2020, Conference: ICGG 2020: 14. International Conference on Geotechnics 
and Geoengineering, Paris / France 
Please just have a look to the program 
https://panel.waset.org/conference/2020/11/paris/program    
It is not about the same type of geoengineering discussed in the [GEO] group 
and should not be on your list of conferences and events.
Best,R. de Richter, PhD


Le lun. 16 mars 2020 à 13:25, i...@climate-engineering.eu 
 a écrit :

  
|   |
| 

 |
|   |
| 
Climate Engineering Newsletter

for Week 12 of 2020
 |
|   |
| 

   
   - 17.03.2020, Event: Climate Literacy 101: On a Path to Climate Success, 
Burnaby, BC / Canada
   - 18.-20.03.2020, Workshop: Ecological Impacts of Solar Radiation 
Management, New York / USA
   - 18.03.2020, Conference: What is to come? Climate Change Conference at the 
University of Manchester, Manchester / UK
   - 24.03.2020, Webinar: ICRLP: Enhanced Mineral Weathering, online
   - 25.03.2020, Event: Carbon Removal Network Meet Up, London / UK
   - (new) Postponed:10./11.2020, Workshop: Community Climate Intervention 
Strategies, Boulder, CO / USA
   - 22.04.2020, Talk: Negative emissions: Removing carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere, Southampton / UK
   - 3.-8.05.2020, Conference: EGU General Assembly 2020, Vienna / Austria
   - 06.05.2020, Discussion: Climate control through climate engineering? The 
Anthropocene in science, fiction and politics (German), Erlangen / Germany
   - 02.-04.06.2020, SEG | AGU Advances in Distributed Sensing for Geophysics 
Workshop, Houston, TX / USA
   - 27.-28.06.2020, Gordon Research Seminar (GRS): Climate Engineering, Newry, 
ME / US
   - 28.06.-3.07.2020, Gordon Research Conference (GRC): Climate Engineering, 
Newry, ME / US
   - 29.06.-1.07.2020, Conference: 2020 International Energy Workshop, Freiburg 
/ Germany
   - 12.-19.07.2020, IEA Greenhouse Gas R Programme 2020 Summer School, 
Bandung / Indonesia
   - 15.-17.09.2020, Conference: 2020 Bratislava Conference on Earth System 
Governance, Bratislava / Slovakia
   - 06.-09.10.2020, Climate Engineering Conference 2020, Berlin / Germany
   - 19.11.2020, Conference: ICGG 2020: 14. International Conference on 
Geotechnics and Geoengineering, Paris / France


   
   - 25.03.2020, Call for Attendance: Carbon Removal Network Meet Up
   - 27.03.2020, Call for Speaker Applications: Gordon Research Seminar: 
Physical Processes and Societal Impacts of Radiation Management Approaches to 
Climate Change
   - 17.04.2020, Call for applications: Emmett Climate Engineering Fellowship 
in Environmental Law and Policy 2020-2021
   - 30.05.2020, Call for Applications: Gordon Research Seminar: Physical 
Processes and Societal Impacts of Radiation Management Approaches to Climate 
Change
   - 31.05.2020, Call for Application: Gordon Research Conference: Climate 
Engineering


   
   - (new) 23.03.2020, Job: LAB AST 3 (Field & Laboratory Technican)
   - (new) 24.03.2020, Job: Consultant: Climate Intervention Technologies and 
Research Capacity Building in Developing Countries
   - (no deadline), Job: Head of Science (Lowercarbon Capital)
   - (new) (no deadline), Job: Postdoctoral Fellow Position – Global Warming in 
polar regions in ultra-high-resolution earth system model simulations
   - (new) (no deadline), Job: Postdoctoral Fellow Position – Earth System 
Dynamics


   
   - Bollen, Johannes. 2020: “Gasification with CO2 Storage Reduces the Costs 
of the EU’s Zero Carbon Strategy by 40% | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal.”
   - Briggs, Nathan; et al. (2020): Major role of particle fragmentation in 
regulating biological sequestration of CO2 by the oceans


   
(no new political papers)

   
(no new projects)

   
   - Video: ARD: Engineers working on climate (German)
   - Der Freitag: Technology First? (German)
   - International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions: Conference postponed 
by a year
   - GeoMIP: Updated publications list
   - The Breakthrough Institute: The Limits of Soil Carbon Sequestration
   - Bdaily News: Environmental groups respond to carbon capture funding pledge 
in UK Budget
   - Video: Assessing Carbon Removal webinar series: Governance of Marine 
Geoengineering
   - The Good Men Project: Who Will Regulate the Researchers?
   - The McGill Tribune: Geoengineering is a band-aid solution to the climate 
crisis
   - Phys.org: Biomass fuels can significantly mitigate global warming
   - New Scientist: Planting a trillion trees really can help us fight climate 
change
   - Medium: All-Star Fellows Join Carbon180
   - The Good Men Project: Who Will Regulate the Researchers?
   - Badische Neueste 

[geo] NOAA goes Plan B

[Greg Rau]

Showtime!https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/noaa-gets-go-ahead-to-study-controversial-climate-plan-b/

"The top climate change scientist for NOAA said he has received $4 million from 
Congress and permission from his agency to study two emergency—and 
controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to 
reduce global 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/662418513.19000541.1579849336274%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [geo] HUMOR & GEOENGINEERING

[Greg Rau]

Bob Mankoff, ex cartoon editor of The New Yorker?! Anyway, I think we all could 
use some humor right about now.
Greg

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/event/humor-geoengineering
> 
> HUMOR & GEOENGINEERING
> Date: 
> Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 12:00pm to 1:00pm
> Location: 
> Harvard University Center for the Environment, 26 Oxford Street, Room 429
> "Humor & Geoengineering"
> 
> Humor, like geoengineering, is about the clash between what is and what could 
> be. In this unconventional, interactive session, 
> researcher-turned-humanitarian Pablo Suarez and illustrious cartoonist Bob 
> Mankoff will engage participants in exploring how the power of intelligent 
> humor can be harnessed to support learning and dialogue about difficult 
> issues. Focusing on climate risks and the prospects of geoengineering, we 
> will share an experience of how humor works, how it can be used and misused, 
> and what it can do to enable fruitful discussions about tough issues.
> 
> Presentation by:
> Pablo Suarez, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
> Bob Mankoff, CartoonCollections
> 
> Lunch Provided
> RSVP: acchang [at] seas.harvard.edu
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07BHGDqC-4yGqy%2B_wY5VioN2YaAuZ2uLY1v783Ap1jj_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3E341E1B-66E1-446A-916D-6EE66F529A6C%40sbcglobal.net.

Re: [geo] The climate crisis is about neutralizing acid

[Greg Rau]

 Welcome aboard, Ernie, 
e.g.:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000533
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rog.20004
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0203-0
https://theconversation.com/can-we-tweak-marine-chemistry-to-help-stave-off-climate-change-93174?utm_source=facebook_medium=facebookbutton=IwAR3tPw5Uqh5zgkVSyy431eenqVx2-vdJ_9YEBs7xOOqj1-9m8-OKC_LGrBE
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/9/339/2018/

etc
Greg





On Monday, July 15, 2019, 7:09:49 AM PDT, Ernie Rogers 
 wrote:  
 
 The ocean surface and the atmosphere are in a near-equilibrium condition--the 
pH of the ocean and the CO2 concentration of the air are closely coupled.  The 
consequence is that the ocean is getting more acidic with rising atmospheric 
CO2.  If we raise the pH of the ocean surface, the atmospheric CO2 problem goes 
away. Interesting fact (recognized by many):  More than 99.9% of the earth 
is basic.  Only 0..1% or less is acidic and needs neutralization (the 
biosphere).  Can't we find a manageable way to apply enough base to the 
problem?  (I imagine it should take dispersal of about 1000 cu.km of 
ultramafics to do the job, but I am an optimist.)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ffbf2707-fd5e-41e9-8805-eb742ad98aeb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1556063108.1769321.1563232344936%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] 20,000 Satellites for 5G to be Launched

[Greg Rau]

Reverse geoengineering, etc?:
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/01/08/2-satellites-for-5g-to-be-launched-sending-focused-beams-of-intense-microwave-radiation-over-entire-earth/

“If the number of annual rocket launches increases by 10 or more times, which 
is likely under the plans these corporations have made, computer models suggest 
that the combination of ozone depletion and release of black soot could produce 
a 3 degree warming effect over the Antarctic and reduce the ozone in the 
world’s atmosphere by 4%. [3]”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6E35E515-1E81-4559-ABF1-9A2B6F714FB1%40sbcglobal.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: [CDR] C2G Issues Call for Papers for Global Policy - C2G

[Greg Rau]

 Disappointing that CDR continues to be thrown into the same governance pot as 
SRM.  If you are going to go that far, why not be comprehensive and govern 
emission reduction too, or why does that get a free pass?Also interesting that 
"so-called Nature-Based Solutions" are now view as a "governance challenges".  
Has anyone established that natural/restoration CDR needs governing? Good to 
find out before those trillion trees get planted: 
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html  
Greg

On Friday, July 12, 2019, 6:08:58 AM PDT, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 https://www.c2g2.net/c2g-issues-call-for-papers-for-global-policy/

Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative

C2G Issues Call for Papers for Global Policy



12 July, 2019  – The Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) and Global 
Policy are collaborating to produce a Special Issue focusing on the governance 
of emerging climate technologies: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar 
Radiation Modification (SRM). The issue is planned for launch in May 2020, 
allowing time for published articles to be considered in the literature review 
for the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC-AR6).

Original papers are invited from authors from all backgrounds and interests to 
address the governance of these technologies and methods. We define governance 
(in line with the IPCC) to broadly include the means for deciding, managing, 
implementing and monitoring policies and measures, and the participation of 
different stakeholders in these. Some examples of the issues that papers might 
consider addressing include:
   
   - Presenting new concepts or ideas about technologies, including so-called 
Nature-Based Solutions and the related governance challenges;
   - Addressing knowledge gaps around governance of CDR/SRM in relation to 
biodiversity and ecosystems services (e.g. see this C2G brief on knowledge gaps 
in relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD));
   - Governance of related research;
   - An exploration of governance at subnational, national, regional and 
international scale;
   - Transdisciplinary, thematic or stakeholder perspectives on governance;
   - Taking a world view of critical areas of global concern such as the 
Arctic; High mountain regions; Small islands; etc.;
   - Governing large-scale CDR (e.g. see this C2G paper on CDR governance 
readiness)
   - Addressing knowledge gaps around governance of CDR/SRM in relation to the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (e.g. see recommendations of C2G report on 
SDGs);
   - Reviews of existing research and/or governance debate.

All papers will be subject to the journal’s usual independent peer review 
process.

Please submit 200-word Abstracts (including proposed title), accompanied by the 
name of the author(s), author(s) institutional affiliation, link to any related 
publications by the author(s), and contact email address(es) for consideration 
by no later than 26th July 2019.

Enquiries and submission to: Nicholas Harrison njharri...@c2g2.net


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05uJ-uofvy5_iD3PrgUvco7yp--Zc346C%3DDesUCey-wBA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/926612655.472987.1562958127614%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: [CDR] Lawsuit seeking SRM / CDR

[Greg Rau]

 Quoting: "As do the Plaintiffs in Juliana v. USA, the current Plaintiff 
asserts that through its policies and actions the US Government has ignored its 
regulatory responsibilities and allowed and encouraged a global warming 
situation dangerous to the life and liberty of all US Citizens. The current 
action, however, takes into account new understanding that (1) Mitigation and 
emissions reductions, while possibly effective in the middle of the past 
century, are no longer viable relief - that only active atmospheric carbon 
removal can hope to address our grievances and (2) Emergency Relief is needed 
to initiate atmospheric carbon removal long before the climate deadline in the 
mid-2030's."
GR Crime (and remedy) of the millenium? Perhaps the government will use the 
"freedom molecules" defense. 
On Monday, June 10, 2019, 1:59:52 PM PDT, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 In new federal case Komor v. US, AZ plaintiff suing government over climate 
change, seeking emergency relief via carbon removal to 350 ppm by mid-2030s 
("climate deadline"), possibly solar geoengineering
https://t.co/LfjwgWCiUL

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04X2sqg6%2BP9rk1gvGXuP_R4tONf6NwT-cRbQqm-DxtBtQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1567375794.1122023.1560205207289%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Greg Rau]

 Air/ocean CO2>Kelp---> biomass energy---> electricity + 10% v/v CO2> + 
AWL > ocean alkalinity + ocean acidification antidote.   I.e., 
negative-emissions energy + long-term C storage with OA benefits, and without 
the cost and risk of making conc CO2 and without land 
biomass/environmental/social issues?!Greg
On Monday, June 3, 2019, 12:27:52 PM PDT, Thomas Goreau 
 wrote:  
 
 They will decompose into CO2 unless they are stored in anoxic dead zones.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Coordinator, Soil Carbon AllianceCoordinator, 
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing 
States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies37 Pleasant Street, 
Cambridge, MA 02139gor...@bestweb.net
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226

Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon 
Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 
Increasehttp://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem 
Restorationhttp://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for 
Sustainable Developmenthttp://www.greenthindisc.org
No one can change the past, everyone can change the future
When lies trump truth, the dark ages begin

On Jun 3, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Amal Bhattarai  wrote:
As far as the mechanics of sequestration, kelp forests (also land based plants) 
can be harvested and sunk to ocean floor, quickly, before being consumed and 
respired. Microbial phytoplankton need more sophisticated methods
The issue is scale. Can “new growth” be counted in gigatons per year? 
If so, costs would be much less than DAC, which also needs “sinking”. deep 
ocean or deep underground.





On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:27 AM Franz Dietrich Oeste 
 wrote:

Dear Amal
Thank you for this key question which can be answered like follows: 
Healthy ocean phytoplankton layer (PL) plants and green microbes cannot 
assimilate carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide solutions like the continental 
plants. (PL) plants are forced to use bicarbonate instead of CO2. As a 
consequence of this fact the PL needs to generate one hydroxyl ion for every 
bicarbonate carbon assimilated to organic carbon.   
This is no disadvantage for the PL as it seems at first sight. This 
assimilation effect produces a basicity membrane at the surface of the globes 
ocean which prevents the bicarbonate carbon from leaving the ocean and which 
activates the atmospheric CO2 to get absorbed by the basicity of the ocean 
surface. Because every hydroxyl ion produces a new bicarbonate ion by CO2 
absorption from the atmosphere the PL cannot not go short in carbon delivery 
for organic carbon production.
Additional to organic carbon PL plants need nitrogen, sulphur and halogens for 
production of organic N, S, and halogen compounds. Also this organics become 
fertilized by the PL life from dissolved salts like sulphates, nitrates, and 
halogenides and also generate OH ions during their conversion to organic hetero 
compounds. Also this metabolic reactions of the PL produce additional 
alkalinity. 
Healthy PL can compensate excessive basicity generation which would increase 
the pH values to >9 that is adverse to healthy metabolism. The sequestration of 
solid carbonate shells and skeletons from bicarbonate is a measure to 
compensate such uncontrolled pH increase because every carbonate generated 
produces one molecule carbonic acid which neutralizes the OH ions by 
bicarbonate generation. Such carbon shell producers in the PL for instance are 
coccolithophores and foraminifera. Even within extreme productive PL layers 
like the Humboldt Current upwelling system in front of the South American west 
coast this kind of carbonate sequestration keeps the pH well within the 
metabolic optimum.
Because the assimilation reaction and basicity generation is only active during 
daytime the pH decreases during the night and even may drop to values of 8 or 
even below. This phenomenon of the dark is the cause of the CO2 escape from 
upwelling deep water within the polar parts of the ocean during the long 
lasting winter night because during this season the basicity membrane of the 
ocean has a hole within these regions.
So called "Ocean Acidification" said to be a cause of the increased CO2 
concentration in the atmosphere has not been caused by this effect. Actual 
cause are damages to the complex PL layer ecosystem which reduces their 
assimilation activity and OH ion productivity: During the very warm Cretaceous 
epoch the phytoplankton and ocean life flourished as can be seen from the chalk 
cliffs of Dover and many fossilized remains found in many other regions of the 
world. The cliffs had built from the carbonate preciptating healthy and 
productive PL life. During the epoche of the Cretaceous the CO2 levels within 
the atmosphere had been up to 5 times 

Re: [geo] Fwd: New book on Solar Geoengineering

[Greg Rau]

See: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-17359-3_3


> On May 22, 2019, at 5:49 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> 
> A new book on geoengineering ‘Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of 
> Nature’ by Jeremy Baskin has been published by Palgrave.  The ebook edition 
> is now available and is available from Amazon and from most University 
> libraries having a Palgrave subscription.  The printed edition will be 
> released shortly.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Geoengineering-Anthropocene-Nature-Jeremy-Baskin/dp/3030173585
>  
> 
>  
> 
> This book takes a critical look at solar geoengineering as an acceptable 
> means for addressing climate change. Baskin explores the assumptions and 
> imaginaries which animate ‘engineering the climate’ and discusses why this 
> climate solution is so controversial. The book explains geoengineering’s 
> past, its revival in the mid-2000s, and its future prospects including its 
> shadow presence in the Paris climate accord. The main focus however is on 
> dissecting solar geoengineering today – its rationales, underpinning 
> knowledge, relationship to power, and the stance towards nature which 
> accompanies it. Baskin explores three competing imaginaries associated with 
> geoengineering: an Imperial imaginary, an oppositional Un-Natural imaginary, 
> and a conspiratorial Chemtrail imaginary. He seeks to explain why solar 
> geoengineering has struggled to gain approval and why resistance to it 
> persists, despite the support of several powerful actors. He provocatively 
> suggests that reconceptualising our present as the Anthropocene might 
> unwittingly facilitate the normalisation of geoengineering by providing a 
> sustaining socio-technical imaginary. This book is essential reading for 
> those interested in climate policy, political ecology, and science & 
> technology studies.
> 
>  
> 
> Reviews
> 
> “Climate change is altering social worlds as much as physical environments, 
> not least by changing what we imagine ‘solutions’ to climate change could 
> look like. Baskin offers a penetrating analysis of one of these new ‘climate 
> solutions’: solar geoengineering. He makes very clear that at the centre of 
> this new socio-technical imaginary lie questions of knowledge, values and 
> power... Solar geoengineering technologies ask questions about what it means 
> to be human, what type of world we are, and should be, making. Read this 
> impressive book before others take ownership of your future.”  Mike Hulme, 
> Professor of Human Geography, University of Cambridge, UK
> 
>  
> 
> “Baskin demonstrates why solar geoengineering, a climate solution that even 
> its ardent advocates find troubling, may still be an idea whose time has 
> come. To make sense of this paradox, he shows, we have to understand solar 
> geoengineering not merely as a technology but as a powerful driver of the 
> human imagination.”  Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and 
> Technology Studies, Harvard University, USA.
> 
>  
> 
> “After reading this book, no-one will look upon solar geoengineering as just 
> a technology that raises some tricky ethical and governance issues.  Rather, 
> in this penetrating analysis, Baskin teases out the different sociotechnical 
> imaginaries that are embedded in the very idea of this technology and shows 
> how they beckon different climates and different worlds.  This book is a 
> revelation.”  Professor Robyn Eckersley, Professor of Political Science, 
> University of Melbourne
> 
>  
> 
> “Solar geoengineering has received important booklength treatments, but none 
> have analysed the post-war history and contemporary discourse with this 
> combination of breadth, depth and perceptiveness. Baskin provides a rich 
> account of the different post-war phases of Mastery, Unimaginability, and 
> Taboo, and their dominant imaginaries, and makes a very persuasive 
> interpretation of the changing fortunes of solar geoengineering as an idea, 
> of the different tenor of the discussion in different periods, and of the 
> conflicted nature of its current manifestation. At the same time his analysis 
> helps reveal more clearly what is at stake with SGE as, as he describes it, a 
> ‘doubly-masking technology’ – one which masks both the underlying warming 
> effects of climate change and the systemic socio-economic drivers and 
> power-relations that it takes for granted and would reinforce.”  Bronislaw 
> Szersynski,  Reader in Sociology, Lancaster University
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> 

[geo] Climate Activists With Cheap Balloons Could Create a DIY Geoengineering Nightmare

[Greg Rau]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612953/climate-activists-with-cheap-balloons-could-create-a-diy-geoengineering-nightmare/

“The scenario would go something like this. It’s the year 2051. A decade of 
drought, crop failure, and famine has killed millions across East Africa, 
sparking violent clashes over food and water. Similar scenes of death and 
devastation are playing out in other parts of the globe.
In response, an environmental group, or maybe a humanitarian one, or perhaps 
just some individual with a huge social-media following, calls for a radical 
response: every citizen should launch high-altitude balloons into the sky, each 
carrying a small payload of particles that could reflect heat back into space.
This kind of distributed, DIY geoengineering scheme appears technically 
feasible, which raises troubling questions about the ability to regulate such 
technologies, according to a white paper published on the website of the 
Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center late last year.
It notes that hobbyist kits for unmanned high-altitude balloons can already be 
purchased for as little as $25, and imagines that such a campaign could be 
coordinated using social media, blockchain, and crowdfunding sites.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Enhanced Rates of Regional Warming and Ocean Acidification After Termination of Large‐Scale Ocean Alkalinization

[Greg Rau]

 The Gonzalez et al paper was first posted and discussed  6/26/18 on CDR. The 
question remains why termination shock from AOA would be any different from 
terminating any other CDR? Wouldn't the added alkalinity serve to buffer 
post-termination pH drop relative to zero alkalinity addition? Isn't the risk 
of termination shock worth taking if the risk of not doing AOA/CDR is greater? 
The termination shock of not using central heating/cooling hasn't stopped us 
from using central heating/cooling - witness the recent midwest cold event and 
casualties(?) The impacts of terminating your cancer meds doesn't stop you from 
taking cancer meds(?) Negatives/benefits have to be weighed, and with CDR that 
ratio declines every day we fail to reduce CO2 emissions. So let's find the 
best interventions in the likely event that we'll need them.  Greg

On Friday, February 1, 2019, 3:34:53 AM PST, 'Chris Vivian' via 
geoengineering  wrote:  
 
