Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?
Hello Ken, I'm an advocate of direct air capture. I've followed this board for a while and hope this is an opportune moment to comment. My view is that large scale ocean based algae production can provide a geoengineering method that addresses both CO2 capture and solar radiation management, producing commercially valuable fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric in a method that is entirely ecologically sustainable. Algae production can combine the best features of Solar Radiation Management and CO2 Capture in a method that is funded by production of commercial commodities. Algae is the most efficient photosynthesis crop, and can be produced in controlled ocean environments, using energy from tide, wave, current, wind and sun to mimic the original process of deposition of fossil fuel, at very low operating and capital costs, if done on large enough scale. Please see my description at http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Algae_Biofuel_Feedstock_System_Provisional_Patent.285191915.pdf This is all public domain. I am more concerned about contributing to public goods than anything else. I just want to know if these ideas are feasible, so would welcome expert comment. My estimate is that controlled algae production on 0.1% of the world ocean could stabilise the global climate and deliver a path to steady reduction in CO2 concentration, through sustainable fuel, food, fabric and fertilizer production. Kind Regards Robert Tulip Program Manager Mining for Development Australian Agency for International Development www.ausaid.gov.au From: Ken Caldeira To: gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: Geoengineering ; soco...@princeton.edu; Howard Herzog ; John Schellnhuber Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? "So what is the DAC business model, why is venture capital interested, and what does it have to do with stabilizing air CO2? " -- GH Rau Greg, I think you hit the nail on the head. If we think of direct air capture as negative emissions, then air capture is basically a more expensive way to reduce net emissions. So, the only plausible business model is serving activities where CO2 is needed where direct air capture may be able to provide the CO2 at lower cost (or at least more conveniently), i.e., the goal is to profit primarily by providing CO2 as a commodity. You mention enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which of course involves a net flux of carbon from geologic formations to the atmosphere. Another possible application might be military applications where you want to make jet fuels on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier using atmospheric CO2 and seawater. If the above framing is correct, then direct air capture is more about seeking profits from oil companies and the military-industrial complex than it is about reducing climate risk. As the IPCC concluded in its 2005 Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, there just aren't enough products that need CO2 as an input for provision of CO2 for industrial uses to be a significant contributor to climate risk reduction. If EOR is really a primary target application, then direct air capture is more about increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations than it is about decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations; it is more about increasing climate risk than decreasing climate risk. It would be interesting to hear from the direct air capture companies whether they see themselves as being in the business of climate-risk reduction, and if they answer in the affirmative, it would be interesting hear their rationale. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira YouTube: Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity Crop yields in a geoengineered climate On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:35 AM, RAU greg wrote: Ron, >Thanks for asking: > >1) Wasn't invited to Calgary. > >2) As Socolow et al and more recently House et al. PNAS 108:20428–20433 have shown, if your game is removing CO2 from air, concentrating molecular CO2 from air is probably the last thing you want to do because of the prohibitive thermodynamics and hence cost. But what really irks me about the DAC crowd is they act as though they are inventing air capture, e.g., the Economist article's subtitle that gushes: >"The idea of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a beguiling one. Could it ever become real?" >or Marc Gunther's quote: >"Most scientists believe removing CO2 from the air is expensive and >impractical to do on a global scale." >Let me be the first to break the good news; air capture is occurring all >around us, to the tun
Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?
Ken The best way to establish centralized industrial facilities for CO2 capture is to build large scale plants that convert CO2 into profitable commercial products, with low capital and operating costs and simple replicable technology. Ocean based algae production, as proposed in diagrams linked below, with use of fresh water bags for pumping and stability, can meet this objective, in my view. CO2 source for algae production could come from 'artificial trees', from concentrated CO2 from offshore mines such as Gorgon on Australia's Northwest Shelf, from coal fired power stations, or just from the air. If CO2 is used to grow algae, it can produce a range of commercial commodities which pay for the whole process, addressing peak oil and food security, and enabling self-funded expansion. Ocean trumps land as a production location because wave and tide provide free pumping, because raising nutrient-rich water from below the thermocline mimics the original process of petroleum deposition, because ocean does not displace food production, and because ocean based production is ecologically beneficial, for example through local cooling near coral reefs. Controlled ocean based algae production can convert insolation into heat energy, and then into commodities, more efficiently than other methods such as space based systems, while also removing atmospheric carbon at large scale in order to rapidly stabilise the global climate. I would welcome interest in research and development of these concepts. Thanks Robert Tulip AusAID From: Ken Caldeira To: Robert Tulip Cc: "gh...@sbcglobal.net" ; Geoengineering ; "soco...@princeton.edu" ; Howard Herzog ; John Schellnhuber Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? In my previous missive, by 'direct air capture', I was referring to capture of CO2 from air in centralized industrial facilities. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Robert Tulip wrote: Hello Ken, > >I'm an advocate of direct air capture. I've followed this board for a while >and hope this is an opportune moment to comment. > >My view is that large scale ocean based algae production can provide a >geoengineering method that addresses both CO2 capture and solar radiation >management, producing commercially valuable fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric >in a method that is entirely ecologically sustainable. > >Algae production can combine the best features of Solar Radiation Management >and CO2 Capture in a method that is funded by production of commercial >commodities. Algae is the most efficient photosynthesis crop, and can be >produced in controlled ocean environments, using energy from tide, wave, >current, wind and sun to mimic the original process of deposition of fossil >fuel, at very low operating and capital costs, if done on large enough scale. > >Please see my description at >http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Algae_Biofuel_Feedstock_System_Provisional_Patent.285191915.pdf > > >This is all public domain. I am more concerned about contributing to public >goods than anything else. I just want to know if these ideas are feasible, so >would welcome expert comment. My estimate is that controlled algae production >on 0.1% of the world ocean could stabilise the global climate and deliver a >path to steady reduction in CO2 concentration, through sustainable fuel, food, >fabric and fertilizer production. > >Kind Regards > >Robert Tulip > >Program Manager >Mining for Development >Australian Agency for International Development >www.ausaid.gov.au > > From: Ken Caldeira >To: gh...@sbcglobal.net >Cc: Geoengineering ; soco...@princeton.edu; >Howard Herzog ; John Schellnhuber > >Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 10:16 PM >Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? > > >"So what is the DAC business model, why is venture capital interested, and >what does it have to do with stabilizing air CO2? " -- GH Rau > > >Greg, I think you hit the nail on the head. > > >If we think of direct air capture as negative emissions, then air capture is >basically a more expensive way to reduce net emissions. > > >So, the only plausible business model is serving activities where CO2 is >needed where direct air capture may be able to provide the CO2 at lower cost >(or at least more conveniently), i.e., the goal is to profit primarily by >providing CO2 as a commodity. > > >You mention enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which of course involves a net flux >of carbon from geologic formations to the atmosphere. Another possible >application might be military application
Re: [geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
