The inclusion of the word "only" renders Josh's statement false: In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year climate benefits.
Biomass energy combined with carbon capture and geologic storage (BECC) is a CDR approach that could also provide energy and "out-year" climate benefits. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Josh: > > I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal > (CDR) myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the report. > Thanks for pointing that paragraph out. > > Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad nauseum > - with apologies) that the word Geoengineering should be replaced by Solar > Radiation Management (SRM) when the latter is all that is being discussed. > > > CDR and SRM have a few things in common - but they are very different. > In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than > requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year > climate benefits. When Jim Hansen proposes 100 GtC of a new forestry carbon > sink - I believe he is thinking much more of mitigation than of > Geoengineering. To repeat, Biochar can couple exceedingly well with this > new sink (and how to pay for either has not been established). I think this > list would benefit from a discussion of whether planting a new 100GtC of > forest is Geoenegineering. > > Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> > To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:35:03 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: Vatican Report > > Ron, > > Note the following on p. 4: "Nations should also avoid removal of > carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon > sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop > and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the > atmosphere." > > I would also be interested in learning more about the working group > dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance. > > Josh Horton > joshuahorton...@gmail.com > > > On May 7, 7:03 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: > > Prof. Robock (with ccs) > > > > 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a > report (" Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene"), where you are > listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable athttp:// > www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/... > > > > 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be > influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow > co-authors (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering. > More specifically can you say anything on the differences discussed between > CDR and SRM? The first Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest > that Biochar (clearly a CDR technique) should not be considered a > "Mitigation" measure (which I consider it to be) > > > > 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent > just before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct > parts (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can > you explain why this discrepancy? > > > > 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has > (for the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 > gigatons carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I > believe qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for > Biochar. Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing this > substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr.. > Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop. > .. > > > > Ron > > > > (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short > that I include it all here) > > > > Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are > Required > > > > Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are > many questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, > and of the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before > geoengineering could be responsibly considered. There has not been a > dedicated international assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a > broadly representative, multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the > highest standards, based for example on the IPCC model. The foundation for > such an assessment has to be much broader with deeper scientific study than > there has been a chance to carry out thus far. > > > > It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and > catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and > adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of > geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus > decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be > developed before any action can be taken. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