 Andrew,
This is not the first time that termination shock has been predicted for a CDR 
technique. It was predicted for artificial upwelling by Oschlies et al. (2010) 
- see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL041961 - 
open access! 
They said in the abstract "A second caveat predicted by our simulations is that 
whenever artificial upwelling is stopped, simulated surface temperatures and 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise quickly and for decades to centuries to 
levels even somewhat higher than experienced in a world that never engaged in 
artificial upwelling."
Chris. 
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 10:42:34 PM UTC, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note : Cross posted due the the curious existence of termination shock 
(previously thought of as an SRM artefact) in a CDR technique
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/ 2018GL077847
Enhanced Rates of Regional Warming and Ocean Acidification After Termination of 
Large‐Scale Ocean AlkalinizationMiriam Ferrer González Tatiana Ilyina Sebastian 
Sonntag Hauke SchmidtFirst published: 21 June 2018https://doi.org/10.1029/ 
2018GL077847Cited by: 1AboutSections 
AbstractTermination effects of large‐scale artificial ocean alkalinization 
(AOA) have received little attention because AOA was assumed to pose low 
environmental risk. With the Max Planck Institute Earth system model, we use 
emission‐driven AOA simulations following the Representative Concentration 
Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). We find that after termination of AOA warming trends in 
regions of the Northern Hemisphere become ∼50% higher than those in RCP8.5 with 
rates similar to those caused by termination of solar geoengineering over the 
following three decades after cessation (up to 0.15 K/year). Rates of ocean 
acidification after termination of AOA outpace those in RCP8.5. In warm shallow 
regions where vulnerable coral reefs are located, decreasing trends in surface 
pH double (0.01 units/year) and the drop in the carbonate saturation state (Ω) 
becomes up to 1 order of magnitude larger (0.2 units/year). Thus, termination 
of AOA poses higher risks to biological systems sensitive to fast‐paced 
environmental changes than previously thought.
Plain Language SummaryClimate engineering (CE) methods are intended to 
alleviate the environmental perturbations caused by climate change and ocean 
acidification. However, these methods can also lead to environmental issues. 
Among all the different CE techniques, the method of artificial ocean 
alkalinization (AOA) is commonly discussed. AOA involves the release of 
processed alkaline minerals into the ocean, which enhances the uptake of 
atmospheric carbon by the ocean while reducing the acidification of seawater. 
We study the impacts caused by the termination of AOA on environmental 
properties that are relevant for organisms and ecosystems because they are 
sensitive not only to the magnitude of environmental change but also to its 
pace. We analyze the rate at which the environment changes after termination of 
this method using an Earth system model that simulates the response of our 
climate to CE. We found that the abrupt termination of large‐scale 
implementation of AOA leads to regional rates of surface warming and ocean 
acidification, which largely exceed the pace of change that the implementation 
of AOA was intended to alleviate. This enhanced rate of environmental change 
would restrict even more the already limited adaptive capacity of vulnerable 
organisms and ecosystems.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

[geo] Re: [CDR] Daniel Sutter: Politics and the economics of the Carbon Tax - Alabama Today

[Greg Rau]

 "Unrestrained use of fossil fuels over 200 or 300 years may eventually produce 
dramatic and costly warming, even if emissions through 2100 merely constitute a 
nuisance."
GR - What planet is he referring to?
On Thursday, January 31, 2019, 8:31:33 AM PST, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 Poster's note: brief mention of CE (CDR), but interesting, due to the implicit 
morale hazard exhibited 
http://altoday.com/archives/28407-daniel-sutter-politics-and-the-economics-of-the-carbon-tax
Daniel Sutter: Politics and the economics of the Carbon TaxBY DANIEL SUTTER ON 
JANUARY 31, 2019 OPINION, SLIDERA carbon tax involves some good economics and 
is probably the best way to address global warming. And yet I think that 
adopting the tax represents bad policy. My reservations involve the politics of 
policy implementation as examined by Nobel prize-winning economist James 
Buchanan.
Before getting to my concerns, let’s consider two other arguments against 
limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The first is that reducing U.S. 
emissions will have little effect on global temperatures. The Clean Power 
Plan’s emissions cuts, for instance, were projected to prevent 0.02 degrees 
Celsius warming by 2100.This just reflects the global nature of the challenge. 
The U.S. will likely generate 10 to 20 percent of global GHG emissions through 
2100. We cannot stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide alone. Whether leading by 
example or conditioning our actions on other nations’ efforts makes more sense 
is a matter of internationaldiplomacy, not economics.
Another argument is the overestimation of the costs of warming by economists’ 
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). This could happen for two reasons. First, 
future GHG emissions may produce less warming than currently forecast. Second, 
the projected warming may occur and not prove extremely costly.
Climate models are a crucial component of an IAM; the costs of warming come 
entirely from predicted climate impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change’s (IPCC) climate models have been running hot: since 1990, only about 
half of the predicted warming has been observed. This raises questions about 
the models.Humans will adapt to higher temperatures and rising sea levels. 
Inadequate modeling of adaptation means that IAMs will overestimate the costs 
of warming. And climate engineering could potentially remove carbon dioxide 
from the atmosphere, allowing continued use of fossil fuels while limiting 
warming.
And yet these climate and economic concerns, I think, recommend a smaller tax 
than currently estimated as opposed to no tax. Unrestrained use of fossil fuels 
over 200 or 300 years may eventually produce dramatic and costly warming, even 
if emissions through 2100 merely constitute a nuisance.
James Buchanan pioneered the integration of economic and political analysis. He 
criticized policy recommendations based exclusively on economics. Such advice 
implicitly assumes government by a benevolent despot who does exactly what 
economists recommend. Ignoring politics leads to useless and potentially 
harmful policy recommendations.
Economists advocating for initiating carbon taxation based on the benefits from 
an optimal tax are committing the error Buchanan warned against. The IPCC in 
2018 announced a new goal of keeping global temperatures from rising more than 
1.5 degrees Celsius. Attainting this goal will essentially require ending the 
use of fossilfuels by mid-century. IAM pioneer William Nordhaus’ model 
estimates an optimal tax of almost $50 per ton, or $0.50 per gallon of gas. The 
optimal tax increases over time but not enough to halt use of fossil fuels 
anytime soon. Ending fossil fuel use might require a tax of as much as $5,000 
per ton.
The debate is now whether to end the use of fossil fuels. If the U.S. begins 
taxing GHG, we will almost certainly within a few years end up with a tax set 
well above $50 a ton. Why? After we initiate taxation of GHGs, politicians 
would then need to set and adjust the tax. Politicians will likely balance the 
views of tax supporters in setting a rate, having resigned themselves to losing 
the votes of tax opponents. All proponents other than a handful of economists 
will want a tax much in excess of $50.
The IAMs underlying economists’ support for a carbon tax show that costs rise 
sharply if we limit GHG emissions more than optimally. The IPCC’s new 1.5 
degrees of warming goal would, according to Professor Nordhaus’s model, produce 
net losses for the global economy even relative to no limits on GHGs. An 
optimal carbon tax may well be sound economically. But if we enact carbon 
taxation, politics will likely produce a very costly tax rate. Economists 
should not let the allure of an optimal tax create an impression that carbon 
taxation will benefit the economy.
…
Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. 
Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host 

[geo] Harvard Scientists Will Actually Launch a Geoengineering Experiment Next Year

[Greg Rau]

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-to-launch-groundbreaking-solar-geoengineering-experiment-in-2019
“In the experiment, a high-altitude balloon will fly up to the stratosphere, at 
an altitude of about 20 kilometres, and release a small aerosol plume of 
calcium carbonate.
Once the chemical payload is released, it's expected to disperse into a 
perturbed air mass about 1 kilometre long and 100 metres in diameter. The 
balloon will then fly back and forth through this cloud repeatedly for about 24 
hours, analysing the particles' behaviour and evolution in the sky.”


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Change – Whitman Wire

[Greg Rau]

Thanks David. Article dated 2013, so latest thinking? Anyway,

"We find a paradox of climate engineering, which consists in the circumstance 
that exactly those technologies that are capable of acting fast and effectively 
against rising temperatures at comparatively low costs, are also the 
technologies that are likely to create the greatest amount of social and 
political conflict."
How about the paradox that exactly those technologies that are capable of 
acting fast and effectively against rising temperatures at comparatively low 
costs - EMISSIONS REDUCTION, are (apparently) also the technologies that are 
likely to create the LEAST amount of social and political conflict, but despite 
this acceptability are now incapable of single-handed solving the problem? 
While all other alternative technologies might create great social and 
political conflict, i) given that none have been tested at scale, are these 
conflicts real, imagined or manufactured? and ii)  are these conflicts of more 
or less magnitude than the conflicts that will arise if CDR and SRM are (made) 
unavailable?  How about first proving the capabilities, benefits, costs, and 
impacts of these approaches so that we can make better decisions as to their 
social and political acceptability? And, are we prepared now to make social and 
political valuations and decisions for future generations whose circumstances 
may be significantly more dire than at present?
Greg


  From: "Hawkins, David" 
 To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com"  
Cc: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
 Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2018 1:46 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Change – Whitman Wire
   
Here is the link to the abstract 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10./gpol.12004

Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2018, at 12:48 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:


Poster's note: interesting discussion of the free driver problem. I can't find 
the original article, just the media op ed. Please reply with a link/extract if 
you have it. 
https://whitmanwire.com/opinion/2018/11/02/geoengineering-and-climate-change/

Geoengineering and Climate Change
Gavin Victor, Opinion Columnist
November 2, 2018
Filed under Columnists, OPINIONGeoengineering is the concept that we can 
directly use our technology to alter the climate. Instead of our effects on the 
environment being collaterally harmful, they can be positive, intentionally. 
Geoengineering is a highly debated hypothetical solution to the anthropogenic 
climate change problem, involving mostly intensive technological intervention 
in climate systems to change them for the better. Like most global issues, the 
adoption of a geoengineering practice relies on many complex 
considerations.When evaluating what societal body is responsible for climate 
change, the conclusion one draws is that developed countries are mostly 
responsible for the current level of climate change, and that currently 
developing countries will likely become larger and larger contributors to the 
problem. The burden of action lies in the hands of those who have already 
reaped the benefits of societal progression at the cost of the climate.A 
central problem in geoengineering regarding climate justice is that those who 
initiate the actual action of geoengineering will likely not be the ones who 
suffer the possible cost. Geoengineering costs are more complicated than simply 
financial; for example, the proposed practice of spraying iron powder into the 
oceans to fertilize plankton that take in carbon dioxide would result in dead 
zones, likely damaging a large portion of oceanic ecosystems.Illustration by 
Abby TakahashiThis ecosystem damage would have a dramatic impact on coastal 
communities, but predicting which areas would be most affected is not yet 
possible. It is a similar story with most geoengineering practices: side 
effects are not well known and will likely have no respect for national 
borders. Those doing the geoengineering are in a position of privilege when it 
comes to the repercussions too. The variable possibilities are too great to 
compute, so real-life outcomes are still unknown. The only way to make a fair 
decision would be to receive input from all those who could be affected. 
Communication must occur among all people, because any geoengineering action 
concerns all people. In this way, climate justice calls upon a new level of 
global citizenship if we, as a race, pursue geoengineering.There is a paradox 
present in the practice of geoengineering. Michael Zürn and Stefan 
Schäferilluminate this contradiction and a possible solution in their research 
article,“The Paradox of Climate Engineering.” They state,“We find a paradox of 
climate engineering, which consists in the circumstance that exactly those 
technologies that are capable of acting fast and effectively against rising 
temperatures at comparatively low costs, are also the technologies that are 
likely to create the greatest amount of social and political 

[geo] Re: [CDR] A risk-seeking future

[Greg Rau]

"New behavioural research suggests that, if the IPCC is right, citizens and 
policymakers will support such risk-taking."
GR - Good news because at this late date, what's the less risky alternative? As 
effective emissions reduction continues to fail, will climate risks be reduced 
by chosing not to seek and research all of our intervention options and to 
deploy those that prove safe and cost-effective?
Anyway, article pay walled so don't know arguments made.

From: Andrew Lockley 
To: geoengineering ; Carbon Dioxide Removal 
 
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 6:37 AM
Subject: [CDR] A risk-seeking future


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0281-z

A risk-seeking future
Greer Gosnell 
Nature Climate Change (2018) | Download Citation


News & Views | Published: 03 txt September 2018
CLIMATE POLICY
The 2014 IPCC Assessment expresses doubt that the global surface temperature 
increase will remain within the 2 °C target without deploying risky 
carbon-capturing or solar radiation-deflecting technologies. New behavioural 
research suggests that, if the IPCC is right, citizens and policymakers will 
support such risk-taking.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-07JufWAJV0qUs%2BUEr-iB2MdYWH0vhJ_4hXbGztDPSM%3DWA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Arctic Sea Ice Melt: Baked In

[Greg Rau]

Too late for intervention?:
> https://www.sciencealert.com/ticking-time-bomb-hidden-heated-ocean-water-under-arctic-canada-basin-chukchi-sea
> 
> 'Ticking Time Bomb' of Heated Ocean Discovered Hidden Under The Arctic
> 
> The Arctic is not in a good way. Its oldest, thickest sea ice is breaking. 
> Strange lakes punctuate its landscape. The very chemistry of its water is 
> changing.
> 
> Things could be about to get worse. New research has uncovered evidence of a 
> vast reservoir of heated water building up underneath the Arctic Ocean and 
> penetrating deep into the heart of the polar region, where it threatens to 
> melt the ice frozen on top. And maybe a lot of it.
> 
> "We document a striking ocean warming in one of the main basins of the 
> interior Arctic Ocean, the Canadian Basin," explains oceanographer 
> Mary-Louise Timmermans from Yale University.
> 
> Timmermans and her team analysed temperature data on the Canada Basin taken 
> over the last 30 years, and found that the amount of heat in the warmest part 
> of the water had effectively doubled in the period 1987 to 2017.
> 
> (Yale University)
> 
> The basin, which sits to the north of Alaska, is made up of mixed layers of 
> ocean water, with cold, fresh water flowing at the surface, sitting on top of 
> a body of warmer, saltier ocean trapped beneath it.
> 
> That dynamic has long been the case, but it's the rapidly heating conditions 
> of the warmer reservoir below that has scientists concerned.
> 
> "Presently this heat is trapped below the surface layer," Timmermans says.
> 
> "Should it be mixed up to the surface, there is enough heat to entirely melt 
> the sea-ice pack that covers this region for most of the year."
> 
> According to the researchers, the warmer submerged waters have been 
> 'archiving' heat due to "anomalous solar heating" of surface waters in the 
> northern Chukchi Sea, which feeds the Canada Basin.
> 
> Basically, as sea ice seasonally and increasingly melts in the Chukchi Sea, 
> open water gets exposed to the heat of sunlight, warms up, and is then driven 
> northwards by Arctic winds – a current phenomenon called the Beaufort Gyre.
> 
> As this heated water travels to the Arctic, the warmer waters then descend 
> below the colder layer of the Canadian Basin – but the amount they've heated 
> up in the past three decades could represent "a ticking time bomb", the 
> researchers warn.
> 
> "That heat isn't going to go away," one of the team, oceanographer John Toole 
> from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, told CBC.
> 
> "Eventually … it's going have to come up to the surface and it's going to 
> impact the ice."
> 
> While the researchers don't think there's any immediate threat, strong winds 
> mixing the colder and warmer water layers – or an increase in salinity, 
> driving the warmer water upwards – could severely impact Arctic ice.
> 
> And even if those outcomes don't result, the temperature trajectory already 
> seen could be affecting ice coverage more subtly, although nobody knows the 
> exact ramifications yet.
> 
> "It remains to be seen how continued sea ice losses will fundamentally change 
> the water column structure and dynamics," the authors explain in their paper, 
> although they note in the coming years the excess heat "will give rise to 
> enhanced upward heat fluxes year-round, creating compound effects on the 
> system by slowing winter sea ice growth."
> 
> More research is needed to calculate just how serious this situation is, but 
> there's no denying these mechanisms are all part of a much bigger problem – 
> and one that isn't going away.
> 
> "We're seeing more and more open water as the sea ice retreats in the 
> summertime," Timmermans told the Canadian Press.
> 
> "The Sun is warming up the ocean directly, because it's no longer covered by 
> sea ice."
> 
> The findings are reported in Science Advances.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Geoengineering: Counteracting Climate Change - The Book

[Greg Rau]

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en=lang_en=G9VoDwAAQBAJ=fnd=PP1=negative+emissions=e5o3tcI-B9=2Y4T6-MoKtsUWF6dRyMdp_OksPU#v=onepage=negative%20emissions=false

GR - Lists a 2019 pub date(?) Again, SRM and CDR are unhelpfully conflated 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions

[Greg Rau]

Further 
discussion:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/08/this-climate-change-hack-would-reflect-more-sunlight-not-such-a-bright-idea-study-says/?noredirect=on_term=.ca7f63bc40ba




  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:44 AM
 Subject: [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using 
volcanic eruptions
   
Poster's note: can't read full paper but I'm interested to see how much 
adaptation it assumed 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3



Letter | Published: 08 August 2018
Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic 
eruptions
   
   - Jonathan Proctor, 
   - Solomon Hsiang, 
   - […]
   - Wolfram Schlenker 
Nature (2018) | Download Citation
Abstract
Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for 
managing global temperatures1,2, yet the economic effects of ameliorating 
climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown3. 
Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat 
stress4, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never 
been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired 
modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide 
the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate 
aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the 
quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight 
affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of 
stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 
(soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation 
management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that 
projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by 
solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from 
cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using 
stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic 
eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global 
agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to 
study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such 
as human health or ecosystem function.
Access options
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Geo. and the Anthropocene

[Greg Rau]

Pay walled.
But from the abstract "...we aim to raise doubts on the dominant perspective on 
the organisation of climate engineering, which assumes these approaches to be 
regulated through legalistic means. Drawing an analogy to the early development 
stages of nuclear weapons, we point out that, instead of following a legalistic 
rationale, climate engineering organisation might pursue a logic of technical 
feasibility, political acceptance and bureaucratic momentum."  
GR For us mere scientists, what are "legalistic means" (legal means?) , and why 
is it assumed that organization based on technical feasibility, political 
acceptance and bureaucratic momentum cannot also have a legalistic 
underpinning?  Why consider regulation by legalistic means if what is being 
regulated is not technically feasible, politically acceptable and having 
bureaucratic momentum?

Sent from the Rau's iPad

> On Jul 22, 2018, at 5:39 PM, Wil Burns  wrote:
> 
> FYI. Wil
> 
> Markus Lederer, et al., Organising the unthinkable in times of crises: Will 
> climate engineering become the weapon of last resort in the Anthropocene?
> 25(4) Organization (2018), 
> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350508418759186
> 
> wil
> 
> 
> [photo]
> 
> Dr. Wil Burns
> Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, School of 
> International Service, American University & Professor of Research
> 
> 650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | 
> http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype: 
> wil.burns
>  |
> 2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research on my 
> SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348
> 
> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons_32/linkedin.png]
>  [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons_32/twitter.png] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: [CDR] A 3rd, new and less intrusive geoengineering approach

[Greg Rau]

More appropriate for geo.
G

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Renaud de RICHTER 
> Date: July 20, 2018 at 7:13:53 AM PDT
> To: Carbon Dioxide Removal , 
> geoengineering , ron.zevenho...@abo.fi, 
> martin.f...@abo.fi
> Cc: Leon Di Marco , denis.bonne...@normalesup.org
> Subject: [CDR] A 3rd, new and less intrusive geoengineering approach
> 
> Very good paper (pay wall) from Zevenhoven, Ron, and Martin Fält. 
> "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive 
> geoengineering approach." Energy 152 (2018): 27-33. 
> 
> Unfortunately the authors forgot to cite previous similar proposals see here, 
> here and here (open access).
> 
> Abstract
> Geoengineering methods based on either direct carbon dioxide removal (CDR) 
> from the atmosphere or solar radiation management (SRM) that curtails solar 
> irradiation are campaigned for as technical solutions that would slow down 
> the global temperature rise and climate change. Except for a few CDR methods, 
> this does not receive much interest from policy-makers as a result of a lack 
> of evidence on net advantages and decision-making challenges related to 
> boundary-crossing effects, not to mention costs. An alternative, third 
> geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from 
> the Earth's surface into space. The so-called atmospheric window, the 8–14 μm 
> bandwidth where the atmosphere is transparent for thermal radiation indeed 
> offers a “window of opportunity” for technology that enables sending out 
> thermal radiation at rates that significantly exceed the natural process. 
> This paper describes work that addresses this, with focus on technical 
> devices that combine materials with the properties required for enhanced long 
> wavelength (LW) thermal radiation heat transfer from Earth to space, through 
> the atmospheric window. One example is a skylight (roof window) developed and 
> tested at our institute, using ZnS windows and HFC-type gas (performing 
> better than CO2 or NH3). Suggestions for several other system layouts are 
> given.
> 
> Highlights
> 
> • Passive radiative cooling should be seen as geoengineering method, cooling 
> Earth.
> • The atmospheric window (8–14 μm) allows for heat transfer through the 
> atmosphere.
> • Choices of suitable materials with long wavelength transparency are limited.
> • Experimental findings verified theoretical assessment and model simulation 
> work.
> • Passive radiative cooling during daytime still presents a considerable 
> challenge.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHodn9_pmz4kwJpTanorq-Ycca-fDrC-zdKxM9Bbr818yGjaxg%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] The Best Way to Shade Earth - Scientific American

[Greg Rau]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-best-way-to-shade-earth/?utm_source=newsletter_medium=email_campaign=daily-digest_content=link_term=2018-07-05_more-stories=56941473=MzMzNDg5MjEwMjQ1S0=1440580164=MTQ0MDU4MDE2NAS2

The Best Way to Shade Earth
Researchers show where to release sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere with the 
least chance of causing droughts or flooding rains

John Fialka, ClimateWireJuly 5, 2018

Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991. Credit: T.J. Casadevall U.S. 
Geological Survey
A new study of a proposed geoengineering technique to artificially shade the 
Earth shows that troublesome side effects could be minimized by injecting 
particles into the atmosphere from points on the planet farther away from the 
equator.

The results of one model simulation suggests that droughts, major rainstorms 
and more rapid polar ice melting might be reduced by changing the places and 
the frequency of injections.

The research on what scientists call SRM, or solar radiation management, took 
three months running a sophisticated global climate model on one of the world's 
fastest computers. It helped scientists identify potential changes to droughts 
and major rainstorms.

Advertisement
"We ran this 20 times to get a number of weather variations," said Simone 
Tilmes, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research 
(NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

She explained that the results varied from earlier studies that simulated the 
release of aerosols made from sulfur dioxide at locations near the equator at 
altitudes in the atmosphere ranging from 12 to 15 miles. From there, they 
quickly get transported around the globe.

The earlier studies followed the path taken by the huge plume of soot, sulfur 
and other debris ejected from Mount Pinatubo, the Philippine volcano that 
exploded in June 1991, leaving a huge, water-filled crater.

The eruption shaded the Earth, dropping global average temperatures by almost 1 
degree Fahrenheit (0.3 degree Celsius) between 1991 and 1993. Currently, 
scientists from several nations are working on studies to see if making 
continuous injections of aerosols might be able to produce a similar effect. 
The injections are usually done by aircraft.

The theory is that volcanic eruptions have repeatedly proved that shading 
happens without causing widespread disasters or major health problems.

Advertisement
Last year, Tilmes and a team of scientists set to work experimenting with a 
global climate model on a new supercomputer at a facility run by NCAR and the 
state of Wyoming in Cheyenne. They changed the injection points and used 
formulas to modify the annual amounts of injections as they simulated multiple 
shadowing efforts extending from 2020 to 2099.

They found that moving the injection points from the equator to points that 
were 15 degrees and 30 degrees in latitude north and south from the equator 
tended to reduce unwanted side effects in the weather. The result indicated 
better atmospheric mixing.

In all, they simulated 2,227 years of annual shading efforts.

