Greg and List (Greg adding 3 from ETC)
See inserts below.
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ron. While I agree that ETC should be endorsing CDR, that's not the
> message they've sent in the past. E.g., from their Geopiracy screed
> http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf
>
> <http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf>
RWL: Greg, you show below about 20% from the main 1-page biochar
section in ETC’s 52 page report (cite above). I don’t think ETC has paid much
attention to biochar, so I guess they probably would not stand too much behind
this - which is from 2010. This section on biochar was written by Biofuel
Watch (BFW) - a smaller (mostly UK) NGO. BFW first wrote about biochar in
2008 - and intermittently (only negatively) since then. Both ETC and BFW
seem now to focus attention on BECCS (which I was amazed to find not included
at all in “Geopiracy”).
I would be most interested in hearing how ETC would respond to my
roughly 20 claims on how biochar should be viewed on the same 20 criteria they
used for SRM. Again I applaud ETC for being specific on their criteria - and
they should feel free to add others more appropriate for biochar if they wish -
but I would appreciate feedback on all for biochar - as all are relevant
(though many other criteria should be added).
A huge change in biochar knowledge has occurred since “Geopiracy”. In
early 2010, as BFW was writing this one pager for ETC, they and ETC could
search a IBI technical bibliography (http://biochar-international.org/biblio
<http://biochar-international.org/biblio>) of 172 new articles from 2009. In
mid 2016 (the date of the last I recall from ETC/BFW), they would have had to
look over approximately 10 times as many from 2015 onward. The cumulative IBI
bibliography listings will probably exceed 4400 in the next week or two. (Does
any other “Geo” technical approach come close to that many cites over the last
ten years?)
On March 21-23, FAO held a conference in Rome on just the subject of
sequestering carbon for climate reasons (ie. “4p1000”). Here biochar seems to
me to be in position to benefit the most (BECCS doesn’t fit into that sphere).
See http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/soil-organic-carbon-symposium/en/
<http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/soil-organic-carbon-symposium/en/> . This
is not an isolated example of rapidly growing global interest in soil carbon -
likely to be a major new part of IPCC’s AR6! Does ETC now plan to oppose that?
In sum, I look forward to hearing how ETC (or BFW or anyone) would
rephrase my 20-some biochar clauses given below on ETC’s 20-some SRM-criteria.
The criteria are key! And the criteria obviously should go well beyond
assumptions about technical readiness.
Thanks to Ken for inviting ETC in on this CDR (not just biochar) topic.
Ron
>
> "What’s wrong with biochar?
> Even if biochar turns out to sequester carbon long-term,
> hundreds of millions of hectares of land would be required to
> produce the amount of biomass that would need to be burned
> in order to sequester a significant amount of carbon.79 Biochar
> will be unsustainable for the same reason agrofuels are
> unsustainable: there simply is no spare land upon which
> “biochar crops” can be grown without causing harm. In a
> recent article published in Nature Communications, the
> authors, who include the Chair and Vice-Chair of the IBI,
> suggest that 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions could be
> ‘offset’ with biochar, requiring not just vast quantities of
> “residues” but also the conversion of 526 million hectares of
> land to dedicated crops and trees for biochar.80 In addition,
> biochar processing (transportation, burning, ploughing into
> land) would all require significant energy inputs. Depleting
> soils and forests and converting vast areas of land to biochar
> crop plantations will worsen climate change.
> Despite the grandiose claims for biochar, there are significant
> unknowns. A 2008 study by CSIRO (Australia), for example,
> identified a number of research gaps including: how different
> feedstocks affect biochar’s chemical and physical properties; its
> long-term stability in the soil; the presence of toxins from the
> feedstock itself or the combustion process; and social and
> economic constraints and impacts.81"
>
> So good luck in changing their minds.
> Greg
> From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; Geoengineering
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [geo] ETC : Why SRM experiments are a bad idea
>
> Greg, cc List and Andrew.
>
> The answer to your CDR question below is affirmative (with apologies
> for needing to explain at length why I think so; about half of the following
> are quotes from the ETC original).
>
> I have hopes that ETC is now or will soon be endorsing some forms of
> CDR. At least I hope they will use criteria similar to the 20-or-so (below)
> they have used in the article cite that Andrew provided. I commend ETC’s use
> of specific criteria. Below is my short-hand version to which I hope they
> would comment. Here I mainly answer for biochar, as I don’t claim to be
> current on any other form of CDR. I hope others will both critique my
> biochar assertions and provide similar responses for other CDR forms. I am
> intentionally staying away from the SRM topic.
