Mark, Greg, Andrew, List
Yes to such a group. I offer a motion that you should be the moderator -
and hope I have a second.
In biochar circles, there is a search for a word to replace “negative” - as
not sending as positive a message as we would like. Maybe need some discussion
on the “NegCarbon” name. Some group has started to use GGR = Greenhouse Gas
Removal - a little broader than CDR. But I am comfortable enough with CDR. I
would love to see the “Neg” concept, just not the word “Negative”.
I still see no (early easy) way to remove CDR (or NET or GGR) from the
definition of “Geoengineering”. I’d rather see biochar (speaking off the
record for only one CDR approach) being discussed on this list than not. See
also below.
Ron
On Jan 17, 2014, at 10:25 AM, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote:
> Andrew, Greg, Ron,
>
> Any of you game to start a "negcar...@googlegroups.com”?
[RWL: See above.]
>
> It appears we need to create a firewall (canyon, mountain, ocean, big
> obstacle) between "geo- and climate-engineering" and CDR, Negative Carbon
> Technologies, or whatever we call them. We don't want people hearing or
> seeing mentions of CDR in the same paragraph with climate-engineering (the
> SRM, clouds, mirrors, OIF, etc.)
[RWL: I’m torn. I don/t mind seeing them together. What really bothers
me is use of the term “geoengineering” when what is meant is SRM. David Keith
does that, but he warns people in the opening of his book, so that is OK. In
that book, but I think it still would be better to always be clear on what is
being discussed. Yesterday’s discussion of the Reuter article is a case in
point. I don’t see how we can promote CDR without having a comparison with
SRM - in quantitative terms.
>
> Better if most mentions of NegCarbon are in paragraphs and articles
> discussing mitigation or adaptation.
[RWL: Hmm. I guess I understand your point. CDR/GGR is in addition to,
not either/or. But I would add SRM as well to mitigation and adaptation as a
“better".
>
> On our part, concerning any mention of any CDR, we should do as my mom would
> say about gossip: "Don't say anything, unless you can say something nice."
> That might be BECCS with geologic storage of CO2, or biochar, or Ocean
> Forests with some silicate mineral storage of bio-CO2 and BECCS geologic
> storage of the combusted bio-CH4.
[RWL: Totally agree. I hope I have never suggested any CDR/GGR approach
should be off the list.
>
> There is plenty of CO2 to go around. "Mistakes" that are discovered after a
> few billion tons of CO2 are stored with a certain technology will not affect
> the big picture. We take the Campbell Soup approach. Campbell Soup
> advertised "Soup is good food" even though that slogan increased sales of
> competitors canned soups.
[RWL: I think that is the norm in most industries; can we think of any
(large scale) exception?
Ron
>
> Mark
>
> Mark E. Capron, PE
> Ventura, California
> www.PODenergy.org
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> Date: Thu, January 16, 2014 10:29 pm
> To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>
> Greg and list:
>
> Three points:
>
> a. My interpretation of the Reuters news today (repeated below) was that it
> was only about CDR. I didn’t catch a statement there (and I’ve looked) about
> SRM. Gore is primarily talking SRM. In several books he speaks favorable
> about biochar (and maybe other CDR - probably afforestation)
>
> b. The article by Query had a graphic that apparently came from Climate
> Central. They need to update it to be in accord with Mr. Gore’s views.
>
> c. We have the same continuing problem of not knowing who means what when
> they use the term “geoengineering.”
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Al Gore weighs in on the IPCC's new change of heart: Geoengineering
>> 'Insane, Utterly Mad and Delusional'.
>> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/16
>> Don't sugar coat it, Al. On the other hand Nature will perform her own
>> geoengineering over the next 100 kyrs in consuming all of the CO2 we end up
>> emitting. How delusional is it to think we might able to "engineer" a
>> speedup of this process and alleviate at least some of the suffering in the
>> interim? Call me mad, but considering how well cap and trade, the Kyoto
>> Protocol, and the COP process have gone, it would seem rather reckless to
>> dismiss the possibility/necessity of post-emissions remediation of the CO2
>> problem without further study.