"Nobody has ever done this using the complicated model as we did," said Tilmes. 
She said the next step would be a closer look at regional climate models to get 
a better sense of resulting weather patterns. She wants to see, for example, if 
a predicted drop in precipitation might come gradually or in the form of 
prolonged droughts.

The goal of the Paris Agreement, signed by 195 nations in 2015, is to keep 
global average temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius above 
preindustrial levels. The puzzle that Tilmes and other scientists are trying to 
explore is whether that goal might be implemented, and how.

Advertisement
Average temperatures have already risen by 1 degree Celsius. That has led some 
scientists to believe that shading might be needed as an added effort to 
prevent more harmful warming effects in the coming decades. One of them is 
David Keith, a Harvard University physicist, who worries that the slow response 
of the climate to reduced emissions, plus the possibility of further damage 
from "feedbacks," such as the melting of the Arctic's permafrost, releasing 
more carbon dioxide, means that shading will be needed.

"There is a small but significant chance that the world will continue to warm 
for more than a century after emissions stop," he warned in a paper written 
last year.

Keith noted that economists have predicted that worldwide damage from 
hurricanes, prolonged droughts and other warming-influenced weather events 
could reach $1 trillion a year later this century. The cost of adding global 
shading to meet the Paris target would be a "few billion dollars per year," he 
estimated.

To some, the shading option remains new and controversial. But it has been 
repeatedly suggested in various U.S. administrations since the first climate 
change report arrived on President Lyndon Johnson's desk in 1965. Because 
increasing global warming 

Re: [geo] Re: Cheap Carbon Capture

[Greg Rau]

Thanks Leon,Full methods are (strangely) at the very end of the main article.

As for "its energy requirement of   0.15 Gt CO2 / EJ   =   6.6 GJe / tCO2"  
keep in mind that for at 6.6 GJe you are also getting 3.2 GJH2(lhv).  We 
guestimate that 30% addition energy is required to add NE to conventional 
electro H2, but it could be a lot lower. The minimum work difference between + 
NE and -NE electro H2 is close to zero. This is because the the reactions with 
the alkaline minerals are exothermic. Still the electro cells will lose some 
efficiency via changes in cell configuration.  

Air contacting is via the addition of the produced OH- to ocean (House et al. 
2007, Rau et al 2013) obviously in diluted form.  Or happy to run it in Carbon 
Engineering/Climeworks/ Global Thermostat air contacters WITHOUT the expense of 
regenerating the OH- and figuring out what to do with conc CO2. 

The admittedly crude $/t CO2 cost calc is laid out in methods and is largely a 
function of renewable electricity cost: $0.01/kWhe (lowest hydro) = $3/t CO2 
removed while $0.29/kWh (highest solar) = $161/t CO2 removed.  

Yes we are making a truly negative emissions fuel (H2), but we could do the 
same for synthetic methanol or ethanol by using the H2 in reaction with either 
fossil or especially air CO2. See the SI discussion about this. 

Thanks again,Greg


  From: Leon Di Marco 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:15 AM
 Subject: [geo] Re: Cheap Carbon Capture
   
Some initial observations about the interesting proposal in this paper 
helpfully attached with its SI by Greg. -
Taking the numbers for the Representative System which has 49% conversion 
efficiency of electrical energy to hydrogen
its energy requirement of   0.15 Gt CO2 / EJ   =   6.6 GJe / tCO2
now 1MWhe = 3.6 GJ, so   the process takes roughly 2 MWhe / t CO2
thus with an possible electrical energy cost of  5 centUS / kwhe or $50/MWhe  , 
the energy cost would be around  $100 / tCO2 as shown in fig 4
it isnt clear how the marginal cost of $3 / tCO2 is arrived at as the Methods 
section is not included in the SI,  ( maybe that includes the value of negative 
CO2  emissions )
no indication is given as to how the air contact  for CO2 removal is to be 
achieved, and the energy consumption involved
To reiterate, once negative emissions have been created as shown here, they can 
be used to offset the emissions  created by fossil fuels without the need for 
the extra step required to make synthetic fuel - this is a separate point for 
economic analysis.
LDM
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:10:54 PM UTC+1, Christopher Preston wrote:
A few thoughts on last week's good news about the potential for much cheaper 
DAC.
https://plastocene.com/2018/ 06/14/catching-carbon-why- 
cheap-still-comes-with-a-cost

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Could resurrecting the mammoth help stop Arctic emissions?

[Greg Rau]

You have a "mammoth" memory.  Anyway, a good story bears repeating. ;-) G


  From: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.derich...@gmail.com>
 To: jessica.gurevi...@stonybrook.edu 
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:36 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Could resurrecting the mammoth help stop Arctic emissions?
   
Is this related? Already seen in the GEO group in 08/04/2017
http://www.centerforcarbonremo val.org/blog-posts/2017/4/3/ 
mammoths-permafrost-soil- carbon-storagea-qa-about- pleistocene-park

http://media.longnow.org/files/2/REVIVE/The%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20the%20Mammoth%20Steppe%20Ecosystem.pdf
 https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/8a58/ 59de5bc3fa51574c7ab267d80930be 
01f666.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/F_Stuart_Chapin_Iii/ 
publication/251438416_Carbon_ storage_in_permafrost_and_ 
soils_of_the_mammoth_tundra- steppe_biome_Role_in_the_ 
global_carbon_budget/links/ 542864310cf2e4ce940c4d13/ 
Carbon-storage-in-permafrost- and-soils-of-the-mammoth- 
tundra-steppe-biome-Role-in- the-global-carbon-budget.pdf

2018-05-13 19:26 GMT+02:00 Jessica Gurevitch <jessica.gurevi...@stonybrook.edu>:

I've read quite a bit about this. It is enormously (no pun) appealing, not 
least because it also results in ecosystem preservation and restoration, and 
biodiversity preservation. Whether they can breed a woolly mammoth equivalent 
is an interesting question to say the least. My understanding is that it is 
insufficient to make a big difference in climate, but I'd love to hear the 
opinions of the climate scientists. There are a number of publications about 
this, and some nice photos in some of the popular articles.
~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Professor
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA~~~~~~

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

GR - Geoengineering’s new “stomping grounds”? Hazards, moral and otherwise? 
https://www.sciencealert.com/c ould-resurrecting-mammoths-hel 
p-stop-arctic-emissions

 This is where our shaggy friends may come in. Mammoths and other large 
herbivores of the Pleistocene continually trampled mosses and shrubs, uprooting 
trees and disturbing the landscape.In this way, they inadvertently acted as 
natural geo-engineers, maintaining highly productive steppe landscapes full of 
grasses, herbs and no trees.
Bringing mammoth-like creatures back to the tundra could, in theory, help 
recreate the steppe ecosystem more widely. Because grass absorbs less sunlight 
than trees, this would cause the ground to absorb less heat and in turn keep 
the carbon pools and their greenhouse gases on ice for longer.



-- 
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+unsubscribe@goo glegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.co m.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.


-- 
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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.




   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Could resurrecting the mammoth help stop Arctic emissions?

[Greg Rau]

GR - Geoengineering’s new “stomping grounds”? Hazards, moral and otherwise? 

https://www.sciencealert.com/could-resurrecting-mammoths-help-stop-arctic-emissions

This is where our shaggy friends may come in. Mammoths and other large 
herbivores of the Pleistocene continually trampled mosses and shrubs, uprooting 
trees and disturbing the landscape.

In this way, they inadvertently acted as natural geo-engineers, maintaining 
highly productive steppe landscapes full of grasses, herbs and no trees.

Bringing mammoth-like creatures back to the tundra could, in theory, help 
recreate the steppe ecosystem more widely. Because grass absorbs less sunlight 
than trees, this would cause the ground to absorb less heat and in turn keep 
the carbon pools and their greenhouse gases on ice for longer.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] The Dangerous Belief That Extreme Technology Will Fix Climate Change

[Greg Rau]

GR - Given our track record with emission reduction and given questionable 
adaptation strategies, how dangerous is it to believe that we won’t need 
“extreme technology” to help counter climate change?:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ae07919e4b061c0bfa3e794

The Dangerous Belief That Extreme Technology Will Fix Climate Change
It boils down to a failure to question capitalism, civilization, and the notion 
of progress.

Aleszu Bajak On assignment for HuffPost

Wake Smith imagines a fleet of experimental airplanes, not much larger than 
Boeing 757s, that could climb to 60,000 feet, high enough for people aboard to 
see the curvature of the earth, and release gas into the lower stratosphere. 

In order to ensure global coverage of their payload, the planes, looking more 
like firefighting tanker aircraft than commercial airliners, would take off 
from four different latitudes ― say runways in Houston, Manila, Brasilia and 
Johannesburg. On five-hour missions, they would seed the skies with blankets of 
clear, stinky, aerosolized sulfur dioxide gas. Dispersing 100,000 tons of SO2 
annually over several years would begin to approximate levels of the gas that 
follow a major volcanic eruption, blocking out the sun and lowering the 
temperature of the earth. 

Scientists have proposed solar radiation management, as it’s called, for 
decades as a form of global-scale geoengineering that could combat global 
warming. But few have done what Smith, a partner at a private equity firm and 
former airline executive, has done ― turned pie-in-the-sky, 
back-of-the-envelope calculations into a full-fledged feasibility study, 
complete with a development and operating budget for his fleet of planes.

Encouraged by the attention he has been getting from researchers at 
institutions like Harvard, where he was recently invited to present his work, 
Smith has worked out a 10-year operating plan for planes that would begin 
spraying SO2 in 2023.

The whole endeavor, Smith said, is far cheaper and simpler than he initially 
imagined. There are no real barriers, he said. The total cost of the project? A 
measly $3.5 billion, he estimated.


“I think it’s bad news how cheap this is,” Smith told a small group last month 
in a conference room at Harvard’s Center for the Environment. For that kind of 
money, Smith argued, it’s possible that any rogue nation, organization or 
individual could start experimenting with the climate.

The impacts of geoengineering on the global scale are unknown, in part because 
no massive geoengineering project has been undertaken ― apart from 
human-induced climate change. But models are potentially troubling. Some 
suggest geoengineering will disrupt rainfall worldwide and damage the earth’s 
protective ozone layer. A Rutgers University study published in January 
suggested that suddenly stopping a large geoengineering project, once it has 
started, could lead to rapid warming, pushing species into extinction and 
accelerating climate change.

As global temperatures continue to rise, however, some researchers say 
geoengineering shouldn’t be dismissed. Helene Muri, a researcher at the 
University of Oslo geosciences department, said it shows promise as a way to 
reduce harm from climate change, but it is not ready. “We need to know more 
about the risks involved before we, if we can ever, deem it safe to use,” she 
said. “Solar geoengineering is in any case not a substitute for cutting CO2 
emissions.”

Yet, with every year and climate conference that passes, a global-scale 
geoengineering project becomes more and more feasible. There’s virtually no 
regulation stopping a country or individual from trying this, Michael Gerrard, 
director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, 
told me. In fact, from a legal perspective, it’s easier to seed the 
stratosphere than get a permit to remodel your home, he added.

“I think there is such a large chance that someone will try geoengineering that 
it really needs to be governed,“ said Gerrard. That’s why, together with Tracy 
Hester at the University of Houston Law Center, he just published a book, 
Climate Engineering and the Law, intended to help policymakers, technologists 
and lawyers better understand current regulations and science underlying 
big-scale geoengineering projects. 

The question is when such a project might be attempted, and by who? Gerrard 
imagines a scenario in which some country, in the wake of a ruinous climate 
disaster, sees no other choice.

“One could imagine that if some catastrophic [climate] event were to occur in 
India, and they had a real concern that another one could happen, they would 
want to, on their own, launch a geoengineering effort to protect themselves 
against the next one. That’s an entirely plausible scenario,” said Gerrard. 
That’s why global agreement on governance is needed, he said, followed by 
country-by-country laws on geoengineering. Failing to legislate, he warned, 
could 

[geo] The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation

[Greg Rau]

Is there a GE angle in here? Of course ocean-air heat flux is reduced if the 
ocean skin temp is higher than the subsurface water(!?) Mixing, wind, wave 
effects?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JC013351

“Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in 
concentrations of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere resulting from human 
activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation 
is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal 
skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat 
the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical 
mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat 
transfer at the air‐sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost 
through the air‐sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in 
response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat 
loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below, and hence controls upper 
ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming 
longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in 
the TSL retrieved from sea‐surface emission spectra. The additional energy from 
the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such 
that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is 
reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the 
surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the 
observed increase in upper ocean heat content.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Great Barrier Reef Sun Shield Film Tested to Prevent Bleaching

[Greg Rau]

Aussies apparently undeterred by moral hazards and slippery slopes(?!)  .

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/sun-shield-film-protection-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-spd/

“A "sun shield" 50,000 times thinner than a human hair has been designed to sit 
at the surface of the water, directly above corals. The thin film is meant to 
be like an umbrella that partially blocks out the sun. The shield is 
biodegradable and is made of calcium carbonate, the same component that coral 
skeletons are made of.”



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Wrapping glaciers and painting mountains - slippery slopes?

[Greg Rau]

Some examples of geoengineering that apparently are not deterred by moral 
hazards are Swiss glacier wrapping: 
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/swiss-residents-are-wrapping-glaciers-in-blankets-to-keep-them-from-melting
   and Peruvian mountain whitewashing: 
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/17/painting-the-andes-white/     Were is the 
moral outrage? Perhaps it has to do with scale; these are not (yet) going to 
alter global climate/effects at the scales currently practiced so the moral 
hazards police and magical thinking monitors can cut them some slack(?). But 
then there are those slippery slope arguments; This needs to be nipped in the 
bud because before you know it we'll be wrapping and painting the entire 
planet. Unclear what the CO2 footprint is of wrapping a glacier or painting a 
mountain; that plastic has to come from and go to somewhere, and the paint: 
lime, eggs and water isn't exactly CO2-emissions free, though the 
CO2-reabsorbing qualities of the lime is a nice touch, as is World Bank 
sponsorship. No one seems to be talking about the downstream impacts of plastic 
and paint leaching, not to mention the effects on ecosystems that inhabit 
glacier and rock surfaces - acceptable casualties?
Greg   


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

[Greg Rau]

There are diseases that are largely if not entirely preventable via behavior 
modification, yet $100'sB are spent to develop treatments.  Where is the moral 
hazard outrage here that the latter may relax prevention efforts? At one point 
AGW (1.5-2 deg C warming) was 100% preventable via behavior modification 
(emissions reduction). Experts now tell us that this is now very unlikely and 
that additional measures are now needed. Why then are the latter still branded 
as threats and moral hazards if both methods are now ultimately needed and 
neither one alone will be sufficient, just as in the case with dealing with 
many diseases? If exploration of all medical prevention and treatment options 
for individuals is considered rational and essential, why isn't it also for 
dealing with the health of the planet, the only one we've got? Given a 
rationale, humans are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and in the 
AGW prevention and treatment case it would seem morally imperative that they 
do. At the end of the day we may have no safe and effective treatment options, 
but that is guaranteed if we are prevented from searching.
Greg


  From: "Hawkins, David" <dhawk...@nrdc.org>
 To: Sean Hernandez <sean.j.hernan...@gmail.com> 
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; Carbon 
Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; Geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of 
Last Resort?
   
 Thanks Sean,I do not 
believe that the prospect of NETs, etc have been a significant factor yet in 
our inadequate progress on mitigation. (Though people like Kevin Anderson and 
Glen Peters are correct to warn that it is easy to slide from the heavy 
reliance on NETs in IPCC modeling runs to a conclusion by policymakers that 
this amount of NETs is something we can bank on and tailor today's mitigation 
efforts accordingly.)I agree with you that factors other than the prospect of 
NETs have been overwhelmingly responsible for mitigation delays to date. That 
said, it would be wrong to dismiss the concerns that NETs' prospects may become 
an effective new argument against rapid mitigation.  I agree that some voices 
in the "environmental community" have concluded the only way to deal with this 
threat is to discredit the very idea of researching these techniques and 
developing the ability to use them sensibly.  I think that is an error but 
changing those views is more likely to happen with conversations between people 
who trust each other than with public broadsides from strangers.I think there 
is a coherent stance to take: most effort needs to continue to focus on the 
imperative of rapid mitigation now but at the same time we need added effort to 
design and carry out NETs research programs.I do think it would be helpful for 
the community of scientists that support research in these areas to craft and 
socialize a statement of principles that emphasizes the imperative of emission 
mitigation now and that calls for critical governance safeguards.  I am aware 
of prior efforts to do something like this but it is worth another attempt.David




From: Sean Hernandez <sean.j.hernan...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:54 PM
To: Hawkins, David
Cc: Greg Rau; Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last 
Resort? 
Hi David. In your opinion have geoengineering and other potential substitutes 
already contributed to a significant delay in mitigation? My starting reaction 
would be that they have not because awareness is not very great and there are 
significantly greater political and economic obstacles to mitigation besides 
geoengineering awareness. For two, mitigation is very costly and it's highly 
disagreeable internationally. These political factors to me explain more of 
where we are then the status quo knowledge of geoengineering and substitutes.  
Of course the problem could always be exacerbated by greater knowledge of 
geoengineering. I sometimes think of it in terms of 'At what point is 
mitigation a complete strategic failure?'  I guess that could be called gas 
lighting. Is that quite different from directly advocating for a delay? I'm not 
sure I know of any serious geoengineering researchers who advocate for a delay. 
Maybe economists like Nordhaus but I'm not sure on that.  But also we wouldn't 
necessarily need explicit advocates in order for  geoengineering to slide us 
into a delay world.
Your point is very well taken about preventing a further delay by fighting back 
against geoengineering-only advocates.  Yet I perceived that the environmental 
movement as a whole is excessively intrested in that, nearly to the exclusion 
of potential insurance options. I believe that many would pref

[geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

[Greg Rau]

Thanks Leon.  Seems to be the definitive work on the subject, with broad 
referencing. Was puzzled by the report's last sentence, however: "With the 
moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of 
geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic 
evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of 
SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this 
century."
This implies that researchers were not free before to explore side effects(?)  
Restricted by who or what? Side effects meaning co-benefits or negatives? Isn't 
the real issue net benefits (=positives - negatives)? Anyway, so glad we're now 
"more free" to explore this and I don't have to look over my shoulder any more. 
 What other restrictions are keeping us from saving the world?

Greg


  From: Leon Di Marco 
 To: Carbon Dioxide Removal  
 Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 8:12 PM
 Subject: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?
   
Further discussion about this with Sean Hernandez in a new Nori podcast
https://nori.com/podcast/15-sean-hernandez-energy-economist



#15 Sean Hernandez, Energy Economist

March 13, 2018
 5:03 38:42SUBSCRIBE ON ITUNESSUBSCRIBE ON GOOGLE PLAYEconomics isn’t all about 
money. It’s about human action, decisions and choices. In fact, economists and 
environmentalists could be natural allies in solving climate change. 
Unfortunately, a good number of environmentalists take a hardline stance on 
geoengineering, arguing that any further human manipulation of the environment 
is a bad idea. But with CO2 levels reaching more than 400 PPM, mitigation alone 
will not solve our problem. So how would an economist approach climate 
change?Sean Hernandez is a professional economist, data scientist, and 
environmental policy expert with a Master’s degree in economics from USC. In 
his current role at an energy utility, Sean specializes in energy marketing, 
trading and financial analysis. Today, he joins Ross and Christophe to define 
what is meant by the phrase ‘moral hazard’ and explain the argument against a 
technofix for global warming. They discuss the problem with lumping all forms 
of geoengineering together, pointing out that some techniques are widely 
accepted while others are much more controversial. Sean employs his national 
champion debate skills to explore the mitigation camp’s moral hazard argument 
against geoengineering and offer insight around cap and trade as well as carbon 
market policy in California. Christophe, Ross, and Sean cover the accelerating 
effect of climate change, the risks around solar radiation management, and the 
fuel switching issue. Listen in for Sean’s take on a portfolio-based approach 
to climate change that continues civilization while employing a combination of 
advanced techniques—including geoengineering.ResourcesIs Geoengineering an 
Immorality of Last Resort? by Sean J. Hernandez“Geoengineering, Climate Change 
Scepticism and the ‘Moral Hazard’ Argument” in Philosophical Transactions of 
the Royal Society 350.org“Arctic Temperatures Soar 45 Degrees Above Normal” in 
the Washington Post“Dutch Move to Ban Sale of Combustion Engines from 2025” in 
The Irish TimesThe Population Bomb by Paul R. EhrlichGuns, Germs and Steel: The 
Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond Key Takeaways[2:21] The definition 
of ‘moral hazard’   
   - Attempt to reduce risk leads to incur more risk (i.e.: drive faster with 
seatbelt)
[4:04] The moral hazard argument against a technofix for global warming   
   - Would disincentivize doing right thing (reducing emissions)
   - Addiction, rent-seeking
[9:14] The problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together   
   - Planting trees, any form of agriculture qualifies
[11:50] The counter to the mitigation camp’s disincentivization argument   
   - CO2 levels already too high to be safe (>400 PPM)
   - Mitigation won’t remove CO2 from atmosphere
[14:14] The problem with the moral hazard argument in carbon removal   
   - Mitigation = prevent emissions
   - CO2 removal and mitigation both result fewer molecules in atmosphere
[16:34] Why a portfolio-based approach to climate change is necessary   
   - All emissions to zero tomorrow, would still take 1,000 years for climate 
to stop changing
   - Can’t rely on ‘spiritual change,’ need effective ways to motivate
[19:33] The accelerating effect of climate change   
   - ‘Global warming leads to more global warming’
[20:37] The challenge around cap and trade   
   - Demand can’t grow as large as supply
[23:06] Sean’s insight on carbon market policy   
   - Bound marketplace (both floor and ceiling on price)
   - Carbon permits free to certain companies
[25:07] The failings of the California cap and trade market   
   - Renewable portfolio standard leads to reduced demand for cap and trade 
permits
   - Reduced demand 

[geo] Geoengineering (glaciers) - or more "magical thinking" from Nature?

