Unclear on the statement “only Biochar ...provides rather than requires
energy...” Unless I’m missing something biochar requires massive solar energy
input, meaning massive land (and/or ocean?) area management, and probably water
and nutrient management as well (additional energy requirements?). True, some
useable stored solar energy could be syphoned off in the pyrolysis process, but
partial energy recovery is also part of some abiotic CRD approaches (House et
al 2007. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 8464–8470; Rau 2008. Environ. Sci. Technol.
42: 8935–8940). We need a forum (beyond this googlegroup) wherein CRD ideas
can be openly solicited, clearly described, and fairly evaluated (at least on
paper). Having national/international policies that would be supportive of
such efforts wouldn’t hurt either.
-Greg
On 5/8/11 11:23 AM, "rongretlar...@comcast.net" <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.
