Here's a piece with a coda proposing who should help finance "negative emissions" RD&D:
http://nyti.ms/1Omq9F2 As Documents Show Wider Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 Climate Impacts, a “Take it Back” Proposal By ANDREW C. REVKIN <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/> DECEMBER 22, 2015 8:17 PM December 22, 2015 8:17 pm 3 Comments - Email - Share - Tweet - Save - More Photo [image: <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco";>Documents published</a> by InsideClimate News show that oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute (API) were gauging carbon dioxide's climate impacts decades ago.] Documents published <http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco> by InsideClimate News show that oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute (API) were gauging carbon dioxide's climate impacts decades ago. CreditInsideClimate News Updated, 8:38 p.m. | There are new revelations from the continuing InsideClimate News investigation of what the oil industry knew about the potential climate impacts of carbon dioxide from fuel burning even as it sought delays in related national and international policies. The headline and deck on today’s story neatly summarize the news: Exxon’s oil industry peers knew about climate dangers in the 1970s, too. Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell. Below you can read my proposal for what the industry might do to make the best use of its deep knowledge of carbon dioxide and climate change, along with its scientific and technical capacity. Here’s a snippet from Neela Banerjee’s article, but please read the rest at the link below: The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation’s largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world’s climate far earlier than previously known. The group’s members included senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, and Sohio, according to internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News and interviews with the task force’s former director. [*Read the rest <http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco>* .] My thoughts on the series’ earlier findings are here <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/a-deep-dive-into-what-exxon-knew-about-global-warming-and-when-1978-it-knew-it/> . All of this bolsters a notion I first floated awhile ago on Twitter <https://twitter.com/revkin/status/655726892025294848>, related to a 1978 proposal by an Exxon scientist, Harold N. Weinberg: In a memo to superiors, revealed in InsideClimate’s earlier reporting <http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming>, Weinberg wrote: “What would be more appropriate than for the world’s leading energy company and leading oil company [to] take the lead in trying to define whether a long-term CO2 problem really exists and, if so, what counter measures would be appropriate.” The proposal was not embraced, needless to say. While others pursue investigations <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html> that may or may not bear fruit (but will surely enrich several generations of lawyers), I have an idea for something that could start now. I suggest that Exxon, and perhaps the fossil fuel industry more generally, might help propel a vigorous new burst of research in ways to take back the CO2 added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion at a scale that would matter to the climate system. (Those of us who benefitted from decades of cheap fossil fuels can do our part by supporting boosted federal investments in clean-energy science <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/panels-latest-warming-warning-misses-global-slumber-party-on-energy-research/> and technology development — and, yes, deployment <http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/may/clean-energy-innovation-essential-to-meeting-climate-goals.html> .) After all, the putative trajectories for avoiding dangerous climate change <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/23/world/carbon-pledges.html> that were the centerpiece of discussions and pledges in the Paris climate treaty talks all rely on as-yet-untested massive atmospheric CO2 removal <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/opinion/the-questionable-accounting-behind-the-worlds-carbon-budget.html> sometime late in this century. At the same time, none of the pledges in the Paris agreement are focused on developing the capacity to do anything of that sort in coming decades. That was the “reality gap <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/the-reality-gap-in-the-push-to-close-the-global-warming-emissions-gap-in-paris/>” I wrote about. (The innovation initiatives announced there by the Obama administration <http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060029626> and Bill Gates and others <http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Investing-in-Energy-Innovation> are a great start, but just a start.) Here’s what an Exxon promotional logo <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/12/22/blogs/dotco2takeback/dotco2takeback-jumbo.jpg> might look like once the company embraces this notion: Photo [image: A proposed logo for a possible effort by ExxonMobil to develop the capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.] A proposed logo for a possible effort by ExxonMobil to develop the capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.Credit