[Greg Rau]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03036-4?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180316=56197970=MTMxNDgwMjc3NjQ1S0=1362348899=MTM2MjM0ODg5OQS2
"We think that geoengineering of glaciers on a similar scale could delay much 
of Greenland and Antarctica’s grounded ice from reaching the sea for centuries, 
buying time to address global warming. In our view, this is plausible because 
about 90% of ice flowing to the sea from the Antarctic ice sheet3,4, and about 
half of that lost from Greenland travels in narrow, fast ice streams. These 
streams measure tens of kilometres or less across. Fast glaciers slide on a 
film of water or wet sediment5. Stemming the largest flows would allow the ice 
sheets to thicken, slowing or even reversing their contribution to sea-level 
rise."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Why current negative-emissions strategies remain ‘magical thinking’

[Greg Rau]

Thanks Nature. How about applauding those who are trying to find out whether or 
not CDR is magical thinking, since reaching climate goals without CDR is now 
most certainly a fanciful notion (IPCC: 2013, 2014, 1.5degC report)?Greg

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:17 PM
 Subject: [geo] Why current negative-emissions strategies remain ‘magical 
thinking’
   

https://www.nature.com/ articles/d41586-018-02184-x
EDITORIAL   21 FEBRUARY 2018
Why current negative-emissions strategies remain ‘magical thinking’
Work on how rocks draw carbon from the air shows the scale of the challenge.   
   -  
   -  
   - 
 PDF versionSpreading basalt rock on farmland has been suggested as a way to 
soak up carbon pollution from the atmosphere.Credit: Hartmut 
Schmidt/imageBROKER/AlamyDecarbonization of the world’s economy would bring 
colossal disruption of the status quo. It’s a desire to avoid that change — 
political, financial and otherwise — that drives many of the climate sceptics. 
Still, as this journal has noted numerous times, it’s clear that many 
policymakers who argue that emissions must be curbed, and fast, don’t seem to 
appreciate the scale of what’s required.According to the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon emissions must peak in the next couple 
of decades and then fall steeply for the world to avoid a 2 °C rise. A peak in 
emissions seems possible given that the annual rise in carbon pollution stalled 
between 2014 and 2016, but it’s the projected decline that gives climate 
scientists nightmares.The 2015 Paris agreement gave politicians an answer: 
negative emissions. Technology to reduce the amount of carbon already in the 
atmosphere will buy society valuable time. The agreement went as far as arguing 
that incorporating one such technology — bioenergy with carbon capture and 
storage (BECCS) — could even see the global temperature increase kept to 1.5 
°C.What would negative emissions look like? A Perspective this week in Nature 
Plants offers another glimpse, and it’s not pretty (D. J. Beerling et al. 
Nature Plantshttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41477-018-0108-y; 2018). The review 
focuses on the idea of enhanced weathering, which aims to exploit how many 
rocks react with carbon dioxide and water to form alkaline solutions that, over 
time, find their way into the sea. It’s one of a number of proposed 
negative-emissions technologies.In theory, enhanced weathering could lock up 
significant amounts of atmospheric carbon in the deep ocean. But the effort 
required is astounding. The article estimates that grinding up 10–50 tonnes of 
basalt rock and applying it to each of some 70 million hectares — an area about 
the size of Texas — of US agricultural land every year would soak up 13% of the 
annual global emissions from agriculture. That still leaves an awful lot of 
carbon up there, even after all the quarrying, grinding, transporting and 
spreading.It’s not hard to see why many climate scientists have dismissed the 
near-impossible scale of required negative emissions as “magical thinking”. Or 
why the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council said in a report this 
month: “Negative emission technologies may have a useful role to play but, on 
the basis of current information, not at the levels required to compensate for 
inadequate mitigation measures.”The IPCC is now working on a report on 
strategies to keep warming to under 1.5 °C, which is due to be published later 
this year. By necessity, those strategies will lean heavily on negative 
emissions. Scientists must continue to spell out to policymakers the harsh 
reality of what this would involve, and in the strongest possible terms.Nature 
554, 404 (2018)doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-02184-x-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering: From ‘Slippery slope’ to ‘uphill struggle’??

[Greg Rau]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117310821

“Abstract
It is increasingly recognised that meeting the obligations set out in the Paris 
Agreement on climate change will not be physically possible without deploying 
large-scale techniques for either removing greenhouse gases already in the 
atmosphere or reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. In this article we 
report on the findings of a scenarios method designed to interrogate how far 
these ‘climate engineering’ ideas may develop in the future and under what 
governance arrangements. Unlike previous studies in climate engineering 
foresight that have narrowly focussed on academic perspectives, a single 
climate engineering idea and a restricted range of issues, our approach sought 
to respond to theoretical imperatives for ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ 
research methods applied to highly uncertain and ambiguous topics. We convened 
a one-day event with experts in climate change and climate engineering from 
across the sectors of government, industry, civil society and academia in the 
UK, with additional experts from Brazil, Germany and India. The participants 
were invited to develop scenarios for four climate engineering ideas: bioenergy 
with carbon capture and storage, direct air capture and storage, stratospheric 
aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. Manifold challenges for future 
research were identified, placing the scenarios in sharp contrast with early 
portrayals of climate engineering research as threatening a ‘slippery slope’ of 
possible entrenchments, lock-ins and path dependencies that would inexorably 
lead to deployment. We suggest that the governance challenges for climate 
engineering should therefore today be thought of as less of a slippery slope 
than an ‘uphill struggle’ and that there is an increasingly apparent need for 
governance that responsibly incentivises, rather than constrains, research. We 
find that affecting market processes by introducing an effective global carbon 
price and direct government expenditure on research and development are 
incentives with broad potential applications to climate engineering. 
Responsibly incentivising research will involve a pluralistic architecture of 
governance arrangements and policy instruments that attends to collective 
ambitions as well as national differences and emerges from an inclusive and 
reflexive process.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fw: [geo] Re: Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon Capture

[Greg Rau]

If fossil CO2 storage is credited at $50/tonne CO2, while use in EOR is 
credited at $35/tonne CO2, this implies that the benefit of CCS-EOR is 
100x(50-35)/50 = 30% less than straight sequestration. I believe this is a 
significant overestimate of the benefit of CCS-EOR given estimates I've seen of 
only 40% effective net CO2 reduction, so I need to learn how that $35/tonne was 
arrived at (aside from behind closed doors). 
It's also interesting (perverse) that the industry most responsible for the CO2 
problem must be the first one to benefit from a CO2 credit:  CO2 management 
technology cannot proceed without first benefiting (tithing) the fossil fuel 
industry, irrespective of potentially cheaper and higher capacity options. That 
technology developed here will translate to solving the bigger problem seems a 
very large gamble, namely that making concentrated CO2 will be the best (only) 
way to to manage//remove CO2.
Greg


- Forwarded Message -
 From: "Hawkins, David" 
 To: geoengineering ; "len2...@gmail.com" 
 
 Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 6:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for 
Carbon Capture
   
#yiv3426215623 #yiv3426215623 -- P 
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv3426215623 Let me clarify that my posts on 
this list are my personal views, not necessarily NRDC's position.
As to the substance, you are confusing the carbon intensity of a barrel of oil 
from EOR with the net impacts on total GHG emissions from all oil production 
and use due to production of an incremental barrel of oil from EOR.My statement 
related to the effective carbon intensity of a barrel of oil produced as a 
result of the capture tax credit.The paper you cite does not contradict my 
statement; when the emissions avoided by capturing CO2 are accounted for, the 
carbon intensity of the EOR barrel is less than other oil.  (This does not hold 
for EOR barrels produced by using "natural" CO2 mined from geologic formations. 
 As discussed below, the tax credit bill can shift some EOR from using to 
natural CO2 to using captured CO2, resulting in additional avoided emissions.)
The system impact of producing an incremental barrel of oil from EOR depends on 
what fraction of a barrel of an alternative source of oil is displaced by the 
incremental EOR barrel. That fraction is somewhere between zero and one, with a 
wide range of estimates.  In a glut oil market, the displacement factor is 
estimated to lie in the higher end of the range but no one knows for certain 
what the displacement will be in the real world.  What we can say is that oil 
consumption is the product of a large number of factors, with incremental 
supply being only one of them.
To be clear, my view is that producing an incremental barrel of any oil is bad 
for the climate and that we need a more serious program to reduce oil 
consumption much more rapidly.  So any incremental production induced by this 
tax credit is a cost to the climate.  But there is an asymmetry of costs and 
benefits with this tax credits.  If there is some induced oil consumption, it 
will be a tiny fraction of global oil consumption.  On the other hand, if the 
credit induces only 5-10 carbon capture projects in key industrial sectors, 
that will be a several-fold increase in experience for a number of industry 
categories.  While that does not guarantee cost reductions through learning, it 
improves our chances compared to the status quo. Another likely benefit of the 
credit is to shift the EOR market away from using natural CO2 to using captured 
CO2.  Even without the tax credit provision, EIA projects an increase in EOR, 
with most of that increase choosing natural CO2. With the tax credit, captured 
CO2 will be less costly to purchase than natural CO2 and it is reasonable to 
expect a shift to captured CO2 for new projects and perhaps for some existing 
projects that have contract flexibility.
Both the emissions costs and benefits of this bill are not hard values.  
Assessing them requires exercising some judgment about the quality of the 
estimates.  You can decide whether the benefits likely outweigh the costs.
Regarding a requirement to retrofit older plants, I think you missed my point.  
Adopting a policy that requires an existing unit to clean up or shutdown by a 
certain age (or a certain calendar date) may or may not result in the 
installation of CC on a particular unit.  But it will achieve a substantial 
emission reduction, either through the use of CC or from shutdown of the unit.  
The political likelihood of adopting such a policy depends on a number of 
factors, among them the costs of CC and the emergence of norms of good 
practices in operating high carbon intensity sources.  A capture tax credit 
provision is directionally correct on both of these counts.
David

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 

[geo] We can now harvest electricity from Earth's heat using quantum tunnelling

[Greg Rau]

https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-tunnelling-could-harvest-energy-from-planet-infrared-heat

This is thinking way outside the box, but what if we could cool the Earth by 
harvesting IR and converting to electricity? Negative warming energy analogous 
to negative emissions energy?
Greg

Sent from my iPhone

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] How Engineering Earth’s Climate Could Seriously Imperil Life | WIRED

[Greg Rau]

https://www.wired.com/story/how-engineering-earths-climate-could-seriously-imperil-life/

““The ultimate fear with geoengineering is that we're trying to alter a system 
that's much too complex for us to truly predict,” says [John] Fleming. “So 
doing that can put us in a worse situation than we're in already.”

GR On the other hand, how bad might it get without GE?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fw: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

[Greg Rau]

x post. CDRers need to hear this. I'd ask if $50/t is gross or net cost? 
Anyway, I too believe that there are abiotic technologies in addition to DAC 
that in net are/will be <$50/t, but I can't share details just yet. However, 
all of this would seem irrelevant at all but niche scales until policy/markets 
support $50/t on a large scale(?) 
Greg

 
- Forwarded Message -
 From: Douglas MacMartin 
 To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; 'Andrew Lockley'  
Cc: 'Leon Di Marco' ; 'geoengineering' 

 Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:06 AM
 Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?
   
#yiv3541489613 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv3541489613 
filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3541489613 
filtered {font-family:Roboto;panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv3541489613 
p.yiv3541489613MsoNormal, #yiv3541489613 li.yiv3541489613MsoNormal, 
#yiv3541489613 div.yiv3541489613MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3541489613 h1 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv3541489613
 a:link, #yiv3541489613 span.yiv3541489613MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3541489613 a:visited, #yiv3541489613 
span.yiv3541489613MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3541489613 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3541489613 
span.yiv3541489613hoenzb {}#yiv3541489613 span.yiv3541489613Heading1Char 
{color:#2E74B5;}#yiv3541489613 span.yiv3541489613EmailStyle20 
{color:#1F497D;}#yiv3541489613 .yiv3541489613MsoChpDefault {}#yiv3541489613 
filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3541489613 
div.yiv3541489613WordSection1 {}#yiv3541489613 Peter – you should replace every 
use of the words “can” and “will” below with something like “have been 
projected to” and “may”.  If you do that, I’ll agree with you.  As written, I 
disagree.  Neither you nor anyone else has proven that DAC *will* have costs 
below $50/ton, and I don’t think it helps make risk-balanced decisions to 
suggest that we know with certainty that this will be possible.    From: 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:10 AM
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: Leon Di Marco ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?  As I 
have written frequently our company Global Thermostat  has developed a DAC 
technology that can at scale have costs under $50 per tonne and which can be 
converted into carbon intensive products like carbon fiber , plastics and 
cement at a profit whch will drive their costs down like solar and will replace 
oil as a feedstock.An example of this is New Light Plastics and many other 
startups are working on using CO2 as a feedsock . Another interesting 
technology is OPUS 12 . Like solar the market place will decide. At $50 dollars 
per tonne the carbon content is equivalent to $23 dollars a barrel of oil.     
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Andrew Lockley  
wrote:
Respectfully, the facts contradict these assertions.  Swanson's law has 
predicted the falling costs of solar energy for decades. It is broadly reliable 
in the face of any individual government initiatives - most of which are very 
limited in scope.  Likewise, gas uptake has been driven largely by market 
forces - such as the US fracking boom (supply side), and the use of central 
heating systems (demand side). Gas, more generally, is a sticking-plaster 
solution. Unless rising population, industrialisation and per-capita energy 
demand are addressed, it doesn't amount to a sustainable solution.  My personal 
opinion remains that CDR is wholly impractical for use at scale, for historical 
emissions. I'd say we're 40+ years off it being affordable - but I'm open to 
challenge.   A   On 17 Jan 2018 02:12, "Leon Di Marco"  
wrote:
AL says above-  "Firstly, there has been no meaningful reduction in CO2 
emissions, as a result of government policies. Almost all the reduction in the 
developed world has come from a switch to gas, and from offshoring heavy 
industries.   Unless we have a wholesale shift in the taxation system, from 
income/profit to carbon, government will remain irrelevant in the global 
warming debate (other than a funder of basic research)."  The switch from coal 
to gas in Europe was as a direct result of govt policy, such as the EU Large 
Plant Directive, a specifically designed regulation.   Similarly the Chinese 
govt is mandating coal plants to shut down  Govt is key to the advance of CDR 
through the IPCC process.  Both tailored regulation and some sort of 
incremental carbon price are an inevitable 

Re: [geo] The 'other' moral hazard...

[Greg Rau]

Thanks Mark. You start off the piece saying that "optimism is necessary", but I 
would think a more important necessity is solving the climate problem. As you 
say, emissions scenarios from high places clearly tell us that at this late 
date we will very likely fail with an emissions-reduction-only posture.  So I 
am unclear where the "moral hazard" is in evaluating or even discussing 
additional methods (except possible hazards to the emission-reduction 
lobby/stakeholders(?)). 
The greatest hazard we face is antho climate change (+ ocean acidification).  
If the experts tell us this is not getting solved by known methods in the time 
remaining, isn't it a moral imperative rather than a moral hazard that we 
actively solicit and evaluate additional methods? At the moment I think an 
issue more pressing than global governance is whether or not we actually have 
any cost-effective and acceptable-risk options worth governing.  That question 
can only be answered by R and testing, which can then be used to inform 
whether or in what form governance is needed  (and to find out if any optimism 
justified). Couldn't too little, too much or the wrong kind of CE governance 
also prove hazardous to reaching our climate objectives?
Greg
 

  From: Mark Turner 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:34 PM
 Subject: [geo] The 'other' moral hazard...
   
The latest blog from Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative.
https://www.c2g2.net/optimism-vs-prudence-geo-governance/

"Climate communicators have worked hard to create a more optimistic brand of 
messaging. “We can still beat this, as long as we cut emissions more quickly,” 
goes the refrain. But at what point does such optimism become 
counterproductive, if its assumptions are no longer true?"-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Model-based Assessment of the CO2 Sequestration Potential of Coastal Ocean Alkalinization - Feng - 2017 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

[Greg Rau]

Haven't seen the paper, but would like to. The question of course is what is a 
"tolerable" upper limit for SW Omega? I don't think this has been studied, 
unlike SW CO2 addition. Spontaneous, abiotic precipitation of CaCO3 will occur 
above about Omega(ca) = 20, so there is a lot of leeway getting to this 
threshold. The biogeochemical effects of the metals and Si contained in 
silicates might prove more application-limiting(?) 
Greg  

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Carbon Dioxide Removal 
 
 Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:01 AM
 Subject: [CDR] Re: Model-based Assessment of the CO2 Sequestration Potential 
of Coastal Ocean Alkalinization - Feng - 2017 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online 
Library
   
This is a very interesting paper, which seems to suggest that the tolerable 
alkalinity of surface waters is a major constraint on the uptake of CO2
I wonder if it anyone has a view on whether the use of SRM will speed up the 
dissolution process enough to make a material change to that constraint? 
If so, the two techniques may be an ideal combination. 
A
On 15 Dec 2017 13:55, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000659/ abstract

Model-based Assessment of the CO2 Sequestration Potential of Coastal Ocean 
Alkalinization

Authors
   
   -
E. Y. Feng,
  
  - 
  
  - 
  
  - 

   -
W. Koeve,
  
  - 
  
  - 

   -
D. P. Keller,
  
  - 

   -
A. Oschlies
  
  - 
  
  - 

   
   - Accepted manuscript online: 30 November 2017Full publication history
   - DOI:10.1002/2017EF000659  View /save citation
   - Cited by (CrossRef):0 articlesCheck for updatesCitation tools
   - 

Abstract
The potential of Coastal Ocean Alkalinization (COA), a carbon dioxide removal 
(CDR) climate engineering strategy that chemically increases ocean carbon 
uptake and storage, is investigated with an Earth system model of intermediate 
complexity. The CDR potential and possible environmental side effects are 
estimated for various COA deployment scenarios, assuming olivine as the 
alkalinity source in ice-free coastal waters (about 8.6% of the global ocean's 
surface area), with dissolution rates being a function of grain size, ambient 
seawater temperature and pH. Our results indicate that for a large-enough 
olivine deployment of small-enough grain sizes (10 μm), atmospheric CO2 could 
be reduced by more than 800 GtC by the year 2100. However, COA with coarse 
olivine grains (1000 μm) has little CO2 sequestration potential on this time 
scale. Ambitious CDR with fine olivine grains would increase coastal aragonite 
saturation Ω to levels well beyond those that are currently observed. When 
imposing upper limits for aragonite saturation levels (Ωlim) in the grid boxes 
subject to COA (Ωlim = 3.4 and 9 chosen as examples), COA still has the 
potential to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 265 GtC (Ωlim=3.4) to 790 GtC (Ωlim=9) 
and increase ocean carbon storage by 290 Gt (Ωlim=3.4) to 913 Gt (Ωlim=9) by 
year 2100. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-06vxnxo36FKUHyMfx8Zzm6abdU2j0P_uYGj0iG0GwQa%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

[Greg Rau]

At the risk of further stuffing peoples' mailboxes, I'm reposting this to the 
CDR group given the relevance of the ongoing dialogue over at geo.Greg

  From: Michael MacCracken 
 To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; davidkeit...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering 
 Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 2:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 
Emissions » 22-24 May 2018
   
 Hi Peter E--
  Is there any chance that APS might redo its study and this might lead to a 
statement that brings the various views together on the projected cost of CDR 
(so capture and storage) at large scale? Is the current NAS study being 
considered as a path for this to occur?
 
 Mike MacCracken
 
 On 11/24/17 2:35 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
  
 David , First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you 
a leader generally and specifically in the issue of  SRM  and CDR  issues.  No 
one  has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is for 
that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to SRM , which 
whether intended or not is a statement itself  given the leadership position 
you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my opinion but also of your DAC colleagues 
that intentional or not you convey , consistent with your email response , that 
you are pessimistic about the potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in 
this is that from my perspective the impact of that perception on  DAC today is 
what the APS did ten years ago to you- making assertions that DAC is costly 
with no real scientific basis . You seem willing to put enormous effort into 
SRM  yet have not made the effort to find out for yourself whether my claims 
are plausible or not. In fact to be candid as a physicist I believe you can 
easily  determine for your self by reading our published patents why GT 
represents a cost breakthrough in DAC technology. I invite you to visit me at a 
time of your convenience or I believe we can go quite far over the phone. I 
hope that you will not say in the future that you have not seen the evidence 
but make the  more accurate statement that you have not yet sought to get the 
evidence with anywhere the same vigor that you have pursued SRM . As I said I 
do not understand why you switched your focus before doing so.    
  In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from the 
air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost potential. In 
one case they observed us for over five years and operated our plants. The 
person leading  that effort for one of the companies  quit his job  to join us 
. He is scientist of high reputation but also arose to a high management  level 
in his company . I believe you know him and I know he would be glad to talk 
with you and tell you as he did  others at meeting at ASU and the Virgin Earth 
Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2  for under $50 /tonne. He 
looked at all DAC technologies as did all the other companies and all have 
expressed a desire to work with GT.  
  In addition I think there is a difference between emissions reductions  of 
the CCS kind (not replacing fossil with solar ) and CDR even though as you say 
the CO2 math in the short term seems unaffected.  This is because of the power 
of learning by doing and that all the costs come at the end when ones doubling 
of capacity involve massive amounts of new plants. Thus for fixed dollar 
allocation if one invests it all in DAC/CDR and none in CCS  one will get to an 
ambient  co2 concentration sooner and for less money than than doing CCS first 
and then CDR. Some people use the cost differential  to argue against this but 
fail to analyze  the learning by doing positive feedback . But most important  
at $50 DAC retrofits of CCS plants produce more costly CO2 and have high costs 
to get it to where it can be sequestered. The leading gas companies are coming 
to this same conclusion.    
  I argue that the misconception about the cost of DAC, started by the APS , is 
causing us to make bad strategic choices for how to address the threat of 
climate change -this is not some small academic debate we are having. I 
strongly believe future generations will judge us harshly from us not having 
the discipline to at least base our actions on what is knowable if we made the  
effort to know it.  I have told others I wish i was not associated with a DAC 
technology so i would have greater credibility for this important issue. I have 
pledged not to take any public money if the call for a strong effort in DAC is 
responded to . That and trying to reach out to experts like you is my attempt 
to be responsible . My investors have no interest in having others know that  
low cost DAC CO2 is achievable.    
  David , we are on the same side, I greatly respect your capabilities ,and you 
are  playing a very important role in the climate challenge we face. Let 

Re: [geo] We can and must govern climate engineering

[Greg Rau]

Good to hear that "we can govern climate engineering". Next up - finding out if 
we have any cost-effective, and socially and environmentally acceptable methods 
to govern. 
Greg


  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 3:24 PM
 Subject: [geo] We can and must govern climate engineering
   
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07296-4

 
Nature
Close menuClose menuClose menuClose menuWORLD VIEW   21 NOVEMBER 2017
We can and must govern climate engineering 
Use the Montreal Protocol to manage controversial work intended to limit global 
warming, urges Stephen O. Andersen.
Stephen O. Andersen
 PDF versionLast month, the World Meteorological Organization announced a 
tragic milestone. Average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations surpassed 
400 parts per million in 2016. That level last occurred 3 million years ago, 
when temperatures were 2–3 °C warmer and sea levels 10–20 metres higher.Unless 
strategies of reduced emissions, cleaner energy and the increased use of carbon 
capture, utilization and sequestration are taken up immediately, the last-ditch 
strategy will be climate engineering: ambitious attempts to brighten clouds to 
reflect more heat back into space or attempts to mimic the cooling caused by 
large volcanic eruptions. Many fear that, when global leaders finally realize 
the peril of climate change, they will jump at engineering projects without any 
evidence base, risking side effects of unknown magnitude.At present, research 
that would help predict the effects of mitigation is unfunded or prohibited. To 
move forward, we need a way of governing climate-engineering projects that 
includes oversight, regulation and enforcement. My view is that the Montreal 
Protocol, which my global colleagues and I helped craft to preserve Earth’s 
protective ozone layer, could be expanded to quell concerns and guide the 
relevant research. Many scientists, policymakers and activists justifiably 
worry that climate-engineering attempts could make matters worse. The idea of 
‘climate rescue’ has often been spurned for fear that it might weaken the 
ambition to reduce emissions. The experiments currently under discussion are 
small-scale, or are funded by philanthropists without public accountability or 
other checks and balances. One high-profile field trial — which proposed 
injecting water into the atmosphere through a 1-kilometre-long hose suspended 
by a balloon — was cancelled in 2012, in part for a lack of rules on how to 
proceed. Academic institutions are not prepared to craft policies or evaluate 
strategies, and none has the necessary status to convince world leaders to 
follow its advice.By contrast, the infrastructure of the Montreal Protocol has 
coordinated government actions and brought success: 99% of manufactured 
ozone-depleting substances have now been phased out; chlorine and bromine are 
decreasing in the stratosphere; scientists are reporting the first evidence of 
healing in the ozone layer; and most scientific investigations estimate 
recovery by mid-century.In the 1970s, chemists and atmospheric scientists 
warned that industrial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were likely 
to be endangering the ozone layer and acting as powerful greenhouse gases. The 
ozone hole, unanticipated by scientists at the time, was reported in 1985, but 
even when the protocol was signed in 1987, CFCs had not been definitively 
linked to the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere. People feared that crucial 
areas such as medicine, fire protection, aerospace and electronics would suffer 
if these chemicals were banned. There was also concern that technologies 
replacing CFCs would be less energy efficient and would use greenhouse gases, 
and thus contribute to climate change. The Montreal Protocol applied the 
‘precautionary principle’ to justify action before full scientific and 
technical consensus had been reached — and it was not alone. The US Clean Air 
Act of 1977 similarly took the stance that “no conclusive proof … but a 
reasonable expectation” of harmful effects is sufficient to justify action. 
Scientists do not yet know what the adverse consequences of climate engineering 
could be, but they can agree that those of runaway climate change would be 
catastrophic and possibly irreversible. In my 40 years engaged in ozone 
protection, there were times when commercial concerns or fears of adverse 
environmental impacts almost derailed the work. I learned to watch carefully 
for signs of new objections or obstruction, and to proactively resolve 
uncertainties to the satisfaction of the parties to the protocol (the 197 
signatory countries and nations). Most often, that resolution was guided by a 
trio of assessment panels — standing committees of technical experts who weigh 
scientific evidence, forecast impacts, make recommendations and guide 
negotiations.Over the past three 

[geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’

[Greg Rau]

> 
> http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/
> 
> 
“Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening statement made it 
clear that he’s still unwilling to talk about the reasons why the technology is 
being researched in the first place: “The purpose of this hearing is to discuss 
the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not a platform to further the 
debate about climate change.” 

GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: Workshop/Webinar on Geologic Sequestration

[Greg Rau]

> FYI...
>  
> View this email in your browser
> 
> 
>  
> YOU ARE INVITED
> 
> Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration Workshop Series:
> Geologic Sequestration
> Webinar - Nov. 15 and Workshop - Nov. 28
>  
> The public is invited to attend a webinar and workshop hosted by the National 
> Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, focused on geologic capture 
> and sequestration of carbon as a carbon dioxide removal approach. These 
> activities are part of the study Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon 
> Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration, in which the committee will 
> identify questions needed to 1) assess the benefits, risks, and scale 
> potential for CO2 removal and sequestration approaches, and 2) increase the 
> commercial viability of these approaches.
>  
> Webinar
> Wednesday, November 15, 2017
> 10:00am - 12:00pm EST
>  
> The committee will conduct a webinar-based panel in advance of their workshop 
> to provide a theoretical and practical overview of specific approaches for 
> geologic sequestration, such as injection of CO2 into submarine basalt or 
> subsurface reservoirs below the land and ocean, as well as carbon 
> mineralization. Specifically, panelists will explore directions for future 
> research that would address key issues going forward, regarding cost, risk, 
> and the potential to scale up to globally significant fluxes. An agenda and 
> further information will follow shortly.
>  
> Register for the Webinar 
>  
>  
> Workshop
> Tuesday, November 28, 2017
> Stanford University, Stanford, CA
>  
> The committee will hold its information gathering workshop in Palo Alto, CA 
> to discuss current understanding and future research needs on the processes 
> and kinetics governing in situ carbon mineralization for direct air capture 
> and storage, as well as experience in storing and monitoring CO2 in the 
> subsurface.
> 
> Please note that on-site seating is limited and the workshop will be webcast.
>  
> Register for the Workshop 
>  
>  
> 
> Like us on Facebook 
> 
> Follow us on Twitter 
> 
> Visit our Website 
>  
> You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to updates from the 
> Board on Atmospheric Sciences and/or the Board on Earth Sciences and 
> Resources (or because it was forwarded to you by a colleague).
> 
> Manage your subscription preferences.
> 
> If you are not subscribed to these mailing lists but would like to be, 
> subscribe here
> Copyright © 2017 Division on Earth and Life Studies, All rights reserved. 
> You are receiving this email because you opted in to the Division on Earth 
> and Life Studies email list. 
> 
> Our mailing address is:
> Division on Earth and Life Studies
> 500 Fifth Street NW
> Washington, DC 20001
> 
> Add us to your address book
> 
> 
> unsubscribe from this listupdate subscription preferences 
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing - Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, Alan. Is it safe to assume that this is an SRM hearing?Greg


  From: Alan Robock 
 To: Geoengineering  
 Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 2:05 PM
 Subject: [geo] Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing 
- Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology
   
  Should be interesting:
 
Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing - 
Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology
  Date:   Wednesday, November 8, 2017 - 10:00am   
Subcommittees:    
   - Subcommittee on Energy (115th Congress)
   - Subcommittee on Environment (115th Congress)

  
  Witnesses:
   - Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
   - Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy, Niskanen Center
   - Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University
   - Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, 
Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of 
Washington
  115th Congress
 
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-environment-and-subcommittee-energy-hearing-geoengineering
-- 
Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] New CDR Googlegroup

[Greg Rau]

**Folks,Wehave decided to 
form a new googlegroup, officially CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.comto 
provide a more focused forum on all things CDR and negative emissions. Tojoin, 
send an email request to gh...@sbcglobal.net and you will be sent instructions. 
 Joining doesnot preclude you from also continuing to participate in 
geoengineering or any other googlegroup.  Wehope you will join us in furthering 
and expanding the discussion on CarbonDioxideRemoval. 
Regards,GregRauKenCaldeira***

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: Geoengineering is not a quick fix for climate change - The Guardian

[Greg Rau]

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/14/geoengineering-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump

GR- Neither, it would seem, is emissions reduction going to fix the climate 
anytime soon.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

[Greg Rau]

But as to the pile of papers, just think of the carbon storage!
G

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> From what I gather, it seems we have a bit of engineering drama. Apparently, 
> you can't just swap aircraft engines and do SRM, because the wings aren't 
> right on any aircraft with even a vaguely adequate payload.
> 
> This is A Problem. 
> 
> We've either got to 
> A) engineer a new aircraft, like the Delft team did (with a $100m expected 
> development cost)
> B) work out a way to make new wings for an existing jet (not simple) 
> C) come up with something else 
> 
> If we assume it's C, then there's quite a lot decent new hardware around. One 
> choice is Blue Origin/Space X kit. Does anyone know how that would fare in an 
> up-and-down flight path? I know Blue Origin did that before. Payload should 
> be manageable, but I'm not sure how costs are coming down. 
> 
> Another alternative is one of the hybrid concepts. I got a flea in my ear for 
> mentioning BAE systems hybrid engines before. However, their power in thin 
> air may make them suitable for geoengineering use - either as zoom climbers 
> or cruise. 
> 
> I know that current thinking is to condense H2SO4 directly, but I guess with 
> any kind of zoom climb, you're pretty much stuck dumping bulk SO2 and 
> crossing your fingers it doesn't all coagulate to baseball-size and drop out!
> 
> Would be great to hear from people on the list. 
> 
> (Personally, my concern is that our best option for accessing the 
> stratosphere at the current rate of engineering might be to make a large pile 
> of climate engineering governance papers, and walk up that carrying gas 
> tanks! There will soon be enough of them  ;)  ) 
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Global Forest Coalition Working paper: The risks of large-scale biosequestration in the context of Carbon Dioxide Removal - Global Forest Coalition

[Greg Rau]

All the more reason to consider marine-fueled 
BECCS:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.1319/abstract
or even better, abiotic methods of C-negative energy 
production:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917311091http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
I'll leave to others to determine if these alternatives satisfy the authors' 
stringent "rights-based, community-led and gender sensitive" criteria,  but 
given our rather dire circumstances, let's not let "perfect" be the enemy of 
the "good".

Greg Raups in this regard, looking forward to revelations from CEC 2017 in 
Berlin. Sorry I'll have to miss all of the fun. 



  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 10:01 PM
 Subject: [geo] Global Forest Coalition Working paper: The risks of large-scale 
biosequestration in the context of Carbon Dioxide Removal - Global Forest 
Coalition
   
http://globalforestcoalition.org/risks-of-large-scale-biosequestration/

Working paper: The risks of large-scale biosequestration in the context of 
Carbon Dioxide Removal
9 Oct, 2017 
Posted in bio energy, Biomass and Bioenergy, Climate Finance, Forests, Forests, 
Plantations, REDD, Resources and publications
Abstract
The explicit reference to “a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources 
and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” (Art. 4) in the 2015 Paris Agreement 
has given a strong impetus to Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) proposals that aim 
to remove greenhouse gas emissions through bioenergy and carbon capture and 
storage (BECCS). While actual implementation of BECCS is still in a state of 
“infancy” according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) report, large-scale biosequestration in the form of monoculture tree 
plantations for carbon sequestration and/or bioenergy production is already 
supported with climate finance, including through the voluntary forest carbon 
offset market and the Forest Investment Program.The paper will describe 
existing trends in the field of large-scale biosequestration, and how current 
climate finance for biosequestration is geared towards industrial monoculture 
tree plantations, owing to global governance structures and a growing emphasis 
on private sector involvement. As such, biosequestration approaches that have 
significant negative rather than positive impacts are being prioritised. The 
potential risks and impacts of these CDR approaches on biodiversity, 
hydrological flows, land degradation, agrochemical contamination, albedo 
effects and the Earth System, and social impacts like elite resource capture, 
land grabbing, rural (un)employment, and gender-specific impacts, are 
described.There are ways to sequester carbon in terrestrial ecosystems that 
impact communities and the ecosystems they are based in positively, but they 
differ greatly from the types of approaches currently supported by climate 
finance. They are rights-based, community-led and gender sensitive. However, 
current enthusiasm from policy-makers and the private sector for CDR and BECCS 
contributes towards a trend where the urgency of the climate crisis is used to 
prioritise unproven and potentially harmful approaches instead.Full working 
paper (24 pages): Web quality (3.0MB) | Low resolution (1.3MB)Summary (4 
pages): Web quality (2.2MB) | Low resolution (0.7MB)Poster: Web quality (4.5MB) 
| Low resolution (0.8MB)-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: Governing BECCS and Solar Radiation Management

[Greg Rau]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment 
> Date: October 6, 2017 at 9:59:58 AM PDT
> To: 
> Subject: Governing BECCS and Solar Radiation Management
> Reply-To: Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment 
> 
> 
> 
> In September, FCEA convened our Academic Working Group on the International 
> Governance of Climate Engineering for its fourth meeting as the group 
> finalizes its recommendations for the international governance of solar 
> radiation management. Also in September, the two of us published a new paper 
> on the opportunities and governance challenges associated with bioenergy and 
> carbon capture with storage. FCEA continues to work on the social, political, 
> and legal dimensions of the full suite of climate engineering technologies. 
> Please read on for a selection of other publications and events from last 
> month and for information about an upcoming workshop in Washington, DC on 
> carbon dioxide removal technologies. 
>  -Wil Burns and Simon Nicholson, Co-Executive Directors
> Academic Working Group Update
> On September 9-10, FCEA convened its Academic Working Group on the 
> International Governance of Climate Engineering for its fourth meeting. The 
> group, set to publish a report and set of recommendations on the governance 
> of solar radiation management in May 2018, clarified a set of governance 
> objectives, including democratic governance, enabling the production of 
> necessary knowledge, ensuring climate engineering is developed only as part 
> of a larger climate response portfolio, guarding against risk, and building 
> institutional architecture. Read a full meeting report here.
> GeoElive
>
> In partnership with ISGP's "The Forum" and Arizona State University's 
> Planetworks, FCEA hosted "GeoElive," a virtual conference on climate 
> engineering.. Watch Wil Burns interview Katharine Mach (Stanford University), 
> and view a recording of a panel on solar radiation management, featuring 
> Andrew Light (World Resources Institute), Doug MacMartin (Cornell 
> University), David Morrow (FCEA), and Janie Wise Thompson (Cassidy & 
> Associates), moderated by Simon Nicholson.
> Carbon Dioxide Removal Workshop October 30
> On October 30, FCEA will convene a workshop for non-governmental 
> organizations that will focus on carbon dioxide removal and negative 
> emissions technologies. The event will take place at The George Washington 
> University in Washington, DC, and is co-sponsored by the Environment & Energy 
> Management Institute at GWU. The keynote speaker will be Dr. James Hansen. 
> Members of the NGO community can view the program for the workshop and 
> register here.
> Equity as a Rationale for SRM Research
> 
> CE researchers often cite equity as a reason to research solar radiation 
> management. In a blog summarizing a new paper in International Environmental 
> Agreements, Jane Flegal and Aarti Gupta scrunitize expert understandings of 
> equity.
> Hurricanes and Climate Engineering
> 
> Three recent, unusually strong hurricanes have devasted Caribbean nations and 
> parts of the United States. Could climate engineering technologies be used to 
> weaken hurricanes? Is proposing such research a good idea, or is it a 
> distraction? We asked members of our Board of Advisors, including Janos 
> Pasztor, Tom Ackerman, Mark Lawrence, and Doug MacMartin.
> Podcast on Public Engagement and SRM
>
> In a new podcast, Jane Flegal, Doctoral candidate in the Department of 
> Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California 
> at Berkeley and FCEA Scholar in Residence, speaks with Peter Frumhoff, 
> Director of Science and Policy and Chief Climate Scientist at the Union of 
> Concerned Scientists (UCS). The conversation mostly centered around the 
> proper role for and forms of public engagement around proposed solar climate 
> engineering experiments. Listen here.
> FCEA in the News
> "As Humans Fumble Climate Change, Interest in Geoengineering Grows"
> Upcoming Events
> Wil Burns at the University of Massachusetts Boston
> IGERT seminar, Wednesday, Oct 18, 11:30am - 1:00pm: Coastal geoengineering 
> and the benefits of using case studies in transdisciplinary education.
> School for the Environment (SFE) Seminar, 2:00pm - 3:00pm: Human rights 
> implications of some emerging climate engineering options.
>  
> Have thoughts on climate engineering? FCEA is accepting blogs in October that 
> address the following topics: 
> Should there be a moratorium on deployment of proposed solar climate 
> engineering technologies?
> What are potential events that could trigger the need to govern climate 
> engineering, and how can we prepare?
>   Facebook
>  
>   Twitter   

Re: [geo] New Rhode Island law to create geoengineering study commission

[Greg Rau]

Aside from OIF, looks like CDR is off the hook(?)
Greg


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Alan Robock  wrote:
> 
> Geoengineering H6011: Theories abound about chemical engineering of the 
> atmosphere and the cloudy spray from aircraft, called chemtrails. The 
> legislation makes Rhode Island one of the first states to study the issue. A 
> five-member committee will make recommendations for licensing geoengineering 
> technologies — real or not — such as solar radiation management, ocean 
> fertilization, and cloud cover protection and cloud whitening. The House 
> commission is tasked to report its findings by April 2, 2018.
> 
> (from https://www.ecori.org/government/2017/9/25/rhode-island )
> 
> Direct link to bill is:  
> http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText17/HouseText17/H6011A.pdf
> 
> H 6011 SUBSTITUTE A
> 
> RESOLVED, That a special legislative commission be and the same is hereby 
> created consisting of five (5) members: five (5) of whom shall be members of 
> the House of Representatives, not more than three (3) from the same political 
> party, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House. 
> 
> The purpose of said commission shall be to study and provide recommendations 
> for state regulation and licensure of all geoengineering technologies 
> including, but not limited to: 
> 
> • Solar Radiation Management (SRM); 
> • Geoengineering ground-based and/or atmosphere-based deployments; 
> • Cloud cover protection and cloud whitening; 
> • Space sunshades, sunshields, solar shields or atmospheric sunscreens, e.g., 
> reflective particulates; 
> • Artificial ionosphere; 
> • Ocean fertilization;
> • Aircraft geoengineering activities. 
> 
> Forthwith upon passage of this resolution, the members of the commission 
> shall meet at the call of the Speaker of the House and organize and shall 
> select, from among the legislators, a chairperson. Vacancies in said 
> commission shall be filed in like manner as the original  appointment. 
> 
> Vacancies in said commission shall be filled in like manner as the original 
> appointment. 
> 
> The membership of said commission shall receive no compensation for their 
> services. 
> 
> All departments and agencies of the state shall furnish such advice and 
> information, documentary and otherwise, to said commission and its agents as 
> is deemed necessary or desirable by the commission to facilitate the purposes 
> of this resolution. 
> 
> The Speaker of the House is hereby authorized and directed to provide 
> suitable quarters for said commission; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, That the commission shall report its findings and recommendations 
> to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House Committee on 
> Environment and Natural Resources no later than April 2, 2018, and said 
> commission shall expire on June 2, 2018.
> -- 
> Alan
> 
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
> ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] nuclear powered DAC

[Greg Rau]

Just to back up a bit, what exactly qualifies as DAC?Greg


  From: Klaus Lackner 
 To: "peter.eisenber...@gmail.com" ; David Sevier 
 
Cc: Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering 

 Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:47 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] nuclear powered DAC
   
#yiv8818218149 #yiv8818218149 -- _filtered #yiv8818218149 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8818218149 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 
3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8818218149 {font-family:Baskerville;panose-1:2 2 5 2 7 4 
1 2 3 3;}#yiv8818218149 #yiv8818218149 p.yiv8818218149MsoNormal, #yiv8818218149 
li.yiv8818218149MsoNormal, #yiv8818218149 div.yiv8818218149MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv8818218149 a:link, 
#yiv8818218149 span.yiv8818218149MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8818218149 a:visited, #yiv8818218149 
span.yiv8818218149MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8818218149 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv8818218149 
span.yiv8818218149hoenzb {}#yiv8818218149 span.yiv8818218149EmailStyle19 
{font-family:Calibri;color:windowtext;}#yiv8818218149 span.yiv8818218149msoIns 
{text-decoration:underline;color:teal;}#yiv8818218149 
.yiv8818218149MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv8818218149 
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv8818218149 div.yiv8818218149WordSection1 
{}#yiv8818218149 Yes, it could be used to provide low grade heat. Particularly 
in remote areas.  Whether it is cheap enough is not clear to me.       From: 
 on behalf of Peter Eisenberger 

Reply-To: Peter Eisenberger 
Date: Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:25 AM
To: David Sevier 
Cc: Andrew Lockley , geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] nuclear powered DAC    Cogenerating DAC and nuclear power if 
nuclear power produces low cost electricity where the low temperature heat such 
facilities struggle to get rid of  is used to run DAC makes alot of sense. Not 
sure that their are not lower cost ways to generate low temperature heat.  By 
the way something not mentioned much is nuclear fusion. Once nuclear fusion 
(mimicking solar reactions of the sun on the earth )  is proven commercially 
removing enfvironmental and other issues that plaqued fission reactions alot of 
the issues of the 24x7 dispatchable renewable energy grid go away by using some 
mixture of nuclear power and solar/wind .  I beleive in the long term fusion 
will be a major source of our energy.        On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, 
David Sevier  wrote: 
In light of the thermal energy burden, I am wondering if you could combine a 
small nuclear pile such as a small modular swimming pool reactor (once 
described as the only nuclear power plant design that anyone ever made profit 
from) as a heat source without generating electricity with DAC. A number of DAC 
processes need heat either at or below 1000C. A small nuclear reactor should be 
able to supply this. If the requirement to raise steam and generate electricity 
are removed, the cost of the plant and the cost per KWH of heat should be 
significantly lower. Such an operation would not make sense in the early years 
of DAC but later when scale up becomes much larger and the world gets serious 
about DAC, then this could make sense. Look forward to comments and discussion. 
Swimming pool reactors had a good safety record (as far as I am aware), were 
not that expensive to build and were not terrible to decommission.      David 
Sevier Carbon Cycle Limited 248 Sutton Common Road Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW 
England Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128 Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129   This email is private 
and confidential           -- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 


    --  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments 
contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of 
the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the 
non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- 
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 

Re: [geo] Swanson's law

[Greg Rau]

and/or if you have cheap renewable electricity, use it to make C-negative 
electrolytic H2 -  as much as 50 tonnes CO2 consumed and avoided per tonne H2.  
Intermittent RE? use the H2 for energy storage, and with fuel cells, put e back 
on the grid when electricity demand/supply peaks.  Cost? Assuming an RE cost of 
$0.06/kWh (wind?) and a market value of H2 of $1.50/kg, I get a CO2 mitigation 
cost (CDR + CO2 avoidance) of $77/tonne.  At $0.03/kWh, I get $41/tonne CO2 
mitigated. This does not include the $ benefit of alkalizing the ocean (saving 
corals, etc) with the dissolved mineral (bi)carbonate formed. And/or if you 
insist on growing algae, feed the dissolved mineral bicarbonate to (carefully 
managed) algae cultures since HCO3- uptake rather than CO2 uptake is the 
primary way marine algae acquire carbon, plus you don't acidify the cultures by 
adding CO2.  ;-)  

Greg


 

 From: Charles Greene 
 To: Peter Eisenberger  
Cc: mmacc...@comcast.net; "Hawkins, Dave" ; 
"andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ; geoengineering 

 Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 11:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Swanson's law
  
Co-locating DAC and PV or concentrated solar with commercial-scale, marine 
microalgae production facilities would provide onsite supply of electricity and 
CO2 without the release of any additional emissions of fossil carbon. In 
addition to producing fossil carbon-neutral liquid fuels and nutritional 
products from the microalgae, the production of plastics and other biopetroleum 
products for the human-built environment could lock up carbon while generating 
revenue. This might be preferable to DAC and subsequent carbon sequestration in 
geological repositories. The market for carbon-negative biopetroleum products 
is not of sufficient scale at present to create a large dent in the amount of 
carbon that will need to be stored. However, the infrastructure required for 
the human-built environment is enormous, and we would just need to be clever in 
how we substitute materials.