The ethics of geoengineering is possibly the biggest philosophical problem facing the world, sitting at the intersection between philosophy and a range of practical disciplines. Crucial moral decisions on geoengineering will affect the immediate fate of our planet. Geoengineering certainly does open new ethical issues, primarily around whether humans have a right and duty to consciously manage the global climate in an effort to control nature through science. Ethical disquiet about geoengineering involves a belief that climate management crosses some threshold, although precisely what that threshold is seems more emotional than rational. The ethical questions blend into religious sentiments, with people seeing taboos about tampering with nature, somewhat like the debate on genetically modified organisms. Critics invoke moral pieties about the place of humanity within creation, and about what it means for humans to exercise dominion over nature. Ethical views on modern ideas of progress turn partly on whether humans are considered part of nature or above it. The risk, however small, of a Permian scale catastrophe as a result of anthropogenic climate change, and the potential need for geoengineering to avert it, illustrates that geoengineering may in fact be the biggest ethical issue ever, opening the existential problem of human planetary survival. Environmentalists expresses ethical concern about a perceived alliance between geoengineering and technological progress. "Deep ecologists" consider that addressing climate change requires reduction in human energy use and environmental footprint, including through population reduction and shift away from economic growth as a social objective towards a culture of lower material consumption, driven by emission reduction through carbon taxes. "Live simply so that all may simply live" is one of the slogans. The green movement associates ethics with personal sacrifice, and sees geoengineering as undermining the assumption that using less energy is a desirable goal. Geoengineering is perceived as a way to enable increased consumption and undermine ethical objectives of the environment movement. On the other hand, the development paradigm sees the reduction of poverty as the core ethical objective of the Millennium Development Goals, requiring economic growth to improve the quality of life of the poor. It is unclear why growth advocates have not engaged more with geoengineering as a way to increase energy use and reduce poverty. Taboos and misinformation around these topics result in a weak level of public debate. For Example the Copenhagen Consensus argued in 2009 that research into geoengineering is the most cost-effective response to climate change. Ethical issues perceived in this proposal are illustrated by the lack of support for the Copenhagen Consensus Center. I have a Master of Arts Honours Degree for a philosophy thesis on ethics and ontology, and an interest in large scale ocean based algae production as a geoengineering method. I work for the Australian Agency for International Development on its Mining for Development Initiative. These comments are my personal views. Robert Tulip. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Algae for Geoengineering
potential. To date, none of these ideas have been prototyped or lab tested. I would welcome interest in taking this forward. Sincerely Robert Tulip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Algae for Geoengineering
Hi Mike Thanks very much for your response. Short term carbon fixing using algae may well be able to help stabilise and reduce both atmospheric CO2 levels and ocean temperature, making algae production a valid geoengineering method. Only permanent sequestration is generally considered to have substantial effect on CO2 level, but I disagree. If algae can provide a replacement for fossil fuel, and also provide a commercial market to use CO2 emissions from power stations and mines, it can substantially reduce and utlimately reverse growth of atmospheric CO2 level. Lets say hypothetically we can establish 100,000 square km (10m ha) of ocean based algae farms, covering about 0.02% of the world ocean, funded primarily by sale of produced fuel, fish, fertilizer and fabric. At the upper limit of yield cited by NASA OMEGA, a goal of 50 tonnes of oil per hectare per year, production on 10 million hectares would yield 500m tonnes This is about 10% of world oil supply of about 5 billion tonnes per year. As well, it would produce a large amount of carbohydrate and protein suitable for fertlizer and fish food. Instead of obtaining fossil carbon from under the ground, ocean based algae production would obtain the carbon from the atmosphere, replacing a large proportion of emissions with a sustainable energy supply and other products. Instead of adding to atmospheric CO2, this method would help stabilise and manage the carbon cycle, especially through non-fuel outputs. Algae farms on this scale would provide solar radiation management, converting incoming sunlight into algal growth, and cooling the local ocean as a geoengineering contribution. Algae farms at sea may prove superior to space based SRM approaches. Algae industry could be funded by sale of produced outputs, creating commercial incentive to support this technology that can help address peak oil, food security and global warming. Ocean deserts, the growing area of low-chlorophyll sea, were estimated at 50 million square kilometres in size in 2008, five times bigger than the land area of the USA. Algae production in these zones would enable significant increase in fisheries as a food supply and support for biodiversity. The carbon from algae could be fixed in surface waters temporarily in a form that would decrease acidity and local CO2. Using ocean energy to raise nutrient-rich ocean water as feedstock from below the thermocline, combined with CO2 inputs from power plants and mines, would create an industrial farm environment in which high yielding varieties of algae could be bred for a range of products, as a key input to managing the global climate. Some references http://www.sealevelcontrol.com/ocean.html - ocean aeration and upwelling. http://www.eng.nus.edu.sg/core/Report%20200402.pdf - engineering issues for very large floating structures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6oekxl0JAs&feature=player_embedded - TED talk by Dr Jonathan Trent, head of the NASA OMEGA project. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/features/2012/omega_algae_feature.html - OMEGA Press Release April 2012 http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080305_oceandesert.html - NOAA information on Ocean Deserts Robert Tulip From: Mike MacCracken To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; Geoengineering Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Algae for Geoengineering Re: [geo] Algae for Geoengineering Dear Robert—Based on prevailing definitions (as I understand your proposal), growing algae for use as biofuels would be classified as mitigation (i.e., an alternative form of energy) rather than as geoengineering. This is because the use of the algae as a fuel would release the captured CO2 to the atmosphere, later to be pulled out again in the growth of more algae. This is a fine idea, although there may well be limits to the availability of needed nutrients in ocean waters to accomplish this; bringing up deep water for nutrients is certainly possible and has been proposed by others in past (perhaps even in association with energy generation using the ocean thermal energy conversion). Mining enough nutrients on land may well create other problems in terms of the availability of resources, so there may be capacity problems, but growth of algae for energy is certainly worth exploring (and be done with CO2 from some power plants already). Were the proposal to be to grow the algae and then sink it to the bottom of the ocean, then the approach could be said to be an approach to Carbon Dioxide Removal, so a form of geoengineering. But why one would go to the effort to create a non-fossil based source of carbonaceous material and then sink it to the bottom of the ocean instead of use it for energy is not at all clear. Thus, this topic is not really within scope of our discussions, even though it does involve use of the Earth’s resources and nat
[geo] Ocean Warming
Ken Caldeira provides a link below to a scientific paper on ocean warming.
I have been discussing this paper at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/133062-Ocean-Warming
It appears there is some uncertainty regarding historical temperature
measurements. The thread provides links to discussions, including at
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/goos/meetings/2008/XBT/index.php
My calculation from the data in the Levitus et al 2012 paper was that if the
amount of extra heat we are putting into the ocean went into an Olympic
swimming pool it would boil it in about two milliseconds. In the minute it
takes the swimmers at the London Olympics to complete a 100 meter race, enough
heat is added to the oceans to bring more than 20,000 Olympic swimming pools to
boiling point.
I would appreciate comment on whether this analogy makes sense and is accurate.
Robert Tulip
From: Ken Caldeira
To: geoengineering
Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lovelock Backs Down
More evidence that Lovelock is making too much of decadal scale trends in
atmospheric temperature. Look at ocean temperature. Oceans represent most of
the heat capacity in the climate system,
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/scienceshot-no-letup-in-worlds.html
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Joshua Horton
wrote:
"Maybe if he let it come to rest somewhere between catastrophism and
complacency it would hang closer to the truth" - we'd all do well to follow
this advice.
>
>
>I hadn't appreciated the connection between Brand and Lovelock. Then I picked
>up my copy of Brand's Whole Earth Discipline and there at the top of the front
>flap, "This book is truly important and a joy to read - James Lovelock."
>Regardless, I give this book a lot of credit for getting environmentalists to
>take geoengineering seriously--Brand is very open to it and devotes an entire
>chapter ("Planet Craft").
>
>Josh Horton
>
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
>This reminds me of Nobel syndrome, where people who have high achievement and
>expertise in one area then feel free to pontificate on all sorts of things
>about which they know little.
>>
>>
>>To be ready to throw out a century or more of physical climate system
>>understanding because of decadal scale tends in the hottest decade on record
>>seems to be as reckless as excessive catastrophism.
>>
>>In lovelock's case, the pendulum seems to swing too wildly Maybe if he let
>>it come to rest somewhere between catastrophism and complacency it would hang
>>closer to the truth.
>>
>>Ken Caldeira
>>kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
>>+1 650 704 7212
>>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>>
>>
>>Sent from a limited-typing keyboard
>>
>>On Apr 27, 2012, at 17:50, david wrote:
>>
>>
>>According to Lovelock's long time friend Stewart Brand, Lovelock's "thinking"
>>changed when he read Trenberth's "Tracking Earth's Energy", i.e. the
>>Trenberth and Fasullo Perspectives piece in 16 April 2010 Science. As a
>>result, Lovelock appears to have concluded that global warming has stopped
>>and no one knows why.
>>>
>>>
>>>According to Brand, Lovelock thinks climate scientists have become "overly
>>>politicized". Lovelock complained in an email to Brand: "my name is now mud
>>>in climate science circles for having dared to consort with sceptics". The
>>>"sceptic" Lovelock decided to "consort" with is none other than Garth
>>>Paltridge, author of "The Climate Caper". Those not familiar with the work
>>>of Paltridge may not need to know more that the fact that In the
>>>introduction to The Climate Caper, Paltridge explains that the scientists
>>>involved with the IPCC are the worst thing that has happened to science in
>>>the last several hundred years, because they are on a "religious crusade",
>>>"manipulating" the climate issue "into the ultimate example of the
>>>politically correct", acting as if "the science behind the issue", is
>>>"irrelevant". Lord Monckton wrote the "Foreword" to the book. Lovelock
>>>can't understand why climate scientists who formerly acted as if they took
>>>him
seriously now view him in a completely different way.
>>>
>>>
>>>Brand's comments about Lovelock are in his online addition to h
Re: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers?
