List: cc Andrew and author Holly Buck (I think one of the best social
scientists looking at “Geo” topics)
At first I was disappointed that Ms. Buck’s paper only twice used the
term ”biochar”. This because I believe including biochar in this sort of
social science research would help advance biochar as a NET/CDR approach.
BECCS was used about 20 times. One cite each for the biochar and BECCS terms.
But, upon reflection, this paper is of considerable help in bringing
biochar more into CDR/NET discussions - since the term “food systems” was one
of only five terms called out in her list of keywords. The term “food” appears
10 times, with 2 cites - mostly as a concern for, not a benefit of, the BECCS
approach. Among the usual list of NET/CDR areas, it seems that only biochar
can have a positive influence for global food supply (although rarely modeled
in CDR/NET literature). Indeed, I guess (haven’t counted) that biochar
literature (several 1000 technical papers) is 4 or 5 to 1 in coverage of food
over CDR/NET. (And these soil/food and NET attributes of biochar are not at
all in conflict; you try to benefit either and the other comes along.)
So this is to hope that Ms. Buck will soon have a paper with more on
the “social barriers and social implications” of all the NETs.
Ron
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6?view=classic
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6?view=classic>
> Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social
> implications
>
> Holly Jean Buck
>
> Abstract
>
> Negative emissions technologies have garnered increasing attention in the
> wake of the Paris target to curb global warming to 1.5 °C. However, much of
> the literature on carbon dioxide removal focuses on technical feasibility,
> and several significant social barriers to scale-up of these technologies
> have been glossed over. This paper reviews the existing literature on the
> social implications of rapidly ramping up carbon dioxide removal. It also
> explores the applicability of previous empirical social science research on
> intersecting topics, with examples drawn from research on first- and
> second-generation biofuels and forest carbon projects. Social science
> fieldwork and case studies of land use change, agricultural and energy system
> change, and technology adoption and diffusion can help in both anticipating
> the social implications of emerging negative emissions technologies and
> understanding the factors that shape trajectories of technological
> development. By integrating empirical research on public and producer
> perceptions, barriers to adoption, conditions driving new technologies, and
> social impacts, projections about negative emissions technologies can become
> more realistic and more useful to climate change policymaking.
>
> Keywords
>
> Carbon dioxide removal Negative emissions Food systems Direct air capture
> BECCS
>
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