On Sep 17, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Peter Eisenberger  
wrote:

I agree with this 100% 
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Michael MacCracken  
wrote:

 A problem at present is that present high-voltage/alternating current 
distribution lines mean that low-cost transmission of electricity is limited to 
a few hundred miles, so one would have to disperse DAC. If instead there were 
large-scale high-voltage/direct current distribution lines (see MacDonald et 
al., Nature, January 2016), then there could be long distance, low-cost 
transmission over large distances and one would have a much better likelihood 
of having access to any stranded energy  (from wind, solar, geothermal, 
nuclear, etc.), all while having DAC located where it would be optimally able 
to store the captured carbon. Just another reason, among many, for having 
large-scale HV/DC networks across the world's continents.
 Mike MacCracken
  
 On 9/17/17 10:50 AM, Hawkins, Dave wrote:
  
 Using stranded renewable energy for DAC is an interesting idea.  Question is 
what energy resource will be used during periods when there is no surplus RE? 
If DAC does not run 24/7 its costs go up. If DAC uses RE to run 24/7, that 
requires a larger RE system with associated stranding. If DAC uses something 
other than RE, what is it? Ideally, we would have an economically dispatchable 
zero-carbon resource. This is not an argument against DAC, just an observation 
on system complexity. 
 Sent from my iPad 
 On Sep 17, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
 
  
  Does anyone have a breakdown of projected input costs for Direct Air Capture? 
I'm interested in quantifying the energy component. 
  Swanson's law predicts reliable falls in the cost of solar. Without storage, 
much peak-time solar could be wasted, unless it's used for time-insensitive 
applications like DAC or desalination. 
  (I understand Keith's process needs electricity, but Lackner's instead needs 
heat.)  
  My hypothesis is that DAC could become vastly cheaper, if energy costs 
trended down as expected due to Swanson's law, and cheaper still if it became a 
way to use this stranded energy. 
  I'd welcome thoughts, data, projections and comments. 
  Thanks 
  Andrew Lockley 
   -- 
 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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to  geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
  
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
 To 

Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Greg Rau]

Couple of points:1) It is possible to move ocean heat to the deep ocean without 
moving water, nutrients or salt, and to do this in the context of OTEC with 
higher efficiency and less environmental impact than vertically pumping massive 
quantities of water: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8572967B1/en and 
citations therein.

2) It is possible to then couple this OTEC to power negative emissions energy 
production. Here, saline water is electrolyzed to produce the required OTEC 
energy carrier, H2 (or ammonia or hydrocarbons), while water and carbonate or 
silicate minerals are consumed and dissolved mineral hydroxide generated.  The 
hydroxide is then used to absorb excess air/ocean CO2, spontaneously converting 
it to  surface ocean dissolved mineral bicarbonate and carbonate for C storage. 
The addition/storage of this alkalinity also helps neutralize and counter the 
effects of surface ocean acidification.
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/121574
http://activetectonics.asu.edu/teaching/GLG494-ICOG/es0701816.pdfhttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800366qhttp://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
3) The C storage potential of dissolve mineral (bi)carbonate in the surface 
ocean is vast relative to the potential for CO2 or short-lived biomass. 

4) If the game is to raise deep ocean nutrients to the surface ocean, how about 
Stommel's perpetual salt fountain: 
https://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6202/62020133.pdf

 Of course you'd have to deal with the degassing of CO2 brought to the surface, 
but if you go deep enough where the CO2 concentration is high enough and hence 
the transported water undersaturated enough in [CO3--],  CaCO3 (added to the 
plume) will dissolve to consume (some of) that CO2 and again generate/store 
beneficial C alkalinity. Perhaps the density produced by this alkalinity 
addition could then be used to sink warm and now biomass-laden surface water, 
thus producing a perpetual carbonate weathering and marine bio CDR/food/fuel 
production machine. A grateful planet rejoices, Nobel prizes awarded, etc  ;-)
You're welcome,Greg

  From: Klaus Lackner 
 To: "pcfl...@ualberta.ca" ; "kcalde...@stanford.edu" 
; Geoengineering  
Cc: Jason Zhou ; Anna Hammond 
 Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies
   
#yiv2319946077 #yiv2319946077 -- _filtered #yiv2319946077 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2319946077 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered 
#yiv2319946077 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered 
#yiv2319946077 {panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv2319946077 #yiv2319946077 
p.yiv2319946077MsoNormal, #yiv2319946077 li.yiv2319946077MsoNormal, 
#yiv2319946077 div.yiv2319946077MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 h1 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2319946077
 h2 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2319946077
 a:link, #yiv2319946077 span.yiv2319946077MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2319946077 a:visited, #yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2319946077 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077Heading2Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2319946077 
p.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071subject, #yiv2319946077 
li.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071subject, #yiv2319946077 
div.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071subject 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 
p.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071tracking-beacon, #yiv2319946077 
li.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071tracking-beacon, #yiv2319946077 
div.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071tracking-beacon 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-3 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-5 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-7 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-12 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-14 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071web-view {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071hidefromoutlook {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071forward-to {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071unsubscribe {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077EmailStyle31 
{font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077EmailStyle32 
{font-family:Calibri;color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none
 

Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive

[Greg Rau]

Christoph et al.,While the ocean does contain a lot of untapped energy and CO2 
removal potential, I share your concerns about the difficulties of tapping into 
photosynthetic energy to do this for the reasons you state. That's not to say 
that there couldn't be clever ways of harnessing marine macro/micro flora, but 
it would require careful management of N, P, Fe, Si, O2 etc to effect the 
desired CO2 management while not disrupting existing surface ocean 
ecosystems/biogeochemistry.
As for putting the deep ocean to use, in addition to a nutrient and CO2 
source/sink it is also a very large heat sink. When coupled via OTEC to the 
(growing) surface ocean heat source you've got something like 10TW of 
continuous, potential, deliverable electrical power even considering a 3% OTEC 
energy conversion efficiency. Ways of performing such OTEC that vertically move 
only heat (not seawater) in a closed cycle have been proposed.  When coupled 
with a CO2-consuming method of generating H2, you've got a global scale 
negative emissions energy delivery system whose CDR potential could be 50Gt 
CO2/yr while delivering CO2-free fuel equivalent to >3X annual global gasoline 
consumption. It also directly and beneficially cools and alkalizes the surface 
ocean - https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/121574 ;  I can 
provide further details if interested. Nor are we restricted to OTEC since any 
source of non-fossil electricity can make C-negative H2.

Anyway, the NYT's CDR model restriction of 12 Gt CO2/yr by 2100 would indeed 
seem unduly pessimistic, esp if we allow ourselves to think beyond land-based 
and biology-based methods of saving the planet. Now would seem a good time to 
expand the search and find out what if any viable options we actually have, 
considering the scale and urgency of the problem.
Greg


  From: Christoph Voelker 
 To: Robert Tulip ; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
 
 Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
   
 Dear Robert, I am a physicist, not an engineer, so I can't really judge how 
feasible it is to pump half a percent of the total volume of the ocean (this is 
what I got from my nutrient calculations, and I think they are correct) from a 
depth of 1000m or more up to the surface every year by tidal pumping, but I 
have to admit that I am sceptical. 
 I also cannot fully follow your argument about the concentration of nutrients, 
but I think your numbers are not correct. The average concentration of nitrate 
in the deep ocean is around 30 micromol/L (not 3 ppm, which is neither correct 
in mol/mol, nor in volume/volume); and that of phosphate is not the same, but 
around 15 times less, i.e. around 2 micromol/L. Anyway, there is a much more 
fundamental problem with the approach that you are suggesting that is 
independent of its scale: When you pump up deep ocean water to get at the 
nutrients therein, you also pump up water that contains more dissolved 
inorganic carbon than surface ocean water. On average deep ocean water contains 
as much more dissolved carbon as you can fix with the nitrogen/phosphorus 
contained in it (again assuming a constant Redfield C:N:P ratio); this is 
because the higher carbon content in the deep ocean has been brought there 
mostly by the sinking and subsequent remineralisation of organic matter. Of 
course, with the nutrients that you bring up, most of that carbon will again be 
fixed in your algal biomass and can then be disposed of (whereever, maybe as 
biochar). But: That then leaves almost no room for using the algae to fix 
additional carbon from power plants, as you suggest. 
  So in effect what you do with that approach is: You pump up the carbon that 
has been stored in the deep ocean by the natural biological pump, which without 
anything else would increase CO2 in the surface. Then you fix this carbon in 
biomass and store it on land. In the end you have only shifted carbon from the 
deep ocean to the storage on land, and have achieved very little, if anything 
at all in terms of fixing the fossil-fuel-generated carbon. The only way out of 
this that I see is to use algae with an elevated C:N and C:P ratio compared to 
the Redfield ratio, because then you can fix more carbon than you bring up. 
  But then again, I would be sceptical about the possible scale that you 
mention, from my back-of-the-envelope calculation of the nutrient requirements 
from my last email. 
  Best regards, Christoph
  
 On 08.09.17 01:15, Robert Tulip wrote:
  
 
 Thanks Cristoph. Deep Ocean Water, with volume about a billion cubic 
kilometres below the thermocline, has about three ppm nitrate and phosphate, 
about 3000 cubic kilometres of each, as I understand the numbers. Tidal pumping 
arrays along the world's continental shelves could raise enough DOW to the 
surface, mimicking natural algae 

[geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon Emissions

[Greg Rau]

https://medium.com/s/how-geoengineering-really-works/the-tricky-future-of-capturing-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-218963d12f97

"If you’re thinking the solution is as easy as planting trees, I have some bad 
news for you: While it’s true that photosynthesizing plants take in carbon 
dioxide and “exhale” oxygen, they really only take up enough carbon to build 
their own cells. And when a plant dies and decays, most of that carbon ends up 
right back in the atmosphere.Forests aren’t so much “lungs” that constantly 
filter out carbon dioxide as they are standing stores of it. That means that, 
practically speaking, reforestation could only pull as much CO2 out of the 
atmosphere as past deforestation put up there in the first place.The latest 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimated that human changes 
to the landscape (mostly deforestation) added about 180 billion tons of carbon 
to the atmosphere between 1750 and 2011. Globally, the next decade of our 
greenhouse gas emissions could just about equal that amount. So even if we 
expanded forests to their pre–Industrial Revolution extent (an unlikely 
proposition), climate change would be far from solved."
GR That's not to say that there couldn't be ways to secure the carbon fixed by 
plants (biochar, BECCS), but it's not obvious that this should involve forests 
if land use efficiency is to be maxed, nor necessarily using land plants. Then 
the usual DAC discussion. No mention of enhanced weathering, listed by the IPCC 
as having no biophysical limits, unlike plant-based methods.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Environmentalists that denounce climate eng research; what to do?

[Greg Rau]

Attenborough et al (link or website?) certainly must be referring to SRM. 
Otherwise, would the world be less insane, delusional and fascist if we turned 
off the 20 Gt/yr CDR that is naturally occurring? Another reason CDR and SRM 
deserve separate discussions (with all due respect for this "geoengineering" 
google group).Greg


  From: Bernard Mercer 
 To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ; durbrow 
; geoengineering  
 Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:45 AM
 Subject: RE: [geo] Environmentalists that denounce climate eng research; what 
to do?
   
#yiv5781045918 #yiv5781045918 -- _filtered #yiv5781045918 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5781045918 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5781045918 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv5781045918 
#yiv5781045918 p.yiv5781045918MsoNormal, #yiv5781045918 
li.yiv5781045918MsoNormal, #yiv5781045918 div.yiv5781045918MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5781045918 a:link, 
#yiv5781045918 span.yiv5781045918MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5781045918 a:visited, #yiv5781045918 
span.yiv5781045918MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5781045918 
p.yiv5781045918msonormal0, #yiv5781045918 li.yiv5781045918msonormal0, 
#yiv5781045918 div.yiv5781045918msonormal0 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5781045918 
span.yiv5781045918EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;}#yiv5781045918 
.yiv5781045918MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv5781045918 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5781045918 div.yiv5781045918WordSection1 {}#yiv5781045918 I 
think it is similar to the problems associated with climate scepticism. I 
remember when I first heard about “mirrors in space” as proposed (I think) by 
Paul Crutzen, in the early 2000s. I’ve worked in the biodiversity arena since 
the mid-1980s, and I was horrified. It seemed a license to continue spewing out 
CO2.    The problem is our collective yen to mythologize: that image of great 
big reflectors in space still probably underpins much of the hostility to 
geoengineering (apologies in advance to Oliver Morton as I am sure he goes into 
all of this in his book, which I have, but not yet read).    Now of course (and 
in large part by learning from the exchanges on this list) I know better – of 
course we need geoengineering, and in addition we now know (which I don’t think 
most of us knew in say, c.2006) that we need a massive amount of negative 
emissions. DAC was not on the table as a serious solution, back then, but it is 
now.    So that is what I think this community needs to concentrate on its 
media/celebrity outreach: the potential of geoengineering solutions to remove 
atmospheric CO2. That is a quite different narrative from the prevention of 
global warming by deflecting solar rays.    From: 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 28 August 2017 19:37
To: durbrow ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Environmentalists that denounce climate eng research; what 
to do?    Centrally controlled CE certainly isn't the only approach. It can be 
democratic or decentralised. I'm working on a paper concerning decentralised 
governance     A    On 28 Aug 2017 19:29, "Eric Durbrow"  
wrote: 
      Attenborough referred to climate engineering as “fascist" (he meant that 
a small group of people would control the climate) and Gore has called it 
“insane…delusional". Bill McKibben called it a "serious deadend”    Is it too 
late to reach out to environmental leaders and get them to change their minds 
for *research* in climate engineering? E.g. an open-letter editorial in the 
Times, etc.     Or do celebrity leaders actually have minimal impact among 
grassroots environmentalists and activists?       -- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

__
This email has been 

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

[Greg Rau]

Am all for truth and logic.  So by "emissions reduction" I meant that in the 
fullest sense - renewables, fusion, efficiency, CCS, etc - everything that 
doesn't involve CDR. In theory, yes, CDR could do it all alone (your point 2), 
but given the present technical uncertainties and time frame that seems a scary 
idea and not something I would advocate. By the same token at this late date it 
is also a scary idea to think that emissions reduction (of all kinds) is going 
to save the day in time. So for these reasons I believe that it is now morally 
hazardous not to consider/evaluate/test all of the above (OK, at least the best 
ideas) simultaneously if allowed by recently noted human psychological 
limitations.  Or what am I missing?
Greg

  From: Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
 To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; "vcar...@umich.edu" 
<vcar...@umich.edu>
 Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for 
mitigation policies
   
 Hi Greg ,Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change 
politics  1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve 
 the climate problem alone (and cost too much )2 CDR can solve the problem 
alone -it is just more difficult without emissions reductions 3 While it is 
true that in the short term an emission reduction  from a plant already 
operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size one can most 
effectively reduce  emissions by switching to renewables 4 Now the tricky point 
is that any technology has a practical  limit of how fast it can be implemented 
-so lets use a doubling of capacity every two years - we know that experience 
curves result in cost reductions with installed capacity 5 So if one wanted to 
achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one would invest in renewables 
and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on emissions reductions which in 
reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of emissions reductions)on would be 
slowing down the other two deployments increasing the time it would take for 
both renewables and CDR to reach the scale needed - because the last doublings 
( when all the factories making CDR and renewable will quickly make up for the 
increased emmissions from existing plants -alternatively if one was to focus 
first on emissions reductions and then on the other two that would be the 
longest time to reach the capacities needed. 
This could easily be modeled but the key is the positive feedback created by 
building plants which results in enhanced rate ( new installations per year 
because of lower costs and earlier  establishment  of mass production 
capability  )   make the opportunity cost of investing in emmissions reductions 
that will eventually end so large they are not worth doing . In simpler terms 
one does not ususally invest in solutions that cannot solve the problem if one 
has available approaches that do . 
I believe this logic is solid . The reason is has not been widely if at all 
accepted is because clean coal got started in an era where we mistakenly( 
Socolow and Pacala)  thought that they together with renewables and other 
things (eg conservation , efficiency  etc ) could solve te climate problem . 
Lots of vested interests exist(DOE in particular) that do not want to  admit 
that all their effort was in a dry hole so to speak. 
So my position is if we are serious about the climate threat we should all 
focus on renewable energy and CDR and I believe of course (which I want others 
to evaluate) that DAC followed by use of the carbon that stores it is the CDR 
technology  that can scale and offers a low cost solution because the co2 makes 
money . The other approach I would support investigating is enhancd weathering 
and of course fusion . 
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

  From: Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
 To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> 
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups. com>
 Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for 
mitigation policies
  
This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best

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

[Greg Rau]

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

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

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

   -   
  - 

   -   
  - 

   -   
  - 
  - 

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

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

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

[Greg Rau]

Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into CDR 
policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited approaches 
like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? Granted, BECCS 
generates negative emissions energy, but there are other methods of doing this, 
including some that don't rely on biology. Given the circumstances, do we 
really have the luxury of  ignoring any of these until they are proven (rather 
than assumed to be) irrelevant?Greg Rau

  From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>
 To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; 
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM
 Subject: RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide 
emissions
   
#yiv6674855978 #yiv6674855978 -- _filtered #yiv6674855978 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6674855978 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv6674855978 
#yiv6674855978 p.yiv6674855978MsoNormal, #yiv6674855978 
li.yiv6674855978MsoNormal, #yiv6674855978 div.yiv6674855978MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6674855978 a:link, 
#yiv6674855978 span.yiv6674855978MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6674855978 a:visited, #yiv6674855978 
span.yiv6674855978MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6674855978 p 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6674855978 
span.yiv6674855978EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv6674855978 
.yiv6674855978MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6674855978 
{margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv6674855978 
div.yiv6674855978WordSection1 {}#yiv6674855978 Well, the message is clear, but 
when I propose the most scalable and proven process, and probably the cheapest 
way, not many people seem to listen. So again:  1:The weathering of olivine 
(and some similar rocks as well) has made life possible on Earth 2: Life itself 
(mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as limestones (made up of 
the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and plankton) has provided a huge 
storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments contain about a million times all 
the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the biosphere together. 3. The needed 
additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred years all the 
coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million years to form can 
be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at locations which make rapid 
weathering of olivine possible, like tropical countries with high rainfall, or 
beaches with a strong surf, where coarse olivine grains can be dumped. These 
grains will collide in the surf, by which small slivers of olivine are knocked 
off. We have shown that thee slivers often are already weathered within ten 
days in the saline water. 4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s 
surface than we will ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These 
massifs can be mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, 
such olivine mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can 
be taken to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries 
profit from the employment provided by the mining exploitation. 5. Spreading 
olivine grains can be done in such a way that other advantages of this 
spreading can also be used. 6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth. I 
think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter climate 
change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its validity 
during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling             From: 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]On 
Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide 
emissions    
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions
    "...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that 
incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just 
one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is spectacularly failing in 
Mississippi, but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can 
expand into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no 
longer enough. Time to think about scale."

GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology. -- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more

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

[Greg Rau]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions

"...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that incentivize 
the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just one-off pilot 
projects, either, like the one that is spectacularly failing in Mississippi, 
but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand into 
gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer enough. 
Time to think about scale."

GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon

[Greg Rau]

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3369.epdf?shared_access_token=LdBahNHxXVicUkN3cpNUW9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PD0Qp6NADkmumuvK0eBm_zLR_yi6_Mn__ST5BsHucMcCYxPxirYX1oiUOsklpKxeQomkEpTSS8weYzhwHHv_DShNwTUHocIX6dLGNHLLQfY153ApflIuLUU6Nhbgyf1yI%3D

"To meet the global scale required, countries that are the biggest electricity 
consumers must provide the bulk of the BECCS, as they have the largest capacity 
to remove CO2. Countries with the largest potential to produce bioenergy, which 
may differ to the largest energy consumers, would experience large impacts on 
their land sector, further exacerbating CBDR issues."
GR - (Again) a policy discussion that assumes that land biomass energy with 
geologic C storage is and will be our only negative emissions energy option, 
ignoring ocean-based and/or abiotic negative energy systems +/- ocean C 
storage.  What would the policy and geopolitical landscape look like if 70% of 
the Earth's surface was not ignored in the analysis?  See our comment here 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6339/706/tab-e-letters
   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Leaked US Climate report

[Greg Rau]

> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/climate/2017/climate-report-final-draft-clean.pdf
> 
See first paragraph below - Greg

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Drawdown: 60 minutes with Paul Hawken - October 4th Webinar

[Greg Rau]

> 
> 
>   
> Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
> 
>   
>   
> 
> 
>   
>   
> 
> 
> Checkout the Free Educational Videos in the SSF Archive
> Dear Gordy 
> 
> Save the Date - October 4, 2017
> Drawdown: 60 minutes with Paul Hawken 
> The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming  
> 
> October 4, 2017
> 1:15 to 2:45 PM EDT 
>  
>  
> Project Drawdown is facilitating a broad coalition of researchers, 
> scientists, graduate students, PhDs, post-docs, policy makers, business 
> leaders and activists to assemble and present the best available information 
> on climate solutions in order to describe their beneficial financial, social 
> and environmental impact over the next thirty years.
> 
> The book, Drawdown, reports on this research to map, measure, model, and 
> describe the 100 most substantive solutions to global warming.  It is the 
> first detailed plan to reverse global warming
> .  
> Drawdown hit #9 on the  NYT bestseller in its first week, stayed on the best 
> seller list for four weeks, and is in its 4th printing. It was the first book 
> on the environment or climate to attain that ranking in over 25 years.  
> 
> For each solution, Drawdown describes its history, the carbon impact it 
> provides, the relative cost and savings, the path to adoption, and how it 
> works. The goal of the research that informs Drawdown is to determine if we 
> can reverse the buildup of atmospheric carbon within thirty years. All 
> solutions modeled are already in place, well understood, analyzed based on 
> peer-reviewed science, and are expanding around the world.
> 
> Join Security and Sustainability Forum Managing Director, Edward Saltzberg, 
> and American Renewable Energy Institute  Chairman and CEO, Chip Comins, in a 
> 60 minute webinar and conversation with Drawdown Editor and Project Drawdown 
> Executive Director, Paul Hawken. 
> 
>  
> 
> Paul Hawken   
> Paul Hawken is an author and activist. He has founded successful, 
> ecologically-conscious businesses, and consulted with heads of state and CEOs 
> on economic development, industrial ecology, and environmental policy. He has 
> written seven books including four national bestsellers: The Next Economy, 
> Growing a Business, and The Ecology of Commerce, and Blessed Unrest. The 
> Ecology of Commerce was voted as the #1 college text on business and the 
> environment by professors in 67 business schools. Natural Capitalism: 
> Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, co-authored with Amory Lovins, has 
> been referred to by several heads of state including President Bill Clinton 
> who called it one of the most important books in the world at that time. He 
> has served on the board of many environmental organizations including Center 
> for Plant Conservation, Shelburne Farms, Trust for Public Land, Conservation 
> International, and National Audubon Society .
>  
>   
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Click to sign up for SSF email alerts if a colleague sent you this email 
> and you are not already on our mailing list. 
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
> Thinking of Unsubscribing?
> Not Interested in this Topic?
> SSF convenes global experts in free educational webinars about critical 
> climate risk topics such as urban resilience, the food - water - energy 
> nexus, droughts and flooding, green infrastructure, public health and global 
> climate security,  among others.  Don't unsubscribe if you are interested in 
> some of these topics and you will continue to receive webinar alerts.
> 
> Access the arsenal of free climate education webinar recordings in the SSF 
> archives. 
> http://securityandsustainabilityforum.org/archives/webinars  
> 
>   Edward Saltzberg, Ph.D.
> Managing Director
> Security and Sustainability Forum
> 
>
>  
> 
>   
> 
>   
> The Security and Sustainability Forum, 1006 N Tuckahoe Street, Falls Church, 
> VA 22046
> SafeUnsubscribe™ gordymoli...@gmail.com
> Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
> Sent by esaltzb...@securityandsustainabilityforum.org in collaboration with
> 
> Try it free today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daphne Wysham
> Director, Climate Justice Program
> Center for Sustainable Economy
> 202-510-3541 (cell)
> Skype: daphne.wysham
> Twitter: daphnewysham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Healthy Climate Project" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to healthy-climate-project+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to healthy-climate-proj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/healthy-climate-project.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-project/CAFAaNL2eKcgycYZYzLyjUutGX%3DMxQ5kx6LFGbwYna_ens4_4Ww%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, 

[geo] <2 degrees C warming might be out of reach.

