Greg, John, List
1. Starting with John Nissen’s message (below) today - I have tried
unsuccessfully for some time to learn details on the recent French soil
+0.4%C/yr carbon goal. This is apparently meant to be the centerpiece of
their hosting COP21 in Paris - and should be good news to all CDR advocates.
I think this goal could eventually help biochar (I think the main CDR approach
involving soils), but does not have that intent as its origin.
2. I agree with Greg that the CDR story is missing out by not
mentioning ocean photosynthesis more often. Greg is talking here of a CO2
concentration scenario like 400 ppm to 350 ppm - NOT 450 ppm to 350 ppm (with
212 Gt C involved for his scenario). I believe Greg is saying even the
relatively modest 50 ppm gain is still a lot of carbon. Some bio advocates
may see this C or CO2 staying in the ocean, but biochar advocates and the
French are thinking of this going into soils (as perhaps 250 Gt Char, since
char is only about 80% carbon and/or some portion is labile).
3. My part of the biochar world has been buzzing this past week about
a report of 300% increase in pumpkin growth in Nepal with biochar and urine.
This particular study has negative sequestration costs - and I think can be
(and is being) repeated at still negative cost levels for other species, soils
and locales. See www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/3/723/pdf.
This file opens no-fee for me - but if not for others, I can send. I
can also send several lengthy exchanges with the author Hans-Peter Schmidt - on
the “biochar” list last week.
If indeed sequestration can now be better than free - CDR can move very
rapidly - with 350 ppm in sight by mid-century. Stranger things have happened.
Two weeks ago, I would not have said this- but 300% difference is remarkable -
and the char input was tiny. We’re learning.
Ron
On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Agree that this is a positive development, but Hansen and 350.org have been
> advocating bio CDR for a long time, just not packaging it in those terms. If
> 350 is the magic number, then obviously, emissions reduction will take too
> long to get there. Somehow the discussion then immediately turns to land
> biology- BECCS, afforestation, soil C retention, biochar, etc. as though
> using only 30% of the (already overexploited) Earth's surface is the best and
> only way to remove 50 ppm from air and 50 ppm from ocean = 780 Gt of CO2, and
> assuming we stop emitting fossil fuel CO2 tomorrow. I'd like to learn how we
> force land biology to singlehandedly achieve this, while also feeding and
> watering the world. Given what's at stake, I'd say a broader consideration of
> possibilities that includes the other 70% of the globe is required. In any
> case you can be sure that since the IPCC "solved" the CDR problem with BECCS
> and afforestation, that COP 21 will do the same, though
> the target IPCC/COP are shooting for guarantee a world and climate that bears
> little resemblance to that with 350 ppm CO2.
> Greg
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 9/15/15, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Subject: [geo] COP21 and French strategy for CDR
> To: "Geoengineering" <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: "Ron Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 2:50 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
> This French project, announced in April [1], is the
> most important
> development on CDR (carbon dioxide removal) that I
> have ever read,
> despite no mention of biochar. What prompted
> this brilliant
> idea? Could such projects be urged for all
> countries, to
> complement pledges for emissions reductions at
> COP21? Then there
> might be real progress towards reducing the CO2 level
> to 350 ppm
> or below, which Jim Hansen urges for preventing
> dangerous global
> warming and ocean acidification and other effects
> [2]. Speed is
> essential to prevent dangerous ocean acidification
> which is
> already serious at 400 ppm, so 350 ppm may need to be
> reached
> within two or three decades. This sets the
> urgency for an
> aggressive international CDR strategy. An ideal
> place to announce
> such a strategy would be COP21!
>
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
> [1] http://frenchfoodintheus.org/2285
>
> [2] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
>
>
> <snip>
--
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/d/optout.