This observation of increased algae growth in the Arctic illustrates the key role of algae for both carbon dioxide removal, soaking up our excess emissions, and for solar radiation management, understood more broadly as reducing the amount of heat entering earth systems. If we could manage the algae growth process industrially, manufacturing broadscale systems for rapid controlled surface algae growth in the Arctic Ocean in summer, it would cool the entire polar system and produce a feedback loop to slow the melting of sea ice and the ecological changes we are causing through global warming. Robert Tulip From: "Rau, Greg" To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" Sent: Monday, 11 June 2012 7:27 AM Subject: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers? Guess I'd be a little more cautious about these observations being a good thing. If widespread: organic loading at depth, anoxia, NOx and CH4 generation? - G NASA: Increase in CO2 could indirectly lessen effects of global warming The Capitol Column | Saturday, June 09, 2012 Turns out that increased amounts of phytoplankton could actually help the planet stave off the effects of global warming. That is the consensus of a team of NASA scientists, according to a newly published report, which finds that a growing body of microscopic plants may eventually provide the Arctic ice with additional time. NASA researchers say microscopic plants could serve as a solution to increasingly high rates of CO2, one of the key contributors to global warming. The team of scientists suggest that the large quantities of phytoplankton, recently discovered growing under sea ice, could pull in large amounts of the greenhouse gas, possibly curtailing any potential consequences of global warming. The report finds that the microscopic plants, commonly known as phytoplankton, are actively growing under the thinning Arctic ice, leading scientists to say that the phytoplankton growth in the Arctic may now be richer than any other ocean region on Earth. The large patch of phytoplankton was previously unknown to scientists and it remains unclear whether the bloom existed before the ice began to thin, or it is simply the result of the thinning ice. “Consequently, current estimates of pan-Arctic primary productivity assume that the growth and biomass of phytoplankton, free-floating single-celled photosynthetic organisms at the base of the marine food web, are negligible in waters beneath ice because of insufficient light,” the scientists explained in the report published Friday. The team said the finding was highly unexpected and it will likely warrant further research in the coming months and years. The team noted that large swaths of Phytoplankton have often bloomed in the Arctic, but not to this extent. The team of scientists noted that the blooms have been observed to peak as many as 50 days earlier than they did a dozen years ago, a development that could have implications for the larger food web, scientists say. “My concern is that if phytoplankton continue to develop and grow earlier and earlier in the year, it is going to become increasingly difficult for those animals that time their life cycle to be in the Arctic… to be there at the right time of year,” said Kevin Arrigo of Stanford University, leader of the mission and lead author of the new study. “If someone had asked me before the expedition whether we would see under-ice blooms, I would have told them it was impossible,” he added. “This discovery was a complete surprise.” Known formally as “Impacts of Climate on Ecosystems and Chemistry of the Arctic Pacific Environment,” or ICESCAPE, mission scientists went on two expeditions in June-July of 2010 and 2011. The mission is the latest backed by NASA, which has increasingly focused on studying the effects of global warming and climate change. The mission, funded in part by NASA, combines field-based observations of Arctic Ocean biology and biogeochemistry with state-of-the-art satellite remote sensing and numerical modeling activities. Together, these three approaches afford the potential to substantially broaden an understanding of Arctic Ocean ecosystems, say researchers. ICESCAPE is thought to add critical new insights into the optical properties of the sea ice and upper ocean as well as into rates of biogeochemical transformations within the carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles. Moreover, it will add significantly to the currently sparse datasets that are sorely needed to develop improved algorithms for detecting ecosystem changes in both the sea ice and the open ocean and for developing improved models. The plants are thriving in part because the Arctic sea ice has been thinning for years, a result of global climate change, Arrigo said. Melted ice water that pools atop the thin ice sheet make it easier for sunligh
Re: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers?
The Economist Magazine has a special report this week on the warming of the Arctic Ocean. The report is available at http://www.economist.com/node/21556798 and is highly informative. Originally Posted by The Economist "A heat map of the world, colour-coded for temperature change, shows the Arctic in sizzling maroon. Since 1951 it has warmed roughly twice as much as the global average. In that period the temperature in Greenland has gone up by 1.5°C, compared with around 0.7°C globally. This disparity is expected to continue. A 2°C increase in global temperatures—which appears inevitable as greenhouse-gas emissions soar—would mean Arctic warming of 3-6°C. Almost all Arctic glaciers have receded. The area of Arctic land covered by snow in early summer has shrunk by almost a fifth since 1966. But it is the Arctic Ocean that is most changed. In the 1970s, 80s and 90s the minimum extent of polar pack ice fell by around 8% per decade. Then, in 2007, the sea ice crashed, melting to a summer minimum of 4.3m sq km (1.7m square miles), close to half the average for the 1960s and 24% below the previous minimum, set in 2005. This left the north-west passage, a sea lane through Canada’s 36,000-island Arctic Archipelago, ice-free for the first time in memory. Scientists, scrambling to explain this, found that in 2007 every natural variation, including warm weather, clear skies and warm currents, had lined up to reinforce the seasonal melt. But last year there was no such remarkable coincidence: it was as normal as the Arctic gets these days. And the sea ice still shrank to almost the same extent. There is no serious doubt about the basic cause of the warming. It is, in the Arctic as everywhere, the result of an increase in heat-trapping atmospheric gases, mainly carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels are burned. Because the atmosphere is shedding less solar heat, it is warming—a physical effect predicted back in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist. But why is the Arctic warming faster than other places?" more This excellent report prompted me to formulate the following idea. Geoengineering the climate can focus on cooling the Arctic Ocean in order to slow the ice melt and increase albedo, reflecting incoming solar radiation back to space. One potentially commercial method to achieve this goal is to float large sheets of reflective plastic just below the ocean surface, released from Norway into the Gulf Stream. The design would aim to optimise algae and fish growth, using wave energy to raise deep nutrient-rich water to the surface in 'Lovelock Tubes', and spreading this rich water across the surface sheet to mimic the upwelling of currents that are the source of the richest fisheries. This method would cool the surrounding water, reducing the heat input that is melting the sea ice. The systems would attract and feed fish with naturally produced algae, serving as efficient fish farms. They would float along the Gulf Stream as shown at Arctic Currents into the Barents Sea, where produced fish could be harvested. Small initial prototypes would identify design issues for potential scale up. The primary natural geoengineering impact would be entirely ecologically beneficial, cooling the Arctic Ocean to delay the risk of catastrophic warming. Robert Tulip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers?
Thanks Gregory and Greg, good comments and links. There are obviously many
oceanographic and other scientific issues here - I would welcome expert comment.
My interest in floating plastic systems for industrial algae production at
sea arises from efforts to implement waterbags as described
at http://www.waterbag.com./ These modern flexible polymers have strong UV
resistance and salt water tolerance and are likely to be suitable for
profitable applications at sea, although the water transport method promoted by
Terry Spragg has not yet found any backing. My aim in raising use of plastics
here as a geoengineering method is to describe simple application concepts with
potential to help mitigate climate change where small prototyping can guide
feasibility.
My suggestion here for the Arctic would only work in summer, with 24/7
operation during midnight sun. Analysis would indicated to what extent it
could be paid for by fish farm below - larger entering fish would be unable to
escape and would feed on small fish attracted by algae. The whole system would
float along the Gulf Stream current to a processing ship in the Barents Sea,
steered by combination of small accompanying vessel and wave system.With
rich deep cold water pumped by wave action across a reflective sheet just below
the surface, the CO2 in the water would optimise algae growth rather than
escaping to the atmosphere. The reflective sheet would send incoming solar
radiation back to space while also promoting surface algae bloom, significantly
cooling the surrounding current. The sheet would be folded up and sunk during
storm. Optimal sheet depth might be anywhere between ten centimetres and a few
metres, but I would expect
about one metre.
If the whole system pumped water out in a spiral around a sheet of diameter say
500 metres, it might be possible to collect the warm algated water at the
outlet, and either use it for commodity production
(food/fuel/fertilizer/fabric) or just sink it to the ocean floor below the
halocline to quarantine the heat and carbon, although that would not pay. The
site http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/circulation.html# provide a good
summary on arctic circulation.
These sort of innovations are in my opinion best driven by a combination of
profit and ecology, using market incentives to fix the climate. I fear SRM
proposals such as aerosol screening are likely to struggle due to costs and
absence of a profitable product.
Robert Tulip
From: Gregory Benford
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers?
I echo Greg Rau's comments. Good idea to do something, but plastic? Really?
I looked at this in 2005 and wrote a piece on aerosol screening the Arctic
("Saving the Arctic," attached in its pop version). I encouraged Ken Caldiera &
others to do a simulation. It seems to work pretty well.
The cost is ~$200 to $300 million/year, deployed by existing (though modified)
KC-10 refueling craft, which are about to be replaced by a fancier upgrade and
thus will be even cheaper to buy.
Aerosols have none of the side effects Greg mentions, though they may have
others. We could do this NOW--my main point then.
Alas, we suffer in the hands of a largely incompetent government which could
protect its simple national interests (& those of the Inuit etc) by acting. But
the executive (which could do this by direct order, since it's already a
national defense issue) is distracted. Though the president's science advisor
is John Holdren, whom I worked with as a postdoc at Livermore, little gets done
on such issues.
But the environment doesn't care about politics. Never has.
Gregory Benford
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:48 PM, RAU greg wrote:
Thanks, Robert. Interesting indeed, including the 85 comments at the end of
the article. As for saving the Arctic, if we float stuff out there, won't that
block the light for the algae? If we wave-pump water up from the depths, won't
that also bring up more CO2? What happens to the pumps in the winter - ice, no
waves? We hire the locals to haul them in? And who pays? Anyway, funding aside,
I would suggest running this by a few oceanographers before launching.
>
>
>As for why we don't have any effective policies that would support saving the
>Arctic or the planet, I can highly recommend a book I just finished; Merchants
>of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway. Really impressive how a well funded, tiny
>minority can neutralize scientific evidence, and paralyze policy and action on
>a whole range of issues. The term "intellectual terrorism" comes to mind, but
>I digress.