Andrew C. Revkin In late November, I had an initial email exchange about this notion with Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon’s vice president for public and government affairs. He responded, “We actually have some very interesting/promising work underway in the CO2 capture area,” but couldn’t elaborate at the time. I’m looking forward to hearing more. Here are articles describing the kinds of efforts I’m thinking about — all of which are very different than simply catching and compressing CO2 from smokestacks and pumping it into the ground (a process that remains a pipe dream <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9zHpdkGFtQ> at anything approaching the necessary scale): – “Learning To Love CO2 — Companies and academics seek out profitable pathways to materials made from the unwanted gas” <http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i45/Learning-Love-CO2.html?hootPostID=b2300574e8a8ce31c086064bf80d4907> (Alex Scott, Chemical and Engineering News, Nov. 16, 2015) – “Startups have figured out how to remove carbon from the air. Will anyone pay them to do it?” <http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jul/14/carbon-direct-air-capture-startups-tech-climate> (Marc Gunther, The Guardian, July 14, 2015) – “Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?” <http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/531346/can-sucking-co2-out-of-the-atmosphere-really-work/> (Eli Kintisch, Technology Review, Oct. 7, 2014) I was heartened to see an excellent piece posted by The Conversation on Dec. 12 on the notion of a “CO2 takeback scheme <https://theconversation.com/paris-emissions-cuts-arent-enough-well-have-to-put-carbon-back-in-the-ground-52175> .” The essay is by Myles Allen <http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/people/412>, an Oxford University climatologist who was a leader of research developing a carbon budget <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/science/earth/paris-climate-talks-avoid-scientists-goal-of-carbon-budget.html> as a way to gauge global warming solutions and has since 2013 pressed for intensified work <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/bury-co2-problem-capture-store-carbon> on capturing CO2. Here’s an excerpt and link: To stabilize temperatures at any level, be it 1.5℃, 2℃ or even 3℃, net carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to zero. Most governments, environmental groups and business leaders now understand this. And it is acknowledged, albeit implicitly, in Article 4 of the Paris agreement, which calls for greenhouse emissions to be “balanced” by carbon sinks some time after mid-century. But we’re unlikely to hit “net zero” emissions before temperatures reach 2℃, and even less likely before they reach 1.5℃. Warming is currently at about 1℃ and rising by 0.1℃ every five to ten years. We could slow the warming by reducing emissions, of course. But if we fail to reduce at the required rate – and the inadequate emissions targets indicate this is the intention – then we will be left with no option but to scrub the excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere <https://theconversation.com/cant-we-just-remove-carbon-dioxide-from-the-air-to-fix-climate-change-not-yet-45621> in future. Owners of fossil fuel assets That is why the deal is like a gigantic take-back scheme. The proof lies in what is not said in the Paris agreement. There is no explicit mention of a global carbon budget <http://www.carbonbrief.org/meeting-two-degree-climate-target-means-80-per-cent-of-worlds-coal-is-unburnable-study-says>for instance, which adds up total emissions since the industrial revolution. That is despite the fact that all governments have acknowledged, through theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <http://www.ipcc.ch/>, the reality that stabilising temperatures requires a limit on cumulative CO2 emissions. Certain countries simply cannot accept the suggestion that they may be obliged to leave some of their prized fossil carbon reserves underground. And why should they? We do not need, and nor have we any right, to ban India from using its coal. We simply need to ensure that, by the time global temperatures reach 2℃ (or 1.5℃ if that is what is eventually deemed safe), any company that sells fossil fuels, or any carbon-intensive product like conventional cement, is obliged to take back an equivalent amount of CO2 and dispose of it safely to ensure it doesn’t end up in the atmosphere. [*Read on* <https://theconversation.com/paris-emissions-cuts-arent-enough-well-have-to-put-carbon-back-in-the-ground-52175> .] Addendum, 8:40 p.m. | This story by Bloomberg’s Eric Roston is relevant, as well: “ExxonMobil and Sierra Club Agreed on Climate Policy—and Kept It Secret <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/exxonmobil-and-sierra-club-agreed-on-climate-policy-and-kept-it-secret>. A forgotten accord reached in 2009 may yet have relevance for the future of U.S. climate policy.” On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:39 PM, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Andrew. > > Importantly, increasing the carbon in soil is mentioned in this flyer for > a session at an event in Paris, July 2015. > > > http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/events/Flyer_NegativeEmissionsGeolStorage_10072015.pdf > > "Proposed portfolios of GHG mitigation