What I find most problematic about this narrative, beyond quibbling with many of its quantitative assessments, is its immaturity. It essentially constructs a straw man that contemplates massive deployment of discrete CDR approaches, e.g. BECCS, or afforestation, and surprise, concludes that it’s unlikely to be sustainable at scales of 15 Gt or more. Of course, virtually everyone in the CDR community acknowledges this, and embraces a complementary portfolio approach, which could address many of the concerns in the document. It’s important to reach out when draft documents like this are published to try to establish a colloquy. Wil
[Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy] Wil Burns, Co-Director & Professor of Research Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy | American University Phone: 650.281.9126 Web: www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal<https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/> Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Skype: wil.burns<skype:wil.burns?chat> Address: 917 Forest Ave. #3S, Evanston, IL 60202 USA Follow us: [cid:[email protected]]<https://www.facebook.com/Institute-for-Carbon-Removal-Law-and-Policy-336916007065063/> [cid:[email protected]]<https://twitter.com/CarbonRemovalAU> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 1:55 AM To: geoengineering <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Subject: [CDR] GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf Appendix 1 deals with geoengineering, 1st page extract below Climate engineering or ‘negative emis- sions’ technologies involve the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR or GGR) or the deflection of sunlight be- fore it reaches the earth’s surface (SRM). Originally proposed as stopgap measures to cover an interim period where the impact of actual emissions reductions might be insufficient, they have — in the absence of the latter — increasingly entered the mainstream of IPCC discourse on mitigation pathways and long-term deployment. This is an alarming development. The IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report referred to mitigation techniques in- volving human interventions to lower actual GHG emissions through green technology, energy efficiency, improved land management and other means.195 Now, as reported in Science in 2016, “Almost all the scenarios with a like- ly chance of not exceeding 2 degrees Celsius being considered by the IPCC assume that the large scale roll-out of ‘negative emissions’ technologies is technically and economically viable … If we rely on negative-emission tech- nologies 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-tem- perature pathway.”196 This appendix outlines the main geoengineering options available, and explains why they are not an ap- propriate solution to the climate and environmental crises. Carbon Capture and Storage (or Sequestration) CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (OR SEQUESTRATION) (CCS) CCS involves capture of CO2 emitted by industrial processes (steel and cement production, chemicals and refining, and fossil fuel combustion for generating electricity. This is followed by compres- sion/liquefaction, transport via pipe- line and high-pressure injection into near-depleted oil and gas fields, saline aquifers, or ocean beds. Used mainly in combination with enhanced oil recovery (EOR), CCS is therefore interesting to the fossil fuel industry. The technology is costly and chal- lenging. Environmental hazards197 in- clude water depletion, toxicity and eu- trophication. Its symbiotic relationship with EOR makes it questionable as a se- rious climate change response. Leakage of the injected fluid into water bodies has been reported,198 which undermines any sequestration gains and raises con- cerns about water contamination. Re- ports of damage to rock formations and the activation of geological fracture zones199 increase the questionability of this technique. BIO-ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (BECCS) BECCS involves capture and storage of CO2 emitted by bio-energy use. It has taken centre stage in recent years as a key negative emissions technology and integral part of IPCC mitigation pathways. Virtually all climate change models projecting a future consistent with the Paris Agreement assume a key role for BECCS. The “negative emissions” claim is based on the fallacy that bio-ener- gy is in the first place carbon neutral, whereas Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) con- clude otherwise, showing that many bioenergy processes lead to even more GHG emissions than the fossil fuels they replace.200 A vast amount of land will be need- ed to produce the necessary biofuel crops — more than 40% of all arable land, which is likely to exacerbate land-grabbing and conflict with food crops and food sovereignty201 that has already and invariably followed the large-scale cultivation of biofuel feedstock. Furthermore BECCS deployment could cause up to 10% reduction in global forest cover and biodiversity.202 A recent study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research shows that it involves high risks of transgression of planetary boundaries for freshwater use, land-system change, biosphere integrity and biogeochemical flows.203 Within safe boundaries, BECCS can compensate for less than 1% of current global GHG emissions. In addition, BECCS shares all the drawbacks of the injection and storage phase of CCS. CARBON CAPTURE AND USE (AND STORAGE) (CCU OR CCUS) CO2 is extracted as in CCS but then fed to algae to produce biodiesel (whereby the gas will again be released) or re- acted with calcified minerals (mineral carbonation) In addition to sharing the draw- backs of the capture phase of CCS, lifecycle analyses indicate that CCU involves a questionable energy balance and the possibility of net increase in GHG emissions. MASSIVE AFFORESTATION Forests have multiple values as a source of natural capital: apart from absorbing carbon, they regulate soil and water levels and nutrients, protect biodiver- sity, improve resilience and adaptation capacity, and protect against deserti- fication and erosion. Afforestation is being promoted by governments and the private sector as a safe and cost-effective carbon se- questration technique. However, there are numerous setbacks to deploying massive afforestation in this way.204 Planted forests do not provide the ben- efits of natural ones. Emphasis on the carbon sink function of trees is leading to the plantation of vast monocultures of fast-growing, evergreen and often non-native species like palm, pine or eucalyptus, which are water-intensive, often involve intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers, and can lead to “green deserts” and degraded soils.205 Invasive species can spread to oth- er areas where native species cannot compete. Moreover, the carbon seques- tration capacity of trees is often unpre- dictable, being highly dependent on climate change and weather conditions and associated effects like pest infes- tations, drought and storms. And most importantly, forests are not permanent - their potential removal in the future, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-061%3DBpptrfH5kWPfiPdM5LORY%3DcT0VkfPskH-CJhH4ovw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-061%3DBpptrfH5kWPfiPdM5LORY%3DcT0VkfPskH-CJhH4ovw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/MWHPR04MB113666AF7761C845577AC8DDA4B90%40MWHPR04MB1136.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