>
>
>Keep us posted on your progress,
>Greg
>
&
[geo] Radio Interview: Mirowski - Adams - Climate, Science and Denial
Climate, Science and Denial * Listen now * Download audio "How neo-liberal thinkers have hijacked the debate on climate change"http://bit.ly/OAS7gv http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/climate2c-science-and-denial/4163970 Broadcast: Monday 30 July 2012 Last year’s annual Lowy Institute Poll showed a steep fall in the number of Australians who believe that climate change is a serious problem that needs immediate attention. The number of respondents wanting to see action on climate change has fallen 27 percentage points over the last five years. In the United States polling found that in 2007, 73 per cent of Americans said they believed that climate change was caused by continued combustion of fossil fuels. By 2011 that percentage had dropped to 41 per cent. It would seem that the climate change denialists have been successful in getting their message across and resistance to the idea of climate change is increasing. But what’s this denialism all about and where does it come from? Guest: Professor Philip Mirowski, Carl E. Koch Professor of Economics and the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.Interviewer: Philip Adams Comment mentioning geoengineering David Lewis : "Mirowski hasn't a clue what the scientists who are studying geoengineering actually think. If someone did want to understand how the scientists doing the research actually view things one way is to monitor their daily exchange of views going on in the geoengineering Google group. Start by reading Paul Crutzen's paper, i.e. search term "albedo enhancement by stratospheric" - this paper brought discussion of the idea out of the shadows. David Keith's talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEys3PeseA lays out a typical rationale - he is a lead author for the AR5. Ken Caldeira is another top flight climatologist who has decided to devote his research to this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb0hF0qFbio " Robert Tulip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Management: From Marginality to Inevitablity by Jay Michaelson :: SSRN
This paper deserves discussion. Here are some quotes from it that I found particularly salient. Robert Tulip Jay Michaelson - Tulsa Law Review GEOENGINEERING AND CLIMATE MANAGEMENT: FROM MARGINALITY TO INEVITABILITY http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146934 1.Climate Management (CM) (Geoengineering) is a climate change strategy that, unlike regulation, might actually stand a chance of becoming reality. 2. despite rises in temperatures, a high-grossing documentary film by a Nobel laureate, visible changes in glaciers and ice shelves, and widespread understanding of the climate crisis in Europe, … the view [exists] that climate change is either not happening, or is part of some natural cycle and requires further study. I did not take these claims at their word in 1998, and I do not do so today. Yet if the pseudo-controversy regarding climate change proves anything, it is that my earlier article was correct. We should be very pessimistic about greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction as an effective climate change policy, because it would so greatly impact some of the largest and most powerful industrial, commercial, and corporate entities in the country (indeed, the world). 3. Climate Management lets the free market be free, uses technology rather than a restraint on behavior, and avoids government regulation. 4. not to pursue it, I argue, is to condemn coastal areas, temperate forests, and thousands of species to extinction. What, exactly, is the price of our pride? 5. educating well-meaning consumers to reduce their carbon footprints, change their light bulbs, and so on--is actually counterproductive…. rhetoric that all of us are responsible for climate change, and each of us has the power to make a change, is factually false and politically misleading. Let's be honest: without coordinated political action, consumers' personal choices are ineffectual... Every calorie of energy an individual devotes to calculating her own carbon footprint is a misdirected one; 6. Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) is scarcely different from planting trees. Trees, too, grow more productively with fertilizers, forest management, and other forms of human intervention. Yet we do not regard tree farms as “geoengineering.” Is planting “‘trees” ‘ in the ocean really so different? Perhaps we do not yet know the precise efficacy of phytoplankton carbon sequestration but there are complexities regarding afforestation, as well. 7. Climate Management is not building dams; we are using our limited knowledge of atmospheric science to either increase the albedo and opacity of the stratosphere, or create new carbon sinks in the oceans. Geoengineering is neither geo- nor engineering. 8. “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” and it is better prevent disease than simply manage it or mitigate its effects. Understanding geoengineering as climate management renders comprehensible its positive and negative attributes. We are not talking about a fanciful dream of “hacking the Earth.” We are talking about Plan B, because Plan A seems so expensive that a few key players remain intent on blocking it. 9. popular books, endless articles in liberal magazines, and two high-end documentary films (An Inconvenient Truth and Leonardo DiCaprio's The 11th Hour) have failed to sufficiently mobilize popular opinion. Although many people profess to care about global warming, the issue came in dead last in a 2010 Pew Research Center poll of issues that matter to Americans. 10. “junk science” is paid for by energy companies - $22 million by ExxonMobil alone since 1998. 11. scientific consensus about climate change is settled [FN59]--928 peer-reviewed articles to 0 does not a controversy make. 12. Gingrich: Instead of imposing an estimated $1 trillion cost on the economy …, geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year. Instead of penalizing ordinary Americans, we would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. 13. Caldeira, Wood, and Myrhvold estimate the costs of an Arctic-focused SRM process to be only $20 million in startup costs and $10 million in annual operating costs. 14. none of us would ban treatments for heart disease because they do not address the “root problem.” Likewise here. 15. what is really “nuts,” as the old cliché holds, is doing the same thing as before and expecting a different result. If there is a concern about the feasibility of a particular project, then more, rather than less, research is warranted. Doubtless, the Apollo missions to the moon seemed loony at the time, yet a serious campaign of research and development yielded success. Likewise, perhaps, with climate management. 16. the 2007 debacle with the for-profit corporation Planktos, which attempted, on its own initiative, to conduct
Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Management: From Marginality to Inevitablity by Jay Michaelson :: SSRN
Greg Rau said: "I'm with you on the CO2 mining and ocean angles ... obviously more R&D needed for all of the above and this won't happen for free. This leads me to your puzzling comment on the need for commercialization: "My own view on a repeat of the big American successes in public investment such as the Manhattan and Apollo Projects is that research could enable large scale mining of carbon from the air as a commercial enterprise. " Since when were the Manhattan and Apollo Projects "commercial enterprises"?" Michaelson speaks of a "Climate Change Manhattan Project... to reevaluate our assumptions about what environmentalism should look like." That was the context. You are right the A bomb was not profit driven, although of course there were big economic drivers for America's entry into WW2, and the links between military research and the private sector subsequently became prominent. The WW2 comparison to climate change is more about required urgency and scale of a technological response to a security emergency. The work of the United States Geological Survey in making geotechnical data available for free via http://minerals.usgs.gov/ is a good example of public research aimed at commercial objectives. Similar with government research on hydraulic fracturing. In terms of ocean based algae biofuel, government would need to assess and regulate possible sites and methods against a comprehensive analysis of risk and potential. NASA's Offshore Membrane Enclosure for Growing Algae program http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/index.html is an example of public research that could be massively scaled up to support climate management, with resulting technology made available to the private sector so that innovation and replication could flourish. Robert -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] new article at Huffpost
Nathan, thanks for your excellent article. Reading it against discussion of the misconceived arguments about "moral hazard" of geoengineering is useful. The Arctic is an alarm bell for the global climate. Allowing ice melt without urgent response presents massive risk of dangerous feedback loops with potentially catastrophic impact. Rather than allowing any complacency about CO2e increase, agreement to implement Arctic SRM could shock the world into a recognition that CO2 emissions are pushing us into a real global security emergency. SRM might be compared to an emergency tourniquet applied to a bleeding limb. A tourniquet helps to minimise the trauma of massive injury by slowing blood loss, while in no way replacing curative measures. SRM can provide breathing space to stabilise climate, while developing the slower responses of carbon dioxide removal through design and deployment of global technological systems. SRM without CDR is like a tourniquet without antibiotics. Robert Tulip From: nathan currier To: nathan currier Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 6:41 AM Subject: [geo] new article at Huffpost Hi, all - my newest piece at Huffington Post just came out.this is part 1 of a 2 part piece.best, Nathan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/arctic-climate-change_b_1911550.html Saving the Arctic Ice: Greenpeace, Greenwashing and Geoengineering (#1) www.huffingtonpost.com That's right: the volume of arctic sea ice this September minimum was -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations
The Guardian and NGO confected fury about this activity is a disgrace. Consider 1. The algae produced by such operations could potentially be captured and used to make fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric, helping to address pressing global commodity supply problems and achieve energy and food security. Is that not a good thing? 2. If algae production could be scaled up and industrialised to an order of 0.1% of the world ocean, it could potentially capture more carbon than total anthropogenic emissions, removing the need for emission reduction. So we could keep our coal and petroleum infrastructure within a climate-stable economy, while shifting its fuel source to mining carbon from the air and sea. Is that not a good thing? 3. Technology to convert CO2 into algae at sea on massive scale would surely slow ocean acifidification, and possibly slow ocean warming. Is that not a good thing? 4. More algae blooms means more fish, which means more food, and probably less pressure on stressed marine ecosystems. Is that not a good thing? The potential environmental and economic benefits of this research are massive. The global warming risks of not proceeding are massive - given the complete failure of UN processes to achieve emission reduction. The ecological risks of such technological experiments are surely manageable, and likely to be far outweighed by the benefits. No way do the hypothetical risks justify the fatwa imposed by the UN. Instead of such visionary practical measures, what do the global UN bureaucrats give us? Such absurd failures as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD), which is based on the false premises that all a tree's carbon enters the atmosphere the instant a chainsaw touches it and that a protection racket can save forests. I am all for biodiversity, but the UN environmental globocrats have hijacked the real problem of climate security through a tendentious assertion that REDD will slow global warming, which it won't. Overall, my impression is that what we have here is an out of touch UN movement whose main objective seems to be using climate politics to expand its social control, through pernicious taxation and other regulatory measures that won't work for their stated climate purpose. These UN globocrats are reacting with hysteria to an innovative practical experiment that has great prospect to contribute to a range of global public goods, relating to food, ocean health, climate and energy. Their comments about the evil of the profit motive show their socialist colours. The UN agency goals are more about power than outcomes. You could be excused for thinking the Berlin Wall never fell, since these Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN jokers seem to be hiding behind it. Perhaps the most interesting statement in this insidious Guardian campaigning article is its conclusion, that ocean iron fertilisation experiments are "a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions." The UN agenda at play in this debate seems to be to use climate politics to advance an agenda of destroying the capitalist system, on the premise that economic growth is unsustainable so we have to go back to the stone age. The emission reduction movement operates on the false moral premise that only personal energy sacrifice will save the planet. It is time the climate debate got real. Good luck to Russ George and Planktos Inc. I hope he makes a lot of money and achieves some good for the world ocean and climate. Entrepreneurial experiments such as his could well be the only real way to stabilise the climate. Robert Tulip On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:33:21 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article >>Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international >>regulations >>Controversial US businessman's geoengineering scheme off west coast of Canada >>contravenes two UN conventions >>A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron >>sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the >>west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Lawyers, >>environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant >>violation" of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark >>outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this >>week.Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George >>that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 >>square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dio
Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
Ethics and Geoengineering Recent debate about whether to allow experiments to manage global climate has raised the profile of the ethical permissibility of geoengineering. I don't think a lot of the ethical debate properly addresses the critical issues. The precautionary principle says that an action is unethical where its costs, broadly understood, have significant risk of outweighing its net benefits. A further, if more metaphysical, ethical consideration is whether humans have a right to ‘play God’ by endeavouring to manage the global climate. The precautionary principle seeks to factor externalities into quantitative economic and ecological analysis. The more metaphysical argument about rights opens hypothetical spectres, comparing geoengineering to a Frankenstein monster, or an uncontrollable sorcerer’s apprentice. These ethical issues were raised as long ago as the 1970s by writers such as James Lovelock, with the Gaia Hypothesis speculating about the risk of uncontrollable algae blooms, and introducing the importance of ecological externalities in decision making. The ethical dilemmas for geoengineering need to quantify facts and risks. Some relevant points include · Humanity added 34 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2011, actively destabilising the global climate · Emission rate is growing exponentially, supported by a political backlash against science · Climate-related major events, such as storms, droughts and floods, have nearly tripled in annual number from 300 to 800 since 1980, 3.3% per year, according to data published by the reinsurer Munich Re, apparently due to anthropogenic global warming · Arctic melting, methane release, weather events and ocean acidification pose massive risks to climate, biodiversity and human security These trends pose extreme dangers, including war and economic collapse. Ethical response to global warming has to start from recognition of the urgency of stabilising the planetary climate. However, we find that the debate appears to be occurring in a surreal parallel universe. Small experiments, such as the Haida salmon algae work, are vilified as criminal. Funding for research is absent, even though Nobel Laureates writing for the Copenhagen Consensus Center identified research and development of new technology as the most cost-effective climate mitigation strategy. Something strange is going on here. It appears the so-called ethicists who are trying to stymie research are motivated by dubious agendas. Firstly, a main argument advanced against technology research is that it undermines the need to reduce emissions. This contention elevates emission reduction to a sort of moral totem that must be upheld regardless of whether it is practical or effective. But the problems are that emission reduction has little prospect of being achieved, and even if the fanciful targets were met, it would not stabilise the climate. The political consensus on emission reduction has been cruelled by its apparent incompatibility with economic growth and vested interests, and has completely failed. And yet, the ineffectual mentality persists in some quarters that we have to make sacrifices, that using less energy is the key to climate management, despite the powerful drivers arrayed against any change to business as usual. Critics of geoengineering are effectively saying ‘don’t do something that might work, because it stops us from doing something we know doesn’t work’. Climate change has potential to cause more suffering in coming decades than the Second World War did. People who actively campaign against research into new technology to mitigate climate change could be considered as the moral equivalent of appeasers, well-meaning dupes who lack understanding of reality. So-called ethicists need to understand orders of magnitude. Climate change is a big ethical problem. Geoengineering research design and piloting is a small ethical problem. Any risks in geoengineering can readily be managed, and are massively outweighed by the risks of not proceeding. There are indeed big ethical issues raised by geoengineering, first and foremost whether we want humanity to flourish on our planet or not. Technology for global climate management, like it or not, will inevitably be central to human flourishing in a peaceful and stable global ecosystem. Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:33 AM Subject: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.198/abstract Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal Christopher J. Preston Article first published o
Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
Toby, I have read your article Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies? It confirmed my assessment that ethicists are making a largely negative contribution to the debate on geoengineering. Even so, such ethicist input is worthwhile to clarify argument, in view of Benjamin Hale’s point about possible broader public views. I consider your qualified conclusion “we ought immediately to adopt some climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering” to be morally equivalent to a first aid provider saying we ought to adopt some trauma response to a spurting artery that does not involve an emergency tourniquet, against medical advice. Your email below, with its wait and see conclusion, putting geoengineering off to ‘near-future scenarios’, abets those who are opposed to immediate climate management action, typical of disdainful academic timidity. The situation is urgent. The Arctic is melting and presenting dangerous feedback risks, as seen in the recent New York super storm. Aerosol piloting is a moral imperative. Your caveated analysis, concealing the knife in your conclusion, serves to bolster the position of those who would stymie research. Aerosol measures are necessary but not sufficient. Methods to mine carbon from the air for fuel and food production are likely to be central to longer term climate sustainability. But the ethicist input that I have seen fails to engage with such a transformative agenda. Instead, it generally fails to comprehend the real cost-benefit equations for climate management, giving credence to baseless scaremongering and ignoring the emergency of the climate peril. I can well imagine negotiators at the forthcoming Doha climate conference using articles like yours to deflect the need for research. Robert Tulip From:Toby Svoboda To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 18 November 2012 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Robert, Could you please point to examples of ethicists "who are trying to stymie research [and] are motivated by dubious agendas?" I don't know of any who meet these conditions. As Christopher and Benjamin already implied, ethicists who work on geoengineering are much less naive than you seem to suggest. If anyone is interested, I attach a pre-print version of a paper of mine--"Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies?"--forthcoming in the journal Ethics & the Environment. In it, I address several of the points Robert raises. The possibility that geoengineering would be ethically permissible (or even obligatory) in certain near-future scenarios is one that ethicists can and do countenance. Best, Toby Svoboda -- Toby Svoboda Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy Fairfield University 1073 N. Benson Rd. Fairfield, CT 06824 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
Toby, Regarding your argument that aerosol geoengineering is unnecessary, going back to my original points, your view ignores the apparent facts that climate change is only going to accelerate in severity, and that political drivers make emission reduction impossible and far too slow. Increasing emissions means steadily worsening climate instability. The melting Arctic is the classic canary in the coalmine - the sign of a dangerous emergency. The unprecedented September 2012 ice extent of 3.3 million square kilometers was less than half the mean scientific prediction of 7 million square kilometers. Unknown feedback loops are already operating. Without ice, the feedback loops for superstorms from an ice-free Arctic will only grow worse. We need to start applying emergency measures now to stop the arctic melting through solar radiation management, so that as the weather gets worse we have systems in place to respond. By the precautionary principle, field testing a range of measures now will mean response systems are established before things get really bad, which is likely to be quite suddenly. Deploying aerosol geoengineering now is ethically far better, in terms of net harm and safeguarding the planetary future, than your counsel of waiting for something to turn up like a frog in a pot. We could consider a few more parables. Climate change is like a person bleeding to death from a limb chopped off by accident, and aerosol geoengineering is like an emergency tourniquet. Greenhouse gas emissions are like adding cyanide to the municipal water supply, and increasing the dose when harmful health effects are recorded. Burning coal is like smoking cigarettes, a seductive addiction that is highly deadly. Ethicists have a moral responsibiilty to guide the political process to provide resources for required investments. The idea that practical response to the global climate emergency is not urgent is morally repugnant.. Robert Tulip From: Toby Svoboda To: Robert Tulip Cc: geoengineering Sent: Monday, 19 November 2012 6:10 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library Robert, Are you