>
> ETC justifies their rejection of SRM in three parts. I repeat ONLY
> their criteria with my own CDR-specific amendments. There are several other
> positive biochar attributes not covered in this editing of their view of SRM
> (for instance, providing carbon neutral energy, reducing/saving water
> consumption, increasing rural job opportunities, increasing food supply,
> etc.)
>
> Part A. A dozen specific ETC topic areas (only showing their topical areas):
> Unequal negative impacts. (Biochar impacts would be equal and positive in
> virtually ever country.)
> Environmental risks. (Biochar risks would be minimum or nil.)
> No turning back. (Biochar impacts would probably be larger in the future
> than immediate.)
> Not addressing root causes. (Biochar directly addresses CO2 (and CH4 and
> N2O) root causes.)
> Weaponization (Biochar cannot be used as a weapon.)
> SRM is the perfect excuse for inaction. (Biochar is today being
> implemented commercially.)
> SRM is already under a moratorium (Biochar has already been tested in
> thousands of locations.)
> Lack of a democratic, transparent, multilateral mechanism for governance.
> (Biochar implementation is occurring today with minimum governance.)
> SRM could wreck the climate agreements. (Biochar is being encouraged in
> climate agreements.)
> Who decides what is an emergency? (Biochar is being encouraged for soil
> emergency reasons by numerous international organizations.)
> Politics and precaution first (Biochar has had minimum political
> discussion; precaution is already encouraged/practiced - by always starting
> small, with different soils and crops)
> Trump administration (Biochar is being pursued most aggressively in
> China, and likely to go faster because of Trump.)
>
>
> Part B. A Summary Box labeled “Geoengineering promoters argue” as biochar
> folks would modify:
>
> Geoengineering CDR (including biochar) promoters argue:
> 1. That we will need SRM CDR to address climate change because even if GHG
> emissions would be stopped now, the inertial lock-in emissions will continue
> warming the planet.
> 2. While most promoters of geoengineering CDR options recognize that impacts
> of
> SRM will CDR will not likely be bad and unevenly distributed, they claim the
> impacts of
> unchecked climate change will also be bad and SRM may CDR will not be the
> lesser of two
> evils.
> 3. Other interests, often oil-industry financed think tanks, do not argue
> that SRM CDR
> offers an efficient way to address climate change without having to
> transform the fossil-fuel driven economy
>
> All these arguments, in one form or another, distract from the real
> strategies to
> confront climate chaos: the need to make drastic and real GHG reductions at
> the
> source; decarbonize the global economy; and the need to research and support
> solutions that are sound, fair, decentralized and affordable, including,
> among others,
> agroecology, good mass transport and renewable energy systems.
> Since no SRM many CDR proposals are ready for deployment at this time, the
> emphasis now for geoengineering
> CDR advocates is on the need to secure endorsement and public and
> private funds to move into a phase of research, hardware development and
> open-air
> experiments. Immediate and large-scale deployment.
>
>
>
> Part C. Five Reasons Why SRM CDR Experiments Are a Bad Good Idea
> 1. Experiments are NOT political acts
> 2. Experiments DO NOT create technical and political ‘lock-in’
> 3. Meaningful SRM CDR safety and efficacy “experiments” are not possible
> 4. Experiments DO NOT violate the UN CBD moratorium
> 5. Deviating resources from true solutions CANNOT OCCUR.
>
> [RWL: I hope we can have a discussion on any of my changes in any of the
> three ETC argument approaches - as well of course on their originals for the
> SRM part of Geo. This mainly to take up Greg’s challenging CDR question via
> specifics.
>
> Ron
>
>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net
>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>>
>
> So CDR is OK?
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea
>> <http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea>
>>
>> ›
>> <applewebdata://7B48DA07-9568-4083-A939-3A8B64F1E8FD>Why SRM experiments
>> are a bad idea
>> Submitted on 28 March 2017
>> <http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/srm_diagram.jpg>
>> Solar Radiation Management (SRM) describes a set of geoengineering
>> techniques that aim to counter human-made climate change by artificially
>> increasing the reflection of heat from sunlight (solar radiation) back into
>> space. Some advocates have started using the term “solar geoengineering” –
>> but these techniques are not related to solar power production.
>> SRM encompasses a variety of techniques: using reflective “pollution” to
>> modify the atmosphere, covering deserts with reflective plastic, increasing
>> the whiteness of clouds or blocking incoming sunlight with “space shades.”
>> The most-promoted proposal is to create dust clouds that artificially mimic
>> “volcano clouds” by injecting layers of reflective particles, such as
>> sulfates, into a higher layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere.
>> This briefing
>> <http://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_briefing_why_srm_experiments_are_bad_idea_0.pdf>
>> outlines the ethical, political and environmental arguments against solar
>> radiation management (SRM), and explains why even SRM experiments are a bad
>> idea.
>>
>> --
>> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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.