activities require annual > mitigation rates of 2-10% for pathways leading to lower levels of climate > change by 2100. One set of mitigation activities, currently extensively > discussed, is the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by human intervention > – here called negative emissions. Particularly the production of > sustainable bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) features > strongly in climate stabilization scenarios aiming at keeping warming below > 2°C in the IPCC’s AR5. BECCS combines assumed carbon-neutral bioenergy > (i.e. the same amount of CO2 is stored by biomass feedstock growth as is > released during combustion) with capture of the CO2 produced by biomass > combustion and its subsequent storage in geological repositories. Other > negative emission options include afforestation, direct air capture *and > increases in soil carbon storage*. However, many environmental, > technological, socio-economic and governance issues remain unresolved to > date. This session addresses the negative emissions challenge and the role > of geological storage and presents new work on both limits and > opportunities." > > I have written the following in a letter to the Guardian: > > "COP21 is urged to adopt a 1.5C limit on global warming (Last push in > Paris for 1.5C climate rise cap, Guardian 10 December) with huge > implications rarely mentioned. We are at 1.0C warming already. The only > chance of keeping below 1.5C is by removing vast quantities of CO2 from the > atmosphere over the next few decades, more than matching the quantities > being emitted. Governments must promote not only emissions reduction but > also agricultural practices which put carbon in the soil and improve crop > yields while reducing fertiliser and water requirements. The UK could take > a lead." > > I am, of course, thinking of biochar for raising soil carbon content, but > one can also grow plants with longer roots, etc. Soil improvement will > have to be done on a massive scale to remove the necessary quantities of > carbon from the atmosphere. We need a super-green revolution to keep below > 1.5C, but this will be a huge benefit to many poor countries. > > Cheers, John > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> SCIENTIFIC SESSION REPORTING >> Session Number: 3307 >> Session Title: Negative emissions for climate change stabilization & the >> role of CO2 geological storage >> Session Convener(s): >> S. Fuss, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate >> Change, Berlin - Germany >> I. Czernichowski-Lauriol, CO2GeoNet European Network of Excellence on >> CO2 geological storage - >> BRGM, French geological survey, Orléans - France >> F. Kraxner, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis >> (IIASA), Laxenburg - Austria >> P. Canadell, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric >> Research, Canberra- Australia >> N. Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis >> (IIASA), Laxenburg - Austria >> C. Vincent, CO2GeoNet - BGS (British Geological Survey), Nottingham - >> United Kingdom >> S. Vercelli, CO2GeoNet - URS (Sapienza University of Rome), Rome - >> Italy >> D. Durand, CO2GeoNet – IRIS (International Research Institute of >> Stavanger), Stavanger - Norway >> Name of rapporteur: Sabine Fuss (with input from all participants) >> Email of contact in case of questions (a convener or the rapporteur): >> f...@mcc-berlin.net >> >> 1. What are the session key findings? What are the new lesson(s) learned >> / scientific progress (since AR5 release, if relevant)? >> Negative emissions in the AR5 scenarios are mostly achieved through >> combining carbon-neutral Bioenergy with Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage >> (BECCS), but also through afforestation. Most of the ambitious climate >> stabilization pathways require BECCS already in the middle of the century, >> even though the removed emissions do not outweigh the remaining positive >> emissions at that point, i.e. no net negative emissions. It is not >> surprising that for achieving a 2C target, it is likely that CO2 will need >> to be removed from >> the atmosphere, as we are already at 405ppm, we are late with mitigation >> and some emissions in the food system and our existing infrastructures are >> difficult or even impossible to reduce to zero. >> >> Negative emissions of up to 13.2 GtCO2-eq./yr in 2100 are needed in the >> most recent scenarios of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). This could be >> reached by BECCS, which >> might run into problems as competing for land with other demands, or >> Direct Air Capture, which is more energy-intensive. Enhanced Weathering and >> afforestation might also deliver negative emissions. However, all the >> presented Negative Emission Technologies (NETs) have >> limits/downsides and none is a magic bullet, so we will probably have to >> aim for a portfolio.... >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- *_* ANDREW C. REVKIN Dot Earth blogger <http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth>, The New York Times Senior Fellow <http://www.pace.edu/paaes/faculty-and-staff>, Pace U. Academy for Applied Env. Studies Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009 Twitter: @revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin> Skype: Andrew.Revkin Music: "A Very Fine Line <http://veryfinelines.com>" CD -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