suggesting that aerosol geoengineering should be deployed now, as your tourniquet analogue seems to imply? That would be a rather controversial opinion. Note that "we ought immediately to adopt some climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering" is a normative claim about what we ought to do (e.g., cut our emissions substantially), not a prediction about what we will do. So the claim can be true even if you think we won't get serious about cutting emissions. Also, the fact that the research of ethicists could be abused by non-ethicists in some (unspecified) way to stymie research does not support your earlier contention that ethicist are trying to stymie research. Best, Toby Svoboda On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Tulip wrote: Toby, I have read your article Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies? It confirmed my assessment that ethicists are making a largely negative contribution to the debate on geoengineering. Even so, such ethicist input is worthwhile to clarify argument, in view of Benjamin Hale’s point about possible broader public views. > >I consider your qualified conclusion “we ought immediately to adopt some >climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering” to be morally equivalent to a first aid provider saying we ought to adopt some trauma response to a spurting artery that does not involve an emergency tourniquet, against medical advice. Your email below, with its wait and see conclusion, putting geoengineering off to ‘near-future scenarios’, abets those who are opposed to immediate climate management action, typical of disdainful academic timidity. > >The situation is urgent. The Arctic is melting and presenting dangerous feedback risks, as seen in the recent New York super storm. Aerosol piloting is a moral imperative. Your caveated analysis, concealing the knife in your conclusion, serves to bolster the position of those who would stymie research. > >Aerosol measures are necessary but not sufficient. Methods to mine carbon >from the air for fuel and food production are likely to be central to longer term climate sustainability. But the ethicist input that I have seen fails to engage with such a transformative agenda. Instead, it generally fails to comprehend the real cost-benefit equations for climate management, giving credence to baseless scaremongering and ignoring the emergency of the climate peril. I can well imagine negotiators at the forthcoming Doha climate conferen
Re: [geo] 1. Prospects for an Emergency Drawdown of CO2
I thought Professor Calvin's paper was superb and have extracted the summary of main points below. Information on Professor Calvin's other writings is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Calvin On the push-pull pipe sequestration idea, I think wave and tide power have more potential than wind as a pumping energy source. Robert Tulip William Calvin wrote: emissions reduction ... has become a largely ineffective course of action with poor prospects... Most of the growth in emissions now comes from the developing countries burning their own fossil fuels to modernize with electricity and personal vehicles. Emissions growth is likely out of control, though capable of being countered by removals elsewhere. > >...drastic emissions reduction worldwide would only buy the US nine extra >years. However useful it would have been in the 20th century, emissions >reduction has now become a failed strategy, though still useful as a booster >for a more effective intervention. > >We must now resort to a form of geoengineering that will not cause more >trouble than it cures, one that addresses ocean acidification as well as >overheating and its knock-on effects. Putting current and past CO2 emissions >back into secure storage would reduce the global overheating, relieve deluge >and drought, reverse ocean acidification, reverse the thermal expansion >portion of sea level rise, and reduce the chance of more abrupt climate >shifts. > >Existing ideas for removing the excess CO2 from the air appear inadequate: too >little, too late. They do not meet the test of being sufficiently big, quick, >and secure. There is, however, an idealized approach to ocean fertilization >that appears to pass this triple test. It mimics natural up- and down-welling >processes using push-pull ocean pumps powered by the wind. One pump pulls >sunken nutrients back up to fertilize the ocean surface—but then another pump >immediately pushes the new plankton production down to the slow-moving depths >before it can revert to CO2. > >...The atmospheric CO2 is currently above 390 parts per million and the excess >CO2 growth has been exponential. Excess CO2 is that above 280 ppm in the air, >the pre-industrial (1750) value and also the old maximum concentration for the >last several million years of ice age fluctuations between 200 and 280 ppm. > >Is a 350 ppm reduction target, allowing a 70 ppm anthropogenic excess, low >enough? We hit 350 ppm in 1988, well after the sudden circulation shift in >1976, the decade-long failure of Greenland Sea flushing that began in 1978, >and the sustained doubling (compared to the 1950-1981 average) of world >drought acreage that suddenly began in 1982. > >Clearly, 350 ppm is not low enough to avoid sudden climate jumps, so for >simplicity I have used 280 ppm as my target: essentially, cleaning up all >excess CO2. But how quickly must we do it? That depends not on 2°C overheating >estimates but on an evaluation of the danger zone we are already in. > >...big trouble could arrive in the course of only 1-2 years, with no warning. >So the climate is already unstable. (“Stabilizing” emissions is not to be >confused with climate stability; it still leaves us overheated and in the >danger zone for climate jumps. Nor does “stabilized” imply safe.) While >quicker would be better, I will take twenty years as the target for completing >the excess CO2 cleanup in order to estimate the drawdown rate needed. > >...we need to take back 600 GtC within 20 yr at an average rate of 30 GtC/yr >in order to clean up... we must find ways of capturing 30 GtC/yr with >traditional carbon-cycle biology, where CO2 is captured by photosynthesis and >the carbon incorporated into an organic carbon molecule such as sugar. Then, >to take this captured carbon out of circulation, it must be buried to keep >decomposing methane and CO2 from reaching the atmosphere. > >One proposal is to bundle up crop residue and sink the weighted bales to the >ocean floor. They will decompose there but it will take a thousand years >before this CO2 can be carried back up to the ocean surface and vent into the >air. Such a project, even when done on a global scale, will yield only a few >percent of 30 GtC/yr. Burying raw sewage is no better. > >...land-based photosynthesis, competing for space and water with human uses, >cannot do the job in time. It would need to be far more efficient than >traditional plant growth. At best, augmented crops on land would be an order >of magnitude short of what we need for either countering or cleanup. > >Because of the threat from abrupt climate leaps, the cleanup must be big, >quick, and secure. ...we must look to the oceans for the new photosynthesis &g
Re: [geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort
NASA is already piloting what may be the most promising Carbon Dioxide Reduction pilot through the Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae (OMEGA) project at the AMES Research Center. OMEGA website is http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/index.html. I recommend Dr Jonathan Trent's TED talk about OMEGA. Mobilising NASA leadership to combine OMEGA with other technologies to mimic the natural production of algae blooms in a controlled ocean environment, for example using Professor Calvin's thermocline pipes, looks to me the best solution to stabilise the global climate. Robert Tulip From: Josh Horton To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013 2:54 AM Subject: [geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit more obvious... Josh http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung Can NASA Stop Global Warming? * * 30 * 4 * 8 * 11 LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide. Illustration by Dean Rohrer Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures. But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it. Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025. Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimatesthat, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over pre-industrial levels. So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons. Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Devel
Re: [geo] Proposal for Who to Lead SRM Effort?
NASA has an excellent global reputation as the agency that solved the technical problems of reaching the moon with the Apollo Project. We need a new Apollo Project today to address climate change, the primary security problem facing our planet. Applying technology at scale can address the triple bottom line of economic, ecological and social sustainability. Emergency response is needed using solar radiation management while long term reform of energy systems is developed through carbon dioxide removal. President Obama can show American vision and leadership by committing to stabilise global climate in this decade, as President Kennedy committed to sending a man to the moon and back in the 1960s. NASA could do it. Robert Tulip http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Can NASA Stop Global Warming? >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * 30 >>>>>>> * 4 >>>>>>> * 8 >>>>>>> * 11 >>>>>>>LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the >>>>>>>United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a >>>>>>>man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the >>>>>>>decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the >>>>>>>challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned >>>>>>>landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, >>>>>>>stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at >>>>>>>a critical time, and inspired people worldwide. Illustration by Dean >>>>>>>Rohrer >>>>>>>Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of >>>>>>>important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar >>>>>>>system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with >>>>>>>space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space >>>>>>>Station. These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures. >>>>>>>But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal >>>>>>>to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency >>>>>>>needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current >>>>>>>needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it. >>>>>>>Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important >>>>>>>issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies >>>>>>>to remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This >>>>>>>mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, >>>>>>>which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly >>>>>>>10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in >>>>>>>small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test >>>>>>>demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025. >>>>>>>Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last >>>>>>>half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased >>>>>>>from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, >>>>>>>heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. >>>>>>>At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 >>>>>>>parts per million in roughly 25 years. >>>>>>>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this >>>>>>>increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C >>>>>>>(3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding >>>>>>>this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of >>>>>>>climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to >>>>>>>stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>>>>Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient >>>>>>>to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the >>>>>>>
Re: [geo] Proposal for Who to Lead SRM Effort?
