Michael You ask: "How can producing enough biofuel to displace FFs to a large degree, or adjusting the pH of wide areas of the oceans, or moving vast amounts of sustainable marine carbon into the terrestrial space via 'Blue Biochar', or producing protein at the most efficient level, or producing globally significant amounts of freshwater (etc.) [be] a moral hazard?
If you talk about it well enough to allow people, who may be otherwise motivated to do so, to act as if you will do it, and then you don't. On Thursday, 20 October 2016 06:13:49 UTC+1, Michael Hayes wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > I believe that the misconceptions about carbon negative technologies are > getting so far out of hand in the media, and even in peer reviewed papers, > that a strong statement needs to be made to the press (and or to a peer > reviewed journal) concerning the common errors being cemented into the > CDR/BECCS/CCUS literature. > > As an example of a common misconception; Growing biomass for bioenergy is > routinely pointed out as being too problematic as it will crowd out food > crops, use too much water, and take way too long to scale up (etc.). This > line of logic is constantly being inserted into the criticism of > CDR/BECCS/CCUS yet no author that I know of has realized, much less pointed > out, that by growing biomass in the marine space (which has happened on > this planet once or twice before), using currently available STEM in > innovative ways (which has also happened on this planet once or twice > before), makes most if not all objections to biomass production for > CDR/BECCS/CCUS largely moot. > > As Greg and others have pointed out for years, the marine space offers > vast scale renewable resources in terms of making a reasonable impact upon > the carbon cycle, the pH of the oceans, and even...if we actually have > to...the production of renewable energy. Attaching to those important > production needs the production of food, feed, fertilizer, biochar, > polymers and even freshwater is easily achieved...It's called routine > engineering! > > Moral Hazard??? How can producing enough biofuel to displace FFs to a > large degree, or adjusting the pH of wide areas of the oceans, or moving > vast amounts of sustainable marine carbon into the terrestrial space via > 'Blue Biochar', or producing protein at the most efficient level, or > producing globally significant amounts of freshwater (etc.) a moral > hazard??? We, at this time, can do those things and much more if provided > the funding! > > Attaching the Moral Hazard argument to such activities is much like > arguing against using eunuchs as school crossing guards as > they...*might*...be > pedophiles. We need school crossing guards, eunuchs or not, far more than > we need paranoia and confusion in extremis. > > Bucky Fuller once stated: > > *“There is no energy crisis, food crisis or environmental crisis. This is > only a crisis of ignorance.”* I assume he did intend that statement to be > understood in a non-pejorative spirit yet I sometimes truly wonder about > the validity of my assumption. > > Best, > > Michael > > > > > > On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:46:49 PM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: >> >> To quote the article's conclusion: >> "Negative-emission technologies are not an insurance policy, but rather >> an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real risk they will be unable >> to deliver on the scale of their promise. If the emphasis on equity and >> risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreement are to have traction, >> negative-emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation >> agenda. This is not to say that they should be abandoned (*14* >> <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full#ref-14>, *15* >> <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full#ref-15>). They >> could very reasonably be the subject of research, development, and >> potentially deployment, but the mitigation agenda should proceed on the >> premise that they will not work at scale. The implications of failing to do >> otherwise are a moral hazard par excellence." >> >> GR - It's always great to wake up in the morning to read that my >> research and that of my colleagues is an unjust, moral hazard and a threat >> to the planet "par excellence". We are indeed in a very "high stakes >> gamble", especially if we continue to rely exclusively on emissions >> reduction. This is the clear conclusion of the IPCC, otherwise there would >> have been no need for them to bet their reputations (and Earth) on >> unproven negative emissions. That we do not yet know if or how we can do >> what the IPCC views as essential negative emissions should be seen as >> clarion call for supportive policies and R&D to find out what our options >> might be rather than framing any such action as dangerous. >> >> Curiously, the authors do state that research on such alternatives should >> not be abandoned (how generous!), but then (cynically?) suggest that >> emissions reduction should proceed under the assumption that alternate >> pathways "will not work at scale". To the contrary, more than half of our >> emissions each year is already removed from the atmosphere by natural CDR >> "at scale", while there is little evidence that an equivalent amount of >> emissions mitigation/avoidance will ever be implemented, including the >> "aspirations" of the Paris Accord. It would therefore seem more realistic >> if not safer to assume that emissions reduction will continue to seriously >> under-perfom and that now is the time for high profile policy and R&D to >> foster and support the search for and evaluation of possible additional CDR >> approaches or augmentations. >> >> So, are the science and policy communities really prepared to let the >> perfect solution, emissions reduction, be the enemy of all other possible >> solutions without first open-mindedly searching for alternatives and >> carefully evaluating their merits? Shouldn't the common goal here be to >> avert planetary meltdown by whatever means that prove to be timely, safe >> and cost effective? Or is that really too threatening to current, >> conventional (and limited) wisdom? >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> >> *To:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:09 PM >> *Subject:* [geo] The trouble with negative emissions >> >> >> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182 >> The trouble with negative emissions >> kevin.a...@manchester.ac.uk; glen....@cicero.oslo.no >> Science 14 Oct 2016: >> Vol. 354, Issue 6309, pp. 182-183 >> DOI: 10.1126/science.aah4567 >> Article >> In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework >> Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which >> aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C >> and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris >> Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and >> sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero >> sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of “negative >> emissions,” the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through >> technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing >> policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies. >> If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at >> removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be >> locked into a high-temperature pathway >> -- >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.com> * -- 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.