[Greg Rau]

Is it time yet for serious consideration of climate intervention?:
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/01/stories/1060058201

Settings
WARMING
There's a 5% chance of holding temps at 2 C — study
Adam Aton, E News reporter
Published: Tuesday, August 1, 2017

New research suggests that keeping global temperature rise under 2 degrees 
Celsius might be out of reach. Pictured here is a map showing atmospheric 
carbon dioxide concentrations in 2016. NASA
President Trump's decision to yank the United States from the Paris climate 
agreement spurred a rallying cry from environmentalists committed to meeting 
the accord's goals anyway.

Too late, say the researchers behind a pair of studies published yesterday in 
Nature Climate Change.

Climate modeling and observational data suggest the world is already on track 
to reach dangerous levels of warming by the end of the century, according to 
the two papers.

There's only a 5 percent chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees 
Celsius, according to a forecast drawn from a statistical analysis of 150 
countries' population and economic growth.

Two degrees of warming marks the likely threshold for widespread ecological 
problems, including coral reef collapse, markedly higher sea-level rise and 
crop failures, according to NASA.

The median forecast suggests 3.2 C of warming by 2100, with a likely range of 
between 2 and 4.9 C.

Even if all human emissions immediately ceased, the atmosphere probably 
contains enough carbon to push up temperatures by about 1.3 C by the end of the 
century, according to the second study.

And that might understate the effect of today's greenhouse gases.

The amount of warming caused by CO2 might have been masked over the years by 
accompanying aerosol emissions. So as emissions fall — and aerosols wash out of 
the air — we might find ourselves on track for even more warming than we 
realized, said Robert Pincus, a scientist with the University of Colorado, 
Boulder, and NOAA's Physical Sciences Division.

Pincus authored the analysis of committed warming, along with Thorsten 
Mauritsen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

The ocean's ability to absorb heat and carbon could reduce the warming already 
in the pipeline by 0.2 to 0.3 C, they wrote.

The findings are dire, but they should inspire action rather than hopelessness, 
said Adrian Raftery, a professor of statistics and sociology at the University 
of Washington and author of the study on temperature forecasts.

"The consequences of not [acting] are even higher with these results than they 
were before, when we could think about 1.5 degrees as being in the realm of 
possibility — which I think, realistically, it's not," he said, urging more 
investments in research, a tax on carbon and other established paths to 
emissions reductions.

Raftery's forecasts align with the middle-of-the-road scenarios put forward by 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

His study found population growth will likely play a small role in climate 
change, because the areas with the highest growth — like Africa — have a small 
carbon footprint.

Some uncertainty remains around how much Africa's emissions will grow over the 
coming century, he said, but relative to the United States, it's a question of 
whether Africa's per capita emissions will be "lower or much, much lower."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] CLIMEWORKS

[Greg Rau]

I agree that Climeworks needs to be applauded, and hope that their success and 
visibility stimulates further interest and R But to really lower the cost of 
abiotic CDR I think we need to think beyond making concentrated CO2 from air. 
At the heart of any DAC process are chemical compounds (solid or aqueous, 
inorganic or organic) that react with CO2 to form an intermediate compound that 
is then decarbonated to form concentrated CO2. It is this decarbonation that 
consumes significant energy and expense.  Waste heat can be employed to lower 
the cost, but this would seem to significantly limit global capacity. While the 
minimum work of concentrating CO2 from air (1 atms total pressure) is 
126kWhrs/tonne CO2*, industrial efficiencies in performing this work are 
unlikely to exceed 10%*, meaning >1260kWhr/tonne CO2.  Assuming that carbon 
free energy can be had for $0.07/kWh (wind) that's a cost of >$88/tonne CO2 
just for the energy. A strategy around this would be to produce <1atm pCO2, but 
then you are diluting the potential value of the end product, CO2(?)
All of the preceding assumes that CO2, once chemically captured, must then be 
separated and concentrated from the intermediate product. The apparent 
assumption is that the energy cost of doing this is less than the cost of the 
the original reagent that would be consumed if the intermediate compound formed 
above was simply treated as the end product. For example if NaOH is the reagent 
used and NaHCO3 is the intermediate formed from CO2, it is assumed that it is 
cheaper to energy-intensively decarbonate the NaHCO3 back to NaOH, making conc 
CO2, rather than to just consume the NaOH and produce (and sell) NaHCO3.  The 
electrochemical production of NaOH consumes 2170 kWhe/tonne NaOH** or 1381 
kWhe/tonne CO2 consumed (assumes C-free kWhe), nearly the same or lower 
energy/tonne CO2 as required for <10% efficient DAC. Yet the market value of 
NaHCO3 plus the H2 and Cl2 (or O2) co-produced with the NaOH could help 
significantly offset the preceding cost, not to mention do away with 
decarbonation infrastructure/capital cost and the CO2 transport/storage risk of 
conventional DAC. Carbonfree Chemicals seems to think so Reduce pollution 
through a premier carbon capture and utilization process. | Carbonfree 
Chemicals , as do I: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
I don't have time to do a full treatment here, but before continuing down the 
conc CO2 pathway for CDR (including BECCS), let's keep our minds open to other 
potentially cheaper/simpler strategies that don't need to expensively recycle 
reagents. I think we are going to need multiple technologies, and the best ones 
(or hybrids) may have yet to be imagined. Perhaps those interested in finding 
out will have to move to Switzerland.

* http://www.pnas.org/content/108/51/20428.short

** 
http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/LCA/elcd/external_docs/naoh_31116f0a-fabd-11da-974d-0800200c9a66.pdf

Regards,Greg


 

 From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: David Sevier ; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:19 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] CLIMEWORKS
  
A personal view :
Even if this,scaling works, and it can be done for 60/to, that's still roughly 
60 trillion USD that needs to be found. (Roughly the entire UK government 
sector since the second World War) There won't be a business model for most of 
that -  except by public mandate or subsidy, which is tantamount to a tax. 
That doesn't seem even slightly realistic to me. 
A
On 28 Jul 2017 19:08, "David Sevier"  wrote:

Time I chimed in on this discussion. I agree with Klaus on this one. Climeworks 
faces a lot of headwind and should be encouraged  not picked at. Klaus and I 
know a lot about many of the issues faced by these guys because we both have 
worked on commercializing this technology. The issue of moving air through the 
equipment is a relatively minor issue when you get down to it. We spent a lot 
of time on this and have good solutions for this. There are a number of 
solutions to either cut down the pressure drop through the equipment or induce 
the air flow through the equipment. A solar chimney is one solution but it 
would not be my first or even third choice.   The core problem is the lack of 
market to pay enough for the CO2 capture to start this industry off. Overcoming 
this beyond quite small and somewhat difficult niche markets is the problem. 
What is needed is a political framework to create some sort of air based carbon 
credit that has a higher price than a standard carbon credit. There has been 
some discussion of how this could be done so I won’t go into here. Our company 
put our work in this area on hold until the commercial situation evolves to 
something that makes better commercial sense.  I commend Climeworks for their 
continued push.   David SevierCarbon Cycle Limited248 Sutton Common 

Re: [geo] Our editorial in Science: How to govern geoengineering?

[Greg Rau]

Thanks Janos.  Certainly agree that we need oversight in researching and 
applying these technologies. 
My comments:1) I would caution against  lumping CDR in with SRM in the same 
governance framework – they have very different risk/reward profiles, the 
reason that the NAS split their discussion into separate report volumes.  
2) As for CDR you say  “CDR would need to be implemented at very large scales 
to have the desired effect. Land requirements could be immense, affecting 
global food prices and food security. Environmental impacts would include loss 
of biodiversity, pesticide pollution, and disturbing the oceans' ecological 
balance.” All possibly true, but will be very method specific and in many cases 
highly speculative until tested at appropriate scales. In any case similar 
effects (and more) are guaranteed if emissions reduction continues to fail. So 
the important question then is what exactly are the benefits as well as the 
risks, costs and impacts of each CDR approach, can they acceptably and 
effectively counter emissions reduction failure, and therefore what type and 
level of governance is required?  

3) Such information can only be gained by research and testing, and in the case 
of many CDR techniques, at scales well within national rather than 
international jurisdictions. Still, there is a need for an appropriate level of 
governance that at the same time does not unnecessarily stifle the research 
required to inform governance and decisionmaking, rather than 
governance/decisionmaking based on assumption, speculation and guilt by 
association. So research and governance ideally depend on each other and is an 
iterative process.

4) For the preceding reasons, I ‘d like to see the term “geoengineering" 
dropped in favor of “climate Intervention” (a la NAS), but which would cover 
the 3 major intervention themes: emissions reduction (why assume this doesn’t 
have significant environmental and social risks/costs and doesn’t need 
significant governance?), CDR and SRM.  In this way governance (and politics 
and R, etc) could be separately focused and tailored to each of these three 
very different elements, avoiding the current a one-size-fits-all, guilt (or 
favor) by association approach. 
Finally you say: "Geoengineering has planet-wide consequences”. So to does not 
actively soliciting, researching and testing our intervention options to see if 
any might be useful and before they are actually needed.
Regards,Greg Rau

  From: Janos Pasztor <jpasz...@c2g2.net>
 To: Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:34 AM
 Subject: [geo] Our editorial in Science: How to govern geoengineering?
   
  

How to govern geoengineering?   
   - Janos Pasztor1⇑, 
   - Cynthia Scharf2⇑, 
   - Kai-Uwe Schmidt3⇑
+ See all authors and affiliations Science  21 Jul 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6348, pp. 231
DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6794    
   - Article
   - Figures & Data
   - Info & Metrics
   - eLetters
   -  PDF
You are currently viewing the summary.View Full Text
Summary
The Paris Agreement aims to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5° to 2°C 
above preindustrial temperature, but achieving this goal requires much higher 
levels of mitigation than currently planned. This challenge has focused greater 
attention on climate geoengineering approaches, which intentionally alter 
Earth's climate system, as part of an overall response starting with radical 
mitigation. Yet it remains unclear how to govern research on, and potential 
deployment of, geoengineering technologies.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/231

     Janos

 

===
Janos Pasztor
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 
Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2)
2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
Mobile: +41-79-739-5503
jpasz...@c2g2.net | Tw: @jpasztor  |  Skype: jpasztor
www.c2g2.net

Founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1914, Carnegie Council for Ethics in 
International Affairs is an educational, non-profit, non-partisan organization 
that produces  lectures, publications, and multimedia materials on the ethical 
challenges of living in a globalized world.   Headquarters: 170 East 64th 
Street, New York, NY. 10065, USA.  Tel: +1-212-838-4120.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails 

[geo] Hansen et al weigh in on negative emissions

[Greg Rau]

https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf
(unable to paste in abstract accurately)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] CDR: Size Matters

[Greg Rau]

In a recent Science Perspective, Field and Mach discuss the need to "rightsize" 
our expectations of CDR capacity, curiously leaving out any mention of marine 
potentials.  We try to set the record straight*. This is largely from a 
300-word-limit letter that was rejected for print publication by Science.  Go 
figure...  



Greg

* http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6339/706/tab-e-letters
Carbon Dioxide Removal: Size Matters(6 July 2017)  “Rightsizing” (1) our 
expectations of carbon dioxide removal, CDR, must avoid undersizing those 
expectations given CDR’s anticipated critical role in meeting atmospheric CO2 
and climate targets (2). So far CDR discussions have heavily focused on the use 
of terrestrial biology such as afforestation/reforestation, biochar, soil 
carbon management, and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (1-3). 
Yet the potential capacity of these approaches is limited by available land, 
water and nutrients and by environmental concerns, raising serious questions as 
to how large a role such CDR could feasibly play (4,5).
 Field and Mach (1) classify all other forms of CDR as “engineered, 
nonbiological approaches” like enhanced mineral weathering and direct air 
capture (DAC), which they characterized as energy intensive, expensive, 
technically immature, speculative and of questionable potential. This curiously 
ignores marine photosynthesis representing a gross global CO2 uptake of nearly 
200 Gt yr-1 (2), a small fraction of which could be managed or enhanced to 
effect significant CDR in ways analogous those proposed for terrestrial taxa 
(6-8). Additionally, mineral weathering together with marine chemistry is the 
primary way that excess global CO2 is naturally consumed and stored on long 
timescales (9). Considering global reservoir sizes and annual fluxes (2: Chptr. 
6), the mean carbon residence time in the ocean is about 400 years. This is 
about 16X longer than the mean residence time of the longest lived terrestrial 
C reservoir, soils, and about 80X longer than in the terrestrial plant C pool. 
Furthermore, the IPCC lists no known physical limits to enhanced weathering and 
DAC in mitigating CO2/climate change (2:Tbl. 6.15), while some ways of 
enhancing weathering rates have been shown to be relatively low cost and low 
tech, and can have environmental co-benefits (8,10,11). Importantly, the 
preceding approaches do not suffer the same capacity limitations and 
environmental concerns affecting methods based on land biology (1-5).
 Since our goal of staying below 2ºC warming appears in jeopardy without 
significant CDR and since there are as yet no proven CDR methods at the scales 
required, our chance of success will increase by including consideration of 70% 
of the Earth’s surface, 90% of its present carbon storage and 99% of its 
livable volume in our efforts. Greg H. Rau
Institute of Marine Sciences,
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. Email: g...@ucsc.edu(alphabetical order:)
Ken Caldeira
Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution for Science
Stanford, CA 94305 USA. Email: kcaldeira@carnegiescience.eduJean-Pierre Gattuso
CNRS and UPMC Univ Paris 06
Laboratoire d’Océanographie, 06230 Villefranche-sur-mer, France
and
IDDRI-Sciences Po, 75007 Paris, France Email: gattuso@obs-vlfr.frCharles H. 
Greene
Ocean Resources and Ecosystems Program
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. Email: chg2@cornell.eduDavid M. Karl
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology,
University of Hawai'i
Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. Email: dkarl@hawaii.eduMargaret S. Leinen
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093 USA. Email: mlei...@ucsd.edu Marcia K. McNutt
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, DC 20001 USA Email: naspresid...@nas.edu James W. Murray
School of Oceanography
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 USA. Email: jmurray@u.washington.eduBrian von Herzen
The Climate Foundation
Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA. Email: brian@climatefoundation.orgReferences
1. C.B. Field, K.J. Mach, Science 356, 706 (2017).
2 . T.F. Stocker et al., Eds., The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York, 2013).
3 S. Fuss et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 11, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/115007 
(2017).
4. P. Smith et al., Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42 (2016).
5. L.R. Boysen et al., Earth’s Future 5, doi:10.1001/2016EF000469.
6 C.M. Duarte, Biogeosciences 14, 301 (2017).
7 C.H. Greene et al., Earth’s Future 5, doi:10.1002/2016EF000486 (2017).
8. P. Hawken, Ed., Drawdown (Penguin, New York, 2017) pp. 176-180.
9. D. Archer et al., Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 117 (2009).
10. J. Hartmann et al., Rev. Geophysics 51, 113 (2013).
11. G.H. Rau, in Global Environmental Change Handbook of Global Environmental 
Pollution, Vol. 1, B. Freedman, Ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, 2014) pp. 817-824.   

-- 

Re: [geo] A Response to New York Magazine Climate Article

[Greg Rau]

As for being "pushed toward geoengineering", apparently the climate situation 
is already dire enough that the "authorities" (IPCC AR5, et al) are now 
requiring atmospheric CO2 sucking (="geoengineering" according to Wallace 
Wells, Nicholson, and Morrow) to achieve climate targets. Thus, it's no longer 
Plan B or C, but part of Plan A, esp if there is still any serious appetite to 
stay below 1.5degC warming. 

Whether or not these additional methods are too expensive depends on i) the 
cost incurred if it is not done, and ii) a great deal more research and testing 
to determine what the most cost effective, socially/environmentally desirable  
strategies might be (if any). Do the risks and negative impacts of these 
schemes really outweigh the benefits? Given what little research has been done 
and with zero experience at scale, one of course can speculate on all sort of 
dire consequences of untried actions, while also assuming that no other, better 
schemes will emerge. But the better course of action would be to objectively 
and carefully (and quickly) test these speculations and assumptions.

So I don't see the point of downplaying (Mann, Nicholson, Morrow, etc) a 
narrative of the potential upper limits/consequences of the climate problem 
(Wallace-Wells) nor ignoring our obvious ongoing failure to sufficiently alter 
course via conventional means - emissions reduction. This should add up to an 
urgent call for and scientific evaluation of additional strategies that should 
each be evaluated on their own merits and not pigeon-holed and demonized as 
costly, risky "geoengineering" unless justified by a much better understanding 
of the full range of options. I'm no Goldwater apologist, but when it comes to 
describing the potential immense, multigenerational effects of anthro climate 
change and to seeking cost-effective, environmentally and socially acceptable 
ways to help avoid/thwart such impacts, extremism would appear to be no vice.

Greg Rau
 

  From: Carolyn Turkaly <caro...@ceassessment.org>
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:30 PM
 Subject: [geo] A Response to New York Magazine Climate Article
  
David Wallace-Wells' widely-read article, "The Uninhabitable Earth," on the 
worst-case climate outcomes contains a short discussion of geoengineering. 
Simon Nicholson and David Morrow of the Forum for Climate Engineering 
Assessment respond here, arguing that the narrative that climate catastrophe is 
inevitable pushes us towards geoengineering as a standalone solution. David 
Morrow also notes that "engineering" responses to climate change must first and 
foremost be mitigation and adaptation responses. 

-- 
Carolyn TurkalyProgram CoordinatorForum for Climate Engineering 
Assessment202-885-1543-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fw: Coal CCS (and BECCS) a myth?

[Greg Rau]

https://thinkprogress.org/clean-coal-isnt-real-eda3e2841060

Coal CEO: “It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and 
sequestration,” he said last week. “It is just cover for the politicians, both 
Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the 
time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”
A ringing endorsement for BECCS.  Let's please not spend another $20B to prove 
that this isn't relevant either.

Greg


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Ocean pastures, clouds, and salmon

[Greg Rau]

Could you provide a citation for the established link?
Thanks,
Greg

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There's an established link between SRM and CDR, via increasing ocean 
> acidification by dissolution. 
> 
> MCB would seem to be more directly effective than SRM, as nearly 100pc of its 
> effects go into cooling the ocean surface and lower Tropospheric air over the 
> ocean. 
> 
> Has anyone modelled this? If not, can someone please put it on their "to do' 
> list? 
> 
> A
> 
>> On 5 Jul 2017 06:22, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Greg, cc list:
>> 
>>  1.   Thanks for alerting us on 1 July to the cloudiness-CDR-related 
>> message found at the Russ George website  
>> (http://russgeorge.net/2017/07/01/greatest-uncertainty-in-climate-change-models-is-diminishing-cloudiness/
>>   ).   I hope others can chime in on the validity of the strong relationship 
>> George asserts between phytoplankton and clouds.  Is this as important as 
>> the much discussed SRM option involving ships spraying salt particles to 
>> help form clouds?
>> 
>>  2.  Your brief cite from Russ George refers to “a new paper” - which 
>> (free and 9 pages) can be found at 
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000601/epdf, entitled:  
>>“Could geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest questions 
>> in climate science?”
>>  with first author Robert Wood.  The “biggest question” is of course 
>> related to cloud formation as stated in your quote below from Russ George.  
>>  
>>  3.  I was amazed at the many messages at the George site that relate to 
>> geoengineering and this cloud topic  (and NOT to Russ George’s fame with  
>> OIF = Ocean Iron Fertilization).   Examples of cites that I found relating 
>> to this cloud-plankton topic:
>>  
>> a.   
>> https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/geoengineering/Wood_Ackerman_CLIMATICCHANGE_2013.pdf
>>(A predecessor to the above “biggest question” paper.
>> 
>> b.   
>> https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034/Microalgae-The-Potential-for-Carbon-Capture
>>A 2010 article by Sayre (recommended by Russ George):  
>> 
>> c.  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/clouds-plankton  a 
>> short free 2014 more non-technical contribution on the sulfur aspects.
>> 
>> d.James Lovelock in a later book ‘The Revenge of Gaia’ in 2006, refers 
>> to his Anti-CLAW Hypothesis.  CLAW comes from four last names - with L for 
>> Lovelock. This shows that this is not a new topic.  I hope some on the 
>> list with a real background (I have none) can give other opinions on how 
>> seriously we should take Mr.  George’s views on plankton-clouds-climate (as 
>> opposed to plankton and increased salmon production).
>> 
>>  4.  I suspect there could be a biochar side to this cloud aspect of 
>> ocean biomass - and possibly even to phytoplankton.  I suspect you have 
>> probably given us this cite to agree with Ross George that the geo aspect 
>> deserves study.  I am not expecting you or anyone on this list to agree that 
>> this should promote biochar.  In fact, his emphasis on missing dust would 
>> say that biochar’s emphasis on increased “green-ness” is evidence that 
>> biochar should make less dust most likely.   But I can also argue that 
>> biochar from ocean biomass (placed on land, not in the ocean) could/might 
>> more than offset the “dust-free” negative aspect of land-based biochar.   Of 
>> course it opens the possibility of a much larger supply than available from 
>> the 28 % of the earth’s surface NOT ocean.
>> 
>>  5.   I also found the George message comparing the Sustainable 
>> Development Goals (SDGs)  #14 (oceans) and #15 (land) to be particularly 
>> disturbing from a combined CDR/SRM perspective.  Mr.  George is particularly 
>> upset about the UN system doing too little with #14 (oceans).   I believe 
>> you agree - and could be (?)  the reason for your message below.   This 
>> concern about SDG #14 (brand new to me) is on much more than this 
>> relationship between plankton and clouds - and could be worth considerable 
>> discussion by this list - as CDR might look more possible with a bigger 
>> supply. So this is a very separate reason for thanking you for your 1 July 
>> message below. I’ll send more on only this in the AM.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 1, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sb

[geo] Putting the Genie Back by David Hone

[Greg Rau]

Apologies if this has already been posted:
http://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/?k=9781787144484



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, Ron.  I see neither of us have been distracted by 4th of July 
festivities, and neither has global warming.
Anyway, to quote the paper:"Roman marine concrete structures, composed of a 
volcanic ash-hydrated lime mortar that binds conglomeratic tuff or carbonate 
rock aggregate (caementa), have remained intact and coherent for 2000 yr, 
either fully immersed in seawater or partially immersed in shoreline 
environments (Brandon et al. 2014)."
Hydrated lime means: CaO +H2O ---> Ca(OH)2, the CaO coming from CaCO3+ high 
heat ---> CaO + CO2 and where wood + O2 + combustion ---> high heat + CO2. 
Admittedly the Roman's use of wood for heat would make this in theory less CO2 
emissions intensive than our fossil fuel + O2 + combustion ---> high heat + CO2 
used in modern cement production, but we now have to save our forests for BECCS 
or biochar  ;-)  .  In fact, how about a serious CDR plus CO2 emissions 
reduction effort to prevent the globe from warming and to keep sea level from 
rising so we don't have to employ energy-intensive Roman concrete to save the 
few coastal cities that could afford it?  