NASA is best placed to coordinate international climate management response. To get a sense of why NASA might be preferred in this role, please watch this 20 minute film about how travelling to space affects astronauts. It has had over a million views since release last month. I highly recommend it, both for the beautiful vision of our planet from space and for the interviews with astronauts about how space travel gave them a deeper scientific understanding of the earth. Astronauts see our planet through their own eyes as a single system. Interviews explain how their experience makes them understand with awe how fragile and thin our atmosphere really is, This changed vision resulting from space travel has been called the overview effect. NASA has the experience of large scale project engineering, coordinated among 15 nations through the International Space Station. It has the capacity and status and resource potential to succeed, and an unrivalled institutional understanding of our planetary system. The Arctic melting is a primary global security threat. John Nissen has documented the catastrophic collapse in sea ice with risk of suddenly pushing past a tipping point into a new destabilised global climate. SRM is urgent, and needs to be developed by a capable and trusted organisation, such as NASA, within a program to stabilise and reduce greenhouse gas levels. Robert Tulip From: John Nissen To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; John Nissen ; Reese Halter ; Linda G. Brown ; Stan Rhodes ; Rafe Pomerance ; Peter R Carter ; william.cal...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2013 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Proposal for Who to Lead SRM Effort? Hi Robert, You may be right. We have a situation akin to Apollo 13, where we desperately need to find a way to cool the Arctic before the heating from albedo loss becomes insuperable. Our life support system is in jeopardy. Would Jim Hansen be the man to lead the team? I am afraid that in his most recent papers he has neglected the heating from albedo loss, which is growing exponentially as the sea ice area collapses and snow retreats. This heating may have reached the equivalent of 0.8 W/m2 heating averaged globally and annually. The September volume trend is clearly to zero by 2015 - which is terrifying. We need a brave man or woman to face up to the reality and take up the challenge to find a solution. Cheers, John (just returned from the film "Lincoln" - what moral leadership!) -- On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Robert Tulip wrote: NASA has an excellent global reputation as the agency that solved the technical problems of reaching the moon with the Apollo Project. We need a new Apollo Project today to address climate change, the primary security problem facing our planet. > Applying technology at scale can address the triple bottom line of economic, ecological and social sustainability. Emergency response is needed using solar radiation management while long term reform of energy systems is developed through carbon dioxide removal. > President Obama can show American vision and leadership by committing to stabilise global climate in this decade, as President Kennedy committed to sending a man to the moon and back in the 1960s. > NASA could do it. >Robert Tulip > >http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung > > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Can NASA Stop Global Warming? >>>>>>>>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>* 30 >>>>>>>>* 4 >>>>>>>>* 8 >>>>>>>>* 11 >>>>>>>>LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the >>>>>>>>United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a >>>>>>>>man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the >>>>>>>>decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the >>>>>>>>challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned >>>>>>>>landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, >>>>>>>>stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing >>>>>>>>at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide. Illustration by Dean >>>>>>>>Rohrer >>>>>>>>Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of >>>>>>>>important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar >>>>>>>>system wi
Re: [geo] Book review: Clive Hamilton's Earthmasters
I have also written a review of this book, available at http://www.amazon.com/Earthmasters-Playing-God-climate-ebook/dp/B00BKD08SU I only gave it three stars out of five, as it presents a far too negative view of geoengineering. Robert Tulip From: Rose Cairns To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013 7:29 PM Subject: [geo] Book review: Clive Hamilton's Earthmasters Dear All, The New Left Project has just published my book review of Clive Hamilton's Earthmasters, available here: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/optimists_beware_review_of_hamiltons_earthmasters Thoughts or comments welcomed! Best wishes, Rose Cairns University of Sussex -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering: Re-making Climate for Profit or Humanitarian Intervention? - Jean Buck - 2012 - Development and Change - Wiley Online Library
Michael, sketching the “social ecology” of possible future oceanic geoengineering technology would seem to some readers to veer into science fiction. And yet, there are good reasons why such a possibility should be researched as a potentially practical strategy, as you suggest. The physical ecology of our planet is bursting at the seams in terms of global warming, species extinction and habitat loss, resource security, human population, and potential for war and economic failure. Our global economy struggles with seven billion people now, let alone with the projected nine or ten billion population that could be alive later this century. What Holly Jean Buck has termed 'social ecology' is the determinant factor in sustaining physical ecology in the Anthropocene. To prevent conflict and collapse, we actually do need to develop transformative visionary ideas involving better use of the oceans. The oceans are the primary new frontier for the twenty first century, both in terms of how we can protect them and how they can be turned to productive sustainable use. Innovative pioneering technology, including ocean-focused geoengineering, is the best insurance to make global systems more robust against possible shocks and protect against the economic fragility that climate change will bring. The world ocean occupies 71% of our planet and contains well over a billion cubic kilometres of water, soaking up anthropogenic warming with consequences for climate change on land and at sea. My view, as flagged at the MIT CoLab Geoengineering competition, is that we should experiment with simple fabric technology to build floating platforms using bags of fresh water at sea. This concept could be scaled up profitably with potential applications for climate stabilisation and industrial production. Holly Jean Buck’s abstract cited below implies that geoengineering for profit is unethical. I prefer to view the profit motive as the best incentive for rapid expansion, innovation and results. The private sector is the driver of economic growth. A new “social ecology” focussed on applied oceanic technology can be regulated to achieve environmental goals within a capitalist market framework. The political economy of these debates is fascinating. Some environmentalists bring dubious assumptions to bear. I have argued that continued fossil fuel production can be compatible with climate stabilisation, but only if we store more carbon than we emit, and that this could be possible through large scale ocean based algae production. This geoengineering approach jars against the widespread view that emission reduction is the only path to climate stability. Holly Jean Buck implies that we should not try to keep existing systems functioning, and that a “critical reading” of geoengineering ideas sees capitalism as a central problem. I have read Buck’s article, and can forward it to anyone interested. Part of the “social ecology” of a future oceanic civilization could involve active technological management of carbon on a scale far larger than we have imagined to date. Seeing carbon as a valuable commodity provides the prospect of mining it from the atmosphere. Wave and tide power could make this geoengineering goal economic on large scale. The conversation about these topics should be opened up. Robert Tulip From: Michael Hayes To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013 8:17 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering: Re-making Climate for Profit or Humanitarian Intervention? - Jean Buck - 2012 - Development and Change - Wiley Online Library Hi Folks, I haven't been able to read beyond the abstract, yet Buck seems to be giving us a foundational perspective as important as the Precautionary Principle. Her statement of: "The logic that shapes the geoengineering research process could potentially influence social ecologies centuries from now." brings a spotlight to the issue of which type of projects should be given long term priority. SRM is important yet it is only a short term solution to a long term problem which has a multitude of attached issues. One avenue in which GE could be developed that would provide the broadest possible range of "social ecologies" for the long term, as well as climate warming mitigation, is found within the ocean based proposals. A well designed, organized and regulated large scale Ocean Afforestation/Mariculture project (combined with MCB) can provide for a wide range of humanitarian agendas such as food,fuel,fertilizer, jobs, room for climate refugees, ocean pH adjustment, SRM and direct air capture of CO2/CH4. All of these issues will eventually need to be addressed and provided for (for the foreseeable future). I believe Buck is correctly pointing out that GE can do far more than just address the first order technical issues of GW. If so, the only concept I'm aw
[geo] Algae for Geoengineering
This post quantifies claims in my algae geoengineering proposal, now in the last week of public voting at the MIT Climate Colab Competition. Microalgae Cultivation Using Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae (OMEGA) (1) states that NASA’s OMEGA project sought to sustain a target microalgae productivity of 20 grams per square meter per day, in line with the average productivity cited by Putt et al (2). A gram per square meter equals a tonne per square kilometer. An average of 20 grams per square meter per day gives dry weight algae yield above 7000 tonnes per square kilometer per year in tropical zones of year-round operation. At the scale of the global climate considered for geoengineering, we emit about 30 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. For algae farms to utilise all anthropogenic CO2 would therefore require 3 million square kilometers of production area, or about 1% of the total world ocean area of 361 million km2. The high productivity level shows why algae is potentially better as a geoengineering carbon dioxide removal method than other crops which achieve lower yield. This technology is still in early days. The NASA trial achieved yield of only 14 grams on average, 70% of Putt’s figure, but yields will increase as systems are optimised. To illustrate the uncertainty of best technology, the algae production method in the OMEGA lab used LLDPE plastic tubes which appear somewhat different from the flat membrane concept initially described by Dr Jonathan Trent at his TED Talk on Energy from floating algae pods (3). Fixing a tonne of carbon requires 3.66 tonnes of CO2, given atomic weights of oxygen (16), carbon (12), and CO2 (44). A review of algae field trials by Doucha et al (4) states “It was estimated that about 50% of flue gas decarbonization can be attained in the photobioreactor and 4.4 kg of CO2 is needed for production of 1 kg (dry weight) algal biomass.” The figure of 4.4 kg appears to involve loss of about 2.6 kg of CO2 to the air, given that the NASA review paper states that algae is 50% carbon, so 1 kg of algae contains 0.5 kg of carbon, which only requires 1.8 kg of CO2. The relevant figure for CDR is the amount of CO2 actually removed from the system, ie 1.8 kg of CO2 per kg of algae. My proposal suggests a target of 2% of the world ocean for algae farming. This would enable half of the algae to be sold for fuel and other products, and half to be sequestered in recoverable or usable form for CDR. This would drive the atmosphere back towards its previous stable CO2 level and reverse local ocean warming and acifidication while enhancing biological diversity and abundance. As well, it would replace the need for ecologically harmful land based mining operations. This large algae production scale is a medium term goal, based on maintaining current energy consumption level and methods. The geoengineering result includes the objective of ‘banking’ most of the produced algae, either in bags on the sea floor, in construction materials, or in closed loop electric power production, as well as cooling of critical locations such as the Gulf Stream and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Robert Tulip 1. Microalgae Cultivation Using Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae (OMEGA), Patrick Wiley, Linden Harris, Sigrid Reinsch, Sasha Tozzi, Tsegereda Embaye, Kit Clark, Brandi McKuin, Zbigniew Kolber, Russel Adams, Hiromi Kagawa, Tra-My Justine Richardson, John Malinowski, Colin Beal, Matthew A. Claxton, Emil Geiger, Jon Rask, J. Elliot Campbell, Jonathan D. Trent*,Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 2013, 3, 18-32 doi:10.4236/jsbs.2013.31003, published March 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jsbs), 2. R. Putt, et al., “An Efficient System for Carbonation of High-Rate Algae Pond Water to Enhance CO2 Mass Transfer,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 102, No. 3, 2011, pp. 3240-3245. