List - with ccs to Greg and others (including at ETC) I write mainly to bring the CDR technologies into our discussion about ETC's views. I hope the following will also be considered as an input into the ethics/philosophy discussion that is taking place simultaneously on this list. I view the immediate support for biochar implementation (more than experimentation, which is occurring in hundreds of locations today, mostly for postive ethical reasons) as something for philosophers to support, rather than question. CDR directly attacks the acknowledged root problem, which will not be solved without action. Why have we seen so little support from Philosophers for activities that remove atmospheric carbon? Are there differences for biochar, which [essentially alone] a) supplies needed renewable (not fossil) energy (both biopower and biofuels), b) provides benefits for at least centuries (is an investment, not a cost), and c) provides positive benefits much wider than the direct sequestration impact (ie reduced fertilizer and irrigation needs, reduced N2O and CH4 release, replacement of needed nutrients, rural economic development, improved food supply and biodiversity, jobs, etc, etc).
Below I add my rebuttals to the list of seven (all negative) characteristics that Greg has kindly provided as the nub of the ETC anti-geoengineering report. I should note that ETC has itself barely analyzed biochar, instead relying on BFW, whose slanted views are usually what we see re biochar for all the seven reasons given below. I welcome debate, especially from ETC and BFW, on what I have written. See 7 inserts below, all in bold, preceded by my initials. ----- Original Message ----- From: "RAU greg" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> To: "andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Cc: di...@etcgroup.org???, moo...@etcgroup.org Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:35:56 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth A more direct link here: http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? 1. It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible. RWL1: Biochar testing experiments are taking place in many dozens of countries. They are delivering valuable "data on climate effects". The biochar impacts are predominantly positive and locally, if not yet globally, "massive". ETC score #1 here re biochar is an "F". 2. It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more vulnerable states or peoples in mind. There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32). 228 Development Dialogue September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and Equity RWL2 : B iochar maybe even favors developing countries (which have so ils need ing biochar - a s well as the potential for much larger food and biomas s harvests ). I agree with the first sentence, but not the second, nor much in the " Piracy citation". ETC's score # 2 here re biochar is a "D". 3. It is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to manipulate Earth ecosystems RWL3. ETC is talking here only of a few SRM approaches that might be considered cheap (although they say in the text that they are talking of CDR as well as SRM). There is nothing unilateral about biochar - some of the world's poorest are doing some of the best work now - and have, beginning thousands of years ago with practice of "Terra Preta". Re ETC 's last sentence, there is zero need to protect biochar from "unilateral" manipulation; biochar is inherently multilateral. ETC's score #3 is D, from a biochar perspect ive . 4. It is risky and unpredictable: The side effects of geoengineered interventions are unknown. Geoengineering could easily have un- intended consequences due to any number of factors: mechanical failure, human error, inadequate understanding of ecosystems and biodiversity and the Earth’s climate, unforeseen natural phenom- ena, irreversibility, or funding lapses RWL4: Certainly there are risks for any biochar application - but most are for the landowner, who can absolutely minimize/eliminate them with appropria te sequential tes ting. The guaranteed undesirable change in albedo can be kept m inimal with subsurface placement and/or the concurrent use of a light color ed rock dust. In most cases, low prod uctivity land w ill be re-energized, add i ng to biodiversity, not diminishing it. And this with a produc ti on of much needed renewable energy and for hundreds if not thousands of out-year returns . Ignoring the need for a tmospheric CO2 removal is itself, to me, an unethical, immoral act. ETC score is F , re biochar. 5. It violates treaties: Many geoengineering techniques have latent military purposes and their deployment would violate the UN Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD), which prohibits the hostile use of environmental modification. RWL5: I can conceive of no b iochar applicat io n that has a military or h ostile potential. I know of no treaty that prohib its long term soil improvement, The ETC score for biochar on this 5th criterion is again an "F". 6. It is the perfect excuse: Geoengineering offers governments an alternative to reducing emissions and protecting biodiversity. Geoengineering research is often seen as a way to ‘buy time’, but it also gives governments justification to delay compensation for damage caused by climate change and to avoid taking action on emissions reduction. RWL6: Biochar is not an "alternative" for either reducing emissions or protecting biodiversity . In fact biochar is much needed as an energy storage mechanism to backup intermittent solar and wind resources. Biochar does not buy time or give justification for any other action. Numerous governments are already endorsing biochar - and none, to my knowledge, have used it as an excuse for anything. I give ETC another D. 7. It commodifies our climate and raises the spectre of climate profiteering: Those who think they have a planetary fix for the climate crisis are already flooding patent offices with patent ap- plications. Should a ‘Plan B’ ever be agreed upon, the prospect of it being privately controlled is terrifying. Serious planet-altering technologies should never be undertaken for commercial profit. If geoengineering is actually a climate emergency back-up plan, then it should not be eligible for carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism or any other offset system. RWL7: I believe this, being last, is the main ETC concern area. Yes, numerous patents have been sought and given - but none can apply to the general biochar concept, which is found everywhere through natural fires, and was practiced in the Amazon and elsewhere for thousands of years. There is zero chance for any single group to control biochar activity. I fail to understand the "climate emergency" argument for excluding any type of geoengineering in the last sentence from receiving carbon credits. The removal of "legacy carbon" cannot be accomplished for free, and we can't wait for natural decay. Another "F" for ETC. I have given 3 "Ds" and 4 "Fs" for the biochar type of CDR. I confess to being an easy grader. I fully support Greg Rau's following comments and thank Andrew for b ri nging this ETC report to list attention. I urge others to grade ETC re their specific favorite SRM or CDR approach. Lumping the dozen or more geoengineering approaches together is irresponsible. I repeat my hope that the Philoso p hy community can address CDR as well as SRM. End of RWL inserts. Ron Unfortunately, the article fails to mention that non-geoengineering approaches to the CO2 problem are failing miserably. To therefore automatically vilify any untested, new technology that might have a positive, global scale impact on this problem would seem to be a little premature and short sighted if not extremely dangerous for the planet considering the lack success by more "acceptable"(?) strategies. -Greg From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, November 16, 2012 5:51:27 PM Subject: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/mooney-pat-et-al-2012-darken-the-sky-and-whiten-the-earth.html Mooney, Pat; Wetter, Kathy Jo; Bronson, Diana (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth. The dangers of geoengineering. In: What Next Forum (Hg.): Climate, Development and Equity. Uppsala (What next?, 3), pp. 210?237. Critical review of CE. -- 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.