Greg



  From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
 To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 3:40 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers
   
Greg and List:
 The Washington Post is reporting on a July (Non-fee) paper at 
http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435.  First author Marie 
Jackson at the University of Utah.  Title:  “Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite 
mineral cements produced through low-temperature water-rock reactions in Roman 
marine concrete”

 It appears (I’ve only skimmed the paper) that CO2 was not being produced in 
this ancient (and not previously understood) form of cement.  The particles 
being cemented together were apparently carbonates - but no CDR action possible 
there.   This ancient “lost” Roman cement itself is a complicated silicate that 
grows after casting the concrete.   Apparently some considerable exothermic 
heat involved.  
 I have read about cements that are carbon-negative.   But I am sympathetic 
with your assertion that we don’t want to build sea-walls with ordinary cement. 
 The importance of this paper presumably is in having an approach that avoids 
some of your (and my) CO2-producing concern.  This cement is strong enough to 
not need iron re-bars - and so can be long-lived. However, there are sure to be 
unacceptable costs even with this “non-CO2” approach.  Better to have a 
CDR/NET/GGR approach that can (slowly) get sea level rise to reverse and not 
require trillions of dollars for sea walls.
 I have a response in process on your 1 July note re Russ George - which note I 
took to be supportive of CDR/NET/GGR (and I agree).  Thanks for that alert.
Ron


On Jul 4, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/04/ancient-romans-made-worlds-most-durable-concrete-we-might-use-it-to-stop-rising-seas/?utm_term=.4bfb83d2fed2=nl_most-draw14=1

GR - Use high CO2 emissions concrete to build sea walls to counter sea level 
rise caused by high CO2 emissions? But just think of the jobs creation. The 
gift that keeps on giving.

Sent from my iPhone

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers

[Greg Rau]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/04/ancient-romans-made-worlds-most-durable-concrete-we-might-use-it-to-stop-rising-seas/?utm_term=.4bfb83d2fed2=nl_most-draw14=1

GR - Use high CO2 emissions concrete to build sea walls to counter sea level 
rise caused by high CO2 emissions? But just think of the jobs creation. The 
gift that keeps on giving.

Sent from my iPhone

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Ocean pastures, clouds, and salmon

[Greg Rau]

Greatest Uncertainty In Climate Change Models Is Diminishing Cloudiness - Russ 
George

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Greatest Uncertainty In Climate Change Models Is Diminishing Cloudiness - R...
 Restoring ocean pastures and their cooling clouds in 10% of the area available 
would offset the warming from a d...  |   |

  |

  |

 

"Climate scientists propose in a new paper published in the widely read open 
source science journal Earth’s Future that by restoring cloudiness to selected 
areas of distant oceans a planetary cooling effect sufficient to offset a 
doubling of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved with as little as a 10% 
increase in cloudiness over pristine open ocean pasture regions.The authors 
note that climate model simulations indicate that regions of extensive marine 
low clouds account for a large portion of the global aerosol driven global 
cooling. They explain that while this may seem counter-intuitive, marine clouds 
in these pristine areas are very susceptible to small changes in aerosols."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Zero emissions by 2040?

[Greg Rau]

http://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201

"...we must remember that impossible is not a fact, it’s an attitude."
How refreshing. Still, just in case attitudes to prove to be impossible to 
change sufficiently, how about at least mentioning the possibility of negative 
emissions? Or is that an attitude problem also?

Greg

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

[Greg Rau]

For some perspective on why we haven't converted ocean deserts to C sinks, see 
these early arguments from some very influential oceanographic 
heavyweightshttp://www.bio.miami.edu/prince/Chisholm.pdf
Ken and I offered an alternative to this "hands off the ocean" view 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5553/275.4.full but to little effect.

Now that we've learned that land biology manipulations aren't going to 
singelhandley save our bacon (or the 
ocean):http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2016EF000469/asset/eft2203.pdf?v=1=j3pbjnzv=8ecb4ce810928afd86afbe71a43e4c644cb0149a
is it time yet to revisit what the other 70% of the Earth's surface and 99% of 
it's livable volume might have to offer? Or shall the false concept of 
preserving a "still pristine" ocean remain the enemy of research into 
potentially planet-saving actions?

Greg


  From: Brian Cady 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 5:17 AM
 Subject: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
   
Perhaps it will help to emphasize the scale of the OIF opportunity. It takes 
energy to fix air's carbon, and sunlight is a most sustainable energy source. 
Much earth-incident sunlight is already used by life on earth, but desert areas 
as well as High Nutrient - Low Chlorophyll ocean (HNLC) areas both have low 
productivity. Deserts cover 10% of earth’s dry land, whileHNLC waters stretch 
across 1/5th of the oceans, Dry land coversnearly 30% of earth, while water 
covers about 70%. 10% of 30% is 3%; 20% of 70% is 14%, 4.8-foldmore, hence, 
opportunities for engaging sunlight energy in carbonreduction in HNLC waters 
may exceed those in deserts. Providing trace iron to HNLC areas may be the 
least expensive carbon fix, and, as Russell Weitz points out, we're already 
doing it unintentionally through ship rusting, as well as through combustion of 
iron-containing fuel in ships, etc. that cross HNLC areas.

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz / Bright Water wrote:
Let me repeat the essence of what I wrote in response to Jeff in Nature-- 
Marine corrosion  results in every  unprotected square meter of a steel ship's 
immersed surface sheding an average of 8 g/m2  or more of iron a year. The 
average laden vessel-  a 30,000 tonne Handymax, has an immersed surface of  
~8,000 m2, and large containerships and tankers run up to 2 hectares each.  so 
each ship may be expected to shed  roughly six to twentty kg a year. As the 
world fleetin service exceeds 10,000 such ships, iron fertilization in the sea 
lanes is already  in the range of 60 to 200 tonnes of iron.. not counting 
smaller but more numerous  craft, many correctly classified as 'rustbuckets, ' 
sunken vessells and iron wharfage and coastal protection.
If as little as  a few %  of  the  immersed  steel has been imperfectly 
maintained ,the 10 tonne  release criterion has been met or exceeded -annually, 
for roughly the last 100 years- 



On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:11:24 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:

https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- 
sparks-controversy-1.22031

Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but 
researchers doubt its motives.   
   - Jeff Tollefson
23 May 2017
Article tools
   
   - PDF
   - Rights & Permissions
Blickwinkel/AlamyPhytoplankton need iron to make energy by 
photosynthesis.Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop 
tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, 
the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it 
wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 
project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium on 
commercial ocean fertilization.The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of 
Vancouver, Canada, says that it is seeking permits from the Chilean government 
to release up to 10 tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of 
Coquimbo as early as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the 
organization grew out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions 
of Vancouver, that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some 
researchers suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an 
unproven and potentially harmful activity.“They claim that by producing more 
phytoplankton, they could help the recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo 
Ulloa, director of the Millennium Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, 
Chile. “We don’t see any evidence to support that claim.”
Related stories
   
   - Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods
   - Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire
   - Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan
More related storiesTensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute 
went public with 

Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

[Greg Rau]

I guess it's reassuring that someone outside of the usual GE suspects is 
reading this stuff (assuming it's not a bot). On the other hand, if 
geoengineringwatch is the only group doing this, that might be concerning.  Are 
you able to find out who else bothered to read this report? Is there  a reason 
to be paranoid? 
Greg

  From: 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering 
 To: "albert_kal...@hotmail.com" ; geoengineering 
 
 Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 10:25 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering 
Researchers...
   
My guess would be that they're monitoring geoengineering research because they 
can't distinguish it from chemtrails spraying, which I think is military 
related spraying in the sky that at some level sounds a lot like aerosol 
spraying in SRM.  Many citizens are extremely concerned (and rightly so!) with 
the health and environmental effects of chemtrail spraying, hence the watchdog 
group monitoring anything and everything they could find related to it.
If a simple keyword in your publication automatically triggered some monitoring 
by their method, then it's not surprising you got onto their watch list.
Maggie

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 12:18 PM, Veli Albert Kallio 
 wrote:
 

  #yiv7757401811 #yiv7757401811 -- P 
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv7757401811 
| 
| 
| Veli Albert Kallio has shared a OneDrive file with you. To view it, click the 
link below. |

 |
| 
|  | Geoengineering Watch Monitoring.pdf |  |

 |

 |

Dear Sirs,
RE: Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers

Although I am just a very peripheral player in geoengineering research, and 
that I have hardly published anything on this particular field, and that it is 
just only couple of times I have posted into this geoengineering group (i.e. 
can you yourself recall me making posts in this group, perhaps ever?). Despite 
all the above it appears that an extensive monitoring operations about my 
communications and publications are now being carried out byGeoengineering 
Watch group - shown here by Academia.edu analysis website: see .pdf of web 
traffic analysis of my site.
 
It was a virtually unrelated article about melting Arctic that related to the 
evidence I was giving at the Houses of Parliament here in the UK, this April 
for Sea Research Society. If you read through 47 pages of my evidence I gave, 
you will come across just one solitary reference, a word 'geoengineering' 
research therein. Nevertheless, this one solitary reference to 'geoengineering 
research' in my Parliament evidence has drawn over dozen geoengineering queries 
byGeoengineering Watch group - an astounding achievement by them in monitoring 
me: 
https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
 
|  | MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April 
2017.docxwww.academia.eduThe draft paper as at 24th April which is being 
amended as the draft for the oral presentation session 5th April 2017 does not 
contain any references and text errors needed corrections. The paper is still 
being worked on with more sections being |

I deliberate here on the possible motivations of "reasons why" and backers of 
those people who so activelymonitor geoengineering researchers that their radar 
captures even mosquitoes like me (unless I have unknowingly become something of 
a geoengineering research giant without really noticing what I had invented)!!!
So what are the 'reasons why' and the backers of those people who are 
attempting to monitor geoengineering researchers and gather information about 
anything and everything even as small as just one solitary word reference to 
geoengineering in a fairly long 47-page Parliamentary evidence document? 
Several possibilities and motivations of these people and other similar groups 
are coming to my mind. These kind of extensive monitoring efforts almost 
certainly point to an indirect organised interests and perhaps utilitarian 
purposes to carry out (help) campaigns against geoengineering research and so 
to monitor the researchers meticulously.

My foremost thought here is that the very idea of someone researching or citing 
about geoengineering - even briefly - implies (indirectly) that there would be 
an evidence about changing climate which then justifies an investment in such a 
research (that threatens the interests of the patrons of the campaigns against 
geoengineering research). So, if geoengineering research can be refuted 
(killed), it means that there is also neither climate change and so no need to 
mitigate any such a climate change. Thus, by killing geoengineering research, 
"the Plan B", this would also kill all argument for any climate change 
happening in the first place.

According to BBC, during his election campaign, Donald Trump stated recently 
that 

Re: [geo] #WhatIsDAC?

[Greg Rau]

I don't follow. If I have an industrial process that reacts crushed rock with 
air CO2 to make and store dissolved or solid (bi)carbonate, I have directly 
captured CO2 from air. If I plant a tree seed and it grows into a tree I have 
directly captured CO2 from air to make biomass.  Yet neither of these examples 
appear in DAC literature. To qualify as DAC it apparently must be abiotic and 
it must result in concentrated molecular CO2 as the end product (but there are 
usually other intermediate C compounds formed and reacted to make conc CO2). Of 
course you can then feed this to rocks, plants or chemical synthesis to make 
whatever C compound you want, but it still has a DAC front end. My question is: 
Why do this if you can more cheaply coax rocks, plants and/or chemistry to 
directly capture air CO2 and process and store it in other C forms, avoiding 
the thermodynamically costly CO2 concentration step? Unless, of course, there 
is a hot market or credit for concentrated CO2 that can offset the cost.Greg
  From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
 To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Christophe Jospe 
<christophejo...@gmail.com>
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] #WhatIsDAC?
   
Indirect air capture would be when the industrial process doesn't capture CO2, 
eg crushing rock, planting seeds, etc. 
A
On 25 May 2017 01:25, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In more that 140 characters:  Direct Air Capture has come to mean any abiotic 
method of removing CO2 from air in which the end product is concentrated CO2.  
It is not an accurate term because any method of capturing CO2 from air is 
direct removal - a photosynthesizing plant cell, a pan of concentrated NaOH, a 
weathering rock. Or please define for me what Indirect Air Capture is.  ;-)Greg

  From: Christophe Jospe <christophejo...@gmail.com>
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups. com 
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:03 PM
 Subject: [geo] #WhatIsDAC?
  
Hi Group, 
I'd like to try a social online experiment with this group (against my better 
judgement of not wanting to be pigeon-holed into advocating for one specific 
geoengineering solution). Sure, it's in part self-motivated because I just 
published an article entitled "what is direct air capture? (part 1)" and I plan 
on continuing to answer that question in future posts. I always like it when 
more people read what I have to say. However, I would much rather increase the 
number of people who are asking that question, irrespective of any online 
recognition, and pull out of the wood work others who are well positioned to 
answer that question. 
My personal viewpoint is that direct air capture is NOT a silver bullet to 
solving climate change, nor something that will necessarily work at scale, nor 
is better positioned than any of the other many concepts presented in this 
group. During the few short years when I was working inside that industry for 
the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, I gathered a lot of anecdotal 
information and now feel compelled to get it out through the blogging section 
on my website. I do think that as an "out there" technology, the approach 
provides a unique hook for people who are just beginning to think about carbon 
dioxide removal - or geoengineering more broadly and can expand the number of 
people who want to engage with this community. 
I started a hashtag #WhatIsDAC on twitter. If you have positive, negative, or 
inquistive feelings about the topic - please express them in 140 characters. 
Let's collectively see where it goes! 
Christophe 
-- 
Christophe Jospe
LinkedIn
-- 
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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.


   -- 
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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/

[geo] More Ocean Iron Dumping

[Greg Rau]

https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031

"The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that it is 
seeking permits from the Chilean government to release up to 10 tonnes of iron 
particles 130 kilometres off the coast of Coquimbo as early as 2018. But 
Chilean scientists are worried because the organization grew out of a 
for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions of Vancouver, that has 
sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some researchers suspect that 
the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an unproven and potentially 
harmful activity."
GR - Hmmm, haven't more than a few companies profited from fertilizing land 
biology, and haven't more than a few billion people benefited from the food 
produced?  Where's the outrage here? 
"The Oceaneos foundation, …..has accused the scientists of improperly 
classifying its work as geoengineering, rather than ocean restoration. Oceaneos 
president Michael Riedijk says that his team wants to work with Chilean 
scientists and will make all the data from its experiment public. The 
foundation plans to hold its own forum later, but if scientists aren’t willing 
to engage, he says, “we’ll just move on without them”.
GR - Given present circumstances, any herculean attempt at supporting 7+B 
people on Earth and/or restoring Earth to it's former glory would seem to fall 
in the realm of "geoengineering", so shouldn't we investigate ways of doing 
this as safely and sustainably as possible? Why is 70% of the Earth's surface 
necessarily off limits in this effort?  Iron fertilization may be a bad idea, 
but it would seem important to find out for sure, together with a lot of other 
ideas for managing the ocean and 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] #WhatIsDAC?

[Greg Rau]

In more that 140 characters:  Direct Air Capture has come to mean any abiotic 
method of removing CO2 from air in which the end product is concentrated CO2.  
It is not an accurate term because any method of capturing CO2 from air is 
direct removal - a photosynthesizing plant cell, a pan of concentrated NaOH, a 
weathering rock. Or please define for me what Indirect Air Capture is.  ;-)Greg

  From: Christophe Jospe 
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:03 PM
 Subject: [geo] #WhatIsDAC?
   
Hi Group, 
I'd like to try a social online experiment with this group (against my better 
judgement of not wanting to be pigeon-holed into advocating for one specific 
geoengineering solution). Sure, it's in part self-motivated because I just 
published an article entitled "what is direct air capture? (part 1)" and I plan 
on continuing to answer that question in future posts. I always like it when 
more people read what I have to say. However, I would much rather increase the 
number of people who are asking that question, irrespective of any online 
recognition, and pull out of the wood work others who are well positioned to 
answer that question. 
My personal viewpoint is that direct air capture is NOT a silver bullet to 
solving climate change, nor something that will necessarily work at scale, nor 
is better positioned than any of the other many concepts presented in this 
group. During the few short years when I was working inside that industry for 
the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, I gathered a lot of anecdotal 
information and now feel compelled to get it out through the blogging section 
on my website. I do think that as an "out there" technology, the approach 
provides a unique hook for people who are just beginning to think about carbon 
dioxide removal - or geoengineering more broadly and can expand the number of 
people who want to engage with this community. 
I started a hashtag #WhatIsDAC on twitter. If you have positive, negative, or 
inquistive feelings about the topic - please express them in 140 characters. 
Let's collectively see where it goes! 
Christophe 
-- 
Christophe Jospe
LinkedIn
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fw: Webinar Tomorrow: A briefing and discussion on solar geoengineering: science, ethics and governance

[Greg Rau]

Webinar Tomorrow: A briefing and discussion on solar geoengineering: science, 
ethics and governance#yiv8264911530 p{margin:10px 0;padding:0;}#yiv8264911530 
table{border-collapse:collapse;}#yiv8264911530 h1, #yiv8264911530 h2, 
#yiv8264911530 h3, #yiv8264911530 h4, #yiv8264911530 h5, #yiv8264911530 
h6{display:block;margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv8264911530 img, #yiv8264911530 a 
img{border:0;height:auto;outline:none;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8264911530 
body, #yiv8264911530 #yiv8264911530bodyTable, #yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530bodyCell{height:100%;margin:0;padding:0;width:100%;}#yiv8264911530
 #yiv8264911530outlook a{padding:0;}#yiv8264911530 img{}#yiv8264911530 
table{}#yiv8264911530 .yiv8264911530ReadMsgBody{width:100%;}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530ExternalClass{width:100%;}#yiv8264911530 p, #yiv8264911530 a, 
#yiv8264911530 li, #yiv8264911530 td, #yiv8264911530 blockquote{}#yiv8264911530 
a .yiv8264911530filtered9 , #yiv8264911530 a .yiv8264911530filtered9 
{color:inherit;cursor:default;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8264911530 p, 
#yiv8264911530 a, #yiv8264911530 li, #yiv8264911530 td, #yiv8264911530 body, 
#yiv8264911530 table, #yiv8264911530 blockquote{}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530ExternalClass, #yiv8264911530 .yiv8264911530ExternalClass p, 
#yiv8264911530 .yiv8264911530ExternalClass td, #yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530ExternalClass div, #yiv8264911530 .yiv8264911530ExternalClass 
span, #yiv8264911530 .yiv8264911530ExternalClass 
font{line-height:100%;}#yiv8264911530 a .yiv8264911530filtered9 
{color:inherit;text-decoration:none;font-size:inherit 
!important;font-family:inherit 
!important;font-weight:inherit;line-height:inherit !important;}#yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530bodyCell{padding:10px;}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530templateContainer{max-width:600px !important;}#yiv8264911530 
a.yiv8264911530mcnButton{display:block;}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530mcnImage{vertical-align:bottom;}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530mcnTextContent{}#yiv8264911530 .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent 
img{height:auto !important;}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530mcnDividerBlock{table-layout:fixed;}#yiv8264911530 body, 
#yiv8264911530 #yiv8264911530bodyTable{background-color:#FAFAFA;}#yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530bodyCell{border-top:0;}#yiv8264911530 
.yiv8264911530templateContainer{border:0;}#yiv8264911530 
h1{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:26px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 
h2{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:22px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 
h3{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:20px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 
h4{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 
#yiv8264911530templatePreheader{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv8264911530
 #yiv8264911530templatePreheader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent, #yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templatePreheader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent 
p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 #yiv8264911530templatePreheader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent a, #yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templatePreheader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent p 
a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templateHeader{background-color:#FF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:0;}#yiv8264911530
 #yiv8264911530templateHeader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent, #yiv8264911530  
#yiv8264911530templateHeader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent 
p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 #yiv8264911530templateHeader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent a, #yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templateHeader .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent p 
a{color:#2BAADF;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templateBody{background-color:#FF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:2px
 solid #EAEAEA;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templateBody .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent, #yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templateBody .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent 
p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv8264911530
 #yiv8264911530templateBody .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent a, #yiv8264911530 
#yiv8264911530templateBody .yiv8264911530mcnTextContent p 

[geo] "Alaska's thawing soils are unleashing a crapload of CO2"

[Greg Rau]

http://www.sciencealert.com/alaska-s-thawing-soils-are-now-pouring-carbon-dioxide-into-the-air?

"The study, based on aircraft measurements of carbon dioxide and methane and 
tower measurements from Barrow, Alaska, found that from 2012 through 2014, the 
state emitted the equivalent of 220 million tons of carbon dioxide gas into the 
atmosphere from biological sources (the figure excludes fossil fuel burning and 
wildfires).

That's an amount comparable to all the emissions from the US commercial sector 
in a single year.

The chief reason for the greater CO2 release was that as Alaska has warmed up, 
emissions from once frozen tundra in winter are increasing - presumably because 
the ground is not refreezing as quickly."

GR Now what? Sit in a circle and hold hands, or get to work to find what (if 
any) options we've got? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Greg Rau]

Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:
"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,and 
intergenerational implications of geoengineering, theglobal community should 
first and foremost debate theseaspects, before allowing the development of 
tools that aclimate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”could 
use, even if all other governments would conclude it istoo risky and unfair to 
use. Geoengineering can never beconfined to a technical discussion, a matter of 
“developingtools, just in case” or confined just to a climate 
perspective.Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBDdecision – be 
focused on socio-political, ecological, ethicalquestions and potential impacts 
and contribute to a debateabout whether democratic governance of geoengineering 
isever possible, and how. And even more important: fundingand research on 
climate change needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of 
proven and locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to 
theclimate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for 
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that 
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from 
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned): 
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf

Then there is this curious statement: "fundingand research on climate change 
needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of proven and 
locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to theclimate crisis – 
not speculative and distracting technofixes."
Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be 
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding 
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted 
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet 
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time 
required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For 
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for 
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems? 
Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why 
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas without 
having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
Greg



  From: Stephen Salter 
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
   
 Hi all It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why 
putting sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the 
good old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the 
size distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help 
asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may be 
able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the climate 
conference budget. ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers. Stephen
  On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
  
 
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some 
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a 
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would be 
like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they might 
allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.  
  The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative side 
effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant benefits), and 
that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen* the depravity rather 
than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that valorizes self-deprivation and 
self-flaggelation is at work here, but that isn't my field. 
  Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that this 
orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any scrutiny since 
countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of dentistry and