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> From: "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov>
>> To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:18 AM
>> Subject: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered
>>
>> This is apparently from the upcoming IPCC Mitigation volume, or something
>> else? CDRer's mount up?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html
>>
>> Sucking CO2 from atmosphere may be only way to meet climate goals, UN report
>> says
>>
>> Published: January 16, 2014 - 5:51AM
>> Advertisement
>> Governments may have to extract vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the
>> air by 2100 to achieve a target for limiting global warming, backed by
>> trillion-dollar shifts towards clean energy, a draft U.N. report showed on
>> Wednesday.
>>
>> A 29-page summary for policymakers, seen by Reuters, says most scenarios
>> show that rising world emissions will have to plunge by 40 to 70 per cent
>> between 2010 and 2050 to give a good chance of restricting warming to U.N.
>> targets.
>>
>> The report, outlining solutions to climate change, is due to be published in
>> Germany in April after editing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> Change (IPCC). It will be the third in a series by the IPCC, updating
>> science from 2007.
>>
>> It says the world is doing too little to achieve a goal agreed in 2010 of
>> limiting warming to below 2 degrees above pre-industrial times, seen as a
>> threshold for dangerous floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.
>>
>> To get on track, governments may have to turn ever more to technologies for
>> "carbon dioxide removal" (CDR) from the air, ranging from capturing and
>> burying emissions from coal-fired power plants to planting more forests that
>> use carbon to grow.
>>
>> Most projects for capturing carbon dioxide from power plants are
>> experimental. Among big projects, Saskatchewan Power in Canada is
>> overhauling its Boundary Dam power plant to capture a million tonnes of
>> carbon dioxide a year.
>>
>> And, if the world overshoots concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
>> atmosphere consistent with the 2C goal, most scenarios for getting back on
>> track "deploy CDRtechnologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide
>> emissions become negative" before 2100, it says.
>>
>> Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C since the Industrial Revolution.
>>
>> Bioenergy
>>
>> To limit warming, the report estimates the world would have to invest an
>> extra $US147 billion ($164 billion) a year in low-carbon energies, such as
>> wind, solar or nuclear power from 2010 to 2029.
>>
>> At the same time, investments in fossil fuel energy would have to be reduced
>> by $US30 billion annually. And several hundred billion dollars a year would
>> have to go on energy efficiency in major sectors such as transport,
>> buildings and industry.
>>
>> By contrast, it said that global annual investments in the energy system are
>> now about $US1.2 trillion.
>>
>> And it says there are huge opportunities for cleaning up, for instance by
>> building cities that use less energy for a rising world population. "Most of
>> the world's urban areas have yet to be constructed," it says.
>>
>> Overall, the report estimates that the costs of combating global warming
>> would reduce global consumption of goods and services by between 1 and 4 per
>> cent in 2030, 2-6 per cent in 2050 and 2-12 per cent in 2100, compared to no
>> action.
>>
>> The IPCC said in September that it is at least 95 per cent probable that
>> human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause
>> of global warming since the 1950s, up from 90 per cent in a 2007 assessment.
>>
>> The world has agreed to work out a global U.N. deal by the end of 2015,
>> entering into force from 2020, to fight climate change. But progress has
>> been sluggish.
>>
>> "Global greenhouse gases have risen more rapidly between 2000 and 2010," the
>> draft says, with greater reliance on coal than in previous decades. China,
>> the United States and the European Union are the top emitters.
>>
>> The IPCC cautioned that the findings in the draft, dated Dec. 17, were
>> subject to change. "This is a work in progress which will be discussed and
>> revised in April," said Jonathan Lynn, spokesman for the IPCC in Geneva.
>>
>> The report adds many details to earlier drafts. The IPCC's credibility
>> suffered in 2007 after one of its reports wrongly said that Himalayan
>> glaciers could all melt by 2035, centuries earlier than experts reckon.
>>
>> The draft says that only the most radical curbs outlined in an IPCC report
>> in September would give a better than 66 per cent chance of keeping
>> temperature rises below 2C. The scenario corresponds to greenhouse gas
>> concentrations of 430 to 480 parts per million in the atmosphere - up from
>> about 400 now.
>>
>> Reuters
>> This story was found at:
>> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