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.029 3. Jonathan Trent: TED http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_trent_energy_from_floating_algae_pods.html 4. J. Doucha, F. Straka and K. Lívanský, “Utilization of Flue Gas for Cultivation of Microalgae Chlorella sp.) in an Outdoor Open Thin-Layer Photobioreactor,” Journal of Applied Phycology, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2005, pp. 403-412. doi:10.1007/s10811-005-8701-7 CoLab: http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1303631 -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Lomborg Article in The Australian mentions geoengineering
Bjorn Lomborg argues that reducing CO2 emissions through market instruments such as carbon tax is not a cost-effective way to fix the climate, and that investigating geoengineering could deliver a potentially phenomenal return from a small investment. Robert Tulip Climate challenge requires new approach byBjorn Lomborg From:The AustralianSeptember 04, 2013 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/climate-challenge-requires-new-approach/story-fni1hfs5-1226710063133 CLIMATE change is a hotly contested issue in Australia. An overwhelming majority of Australians, 84 per cent, wants to do something about it, yet a clear majority is against the present carbon tax. While Australia has brandished its good intentions in wanting to tackle this real problem, Labor and Coalition governments of the past 20 years have done little to tackle it. The renewable share of total energy in Australia, has remained stubbornly at 6 per cent since 1990. Wind produces just 0.4 per cent of energy in the country and solar 0.1 per cent. Yet Australia spent more than $6 billion on clean energy last year. With Australia potentially looking to join the European emissions trading scheme, it is perhaps worth reiterating that adoption of the ETS in Europe has had no measurable effect on emissions. The carbon price collapse is perhaps the most obvious indicator of the program's ineffectiveness. Indeed, global carbon emissions since 1990 have increased by 58 per cent. Had there been no Kyoto agreement, the increase might have been half a percentage point higher. It is clear that the past 20 years of Australian as well as international climate policies have had little effect. The upcoming election provides an opportunity for a fresh start that could yield an effective Australian climate policy. The Copenhagen Consensus Centre asked 27 of the world's top economists including three Nobel laureates for advice on which climate policies would do the most good per dollar spent. They found carbon tax solutions (and the similar ETS) the least efficient. Policies with a significant CO2 reduction were poor deals and should not be pursued. Each dollar spent, mostly in economic growth loss, could secure as little as 1c of global climate benefit. Analysis showed that adaptation - from securing coastlines against sea-level rise to enlarged sewers to handle more precipitation - was a sound, if moderate, investment. Every dollar spent would likely avoid $2-$3 of climate damage. They found a potentially phenomenal return from a small investment into investigating geo-engineering. Geoengineering aims to counter the temperature rise by intervening in the climate. One way is to amplify the natural cloud formation over the Pacific Ocean to make clouds slightly whiter, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet. Estimates show that about $6bn could potentially offset the entire 21st-century heating, meaning each dollar could avoid more than $1000 of climate damage. For now, however, they only suggest exploring the feasibility of this opportunity, which could also work as insurance if other policies fail. Finally, the Nobel laureates considered green research and development as the best long-term strategy. The idea is that as long as green energy is much costlier than fossil fuels, it will rely on heavy subsidies. This is unattractive to developing countries and even rich countries can afford only a moderate amount of renewables. But if innovation could reduce solar 2.0 or 3.0 below fossil fuels, everyone would switch, including the Chinese. Hence, a radical long-term CO2 reduction could result from a reasonably modest R&D effort. The experts suggested 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product in R&D, which for Australia would be about $3bn annually - half of last year's clean energy cost. Each dollar spent would avoid $11 of climate damage. What do you want to do? Where do you want to spend Australia's climate budget? Bjorn Lomborg directs the Copenhagen Consensus Centre ranking the smartest solutions to the world's biggest problems by cost-benefit. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition ..
I was pleased and surprised that the CoLab geoengineering competition chose my algae ocean proposal for voting since no credentialled scientists have expressed support for it. I would really like to do a Masters or PhD to take forward the agenda I proposed of laboratory modelling and scientific proof of concept. The dialogue on a range of questions arising from my CoLab proposal was very informative, and I hope there are further opportunities for discussion, focussed on whether the ideas can be made practical and cost-effective. Congratulations Greg and Ken, and good luck. From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Cc: Greg Rau Sent: Saturday, 7 September 2013 12:50 AM Subject: [geo] Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition .. http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 I hadn't been lobbying heavily for this proposal largely because I deemed the process stupid an the judges likely to be biased, but now that the process and judges have selected two of our proposals, one in the Energy Power Sector and one in the Geoengineering category, I am ready to say that this process looks to me to be both thoughtful and fair. Congratulations to Greg Rau for taking on the good fight. http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119 The full set of winners of this round, competing for the Grand Prize can be found here: http://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/2012-2013-climate-colab-contest-winners?_33_ I note that there was no "judges" choice under the category of "geoengineering", which seems to be limited to CDR-type techniques: http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 Proposal for Electric power sector by The Planet Doctors Spontaneous Conversion of Power Plant CO2 to Dissolved Calcium Bicarbonate Pitch As in SO2 mitigation, spontaneously remove CO2 from power plant flue gas using wet limestone scrubbing. Description SummaryCarbonate mineral weathering is a major absorber of excess CO2 at planetary scales: CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 --> Ca(HCO3)2aq. However, relying on this very slow natural process to consume excess CO2 would in the interim commit us to many millennia of climate impacts and ocean acidity (1). It is therefore relevant to find ways of cost-effectively accelerating this proven, natural (geo)chemistry in order to more quickly mitigate of our CO2 emissions, while also trying to rapidly transition to non-fossil energy sources. Modeling and lab studies have shown that contacting CO2-enriched gas with water and limestone is an effective way of spontaneously capturing and storing CO2 as dissolved calcium bicarbonate (2-7). This is termed Accelerated Weathering of Limestone – AWL. In laboratory tests, up to 97% of the CO2 in a dilute gas stream was removed using this method (11). Seawater would appear the best option for such systems, although other non-potable water sources (wastewater, saline ground water) could also be relevant at inland sites. An AWL total cost of <$30/tonne CO2 avoided has been estimated, with <$20/tonne being more likely at coastal power plants that already pump massive quantities of seawater for condenser cooling. The preceding mitigation cost ranges are a fraction of that reported for more conventional capture and underground storage of concentrated CO2 (CCS) when retrofitted to existing power plants (8). CO2 mitigation is not the only potential benefit of AWL. As in natural carbonate weathering, the dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 added to the ocean by the process will help to chemically offset the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification (9-11). Despite its potential, AWL is lacking a demonstration at a scale that would prove its cost effectiveness, safety, and net environmental and societal benefit. It is proposed that these issues be evaluated and tested at a relevant scale by a team of scientists, engineers, and environmental, economics, legal, and social experts. gregrau Owner kencaldeira Member philrenforth Member http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119 Proposal for Geoengineering by Planet Physicians Saving the Planet, v2.0 Pitch Interested in air CO2 removal, carbon-negative fuel, saving the ocean, and redrawing the global energy map? Read further. Description SummaryRegardless of our CO2 emissions, Nature eventually will return global CO2 to pre-human levels primarily via base (carbonate and silicate) rock weathering (1). Nature’s 100,000 year time frame for this process, however, means that unless we quickly intervene, the earth will unacceptably fry and acidify in the interim. Thus, it is of interest to consider buildin
[geo] Profitable path to sustainability: Dennis Jensen MP
This article published today by a member of the new Australian government argues for funding for energy storage research. This looks promising for commercial approaches to geoengineering through carbon dioxide removal, despite the author's skeptical comments about global warming. Robert Tulip http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/profitable-path-to-sustainability/story-e6frgd0x-1226727881468#sthash.saz3WaWe.dpuf Profitable path to sustainability Dennis Jensen, The Australian September 27, 2013 BJORN Lomborg has stated "if it is not economic, it is not sustainable". That single statement encapsulates all that is wrong with the climate change debate. It also points to a potential solution. For those who know me, don't be confused. I have not changed my view that human activity is not a major driver of global warming. Indeed, the more than decade-long lack of warming, opposed to the warming predicted by the global circulation models referred to by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, simply reinforces my view. The problem is the debate has become polarised. Perhaps what is needed is refocusing on how a position can be reached where there is benefit to people on all sides of the argument. Looking at the past, punitive measures have been recommended and put in place. First the carbon tax, followed by emissions trading the last government put in place. The latter is the worst of all worlds, as it ends up with the effective payment of "indulgences" to overseas carbon traders for shonky carbon credits while emissions in Australia continue to increase. Direct action nobly tries to move towards a reward structure to reduce emissions within Australia, but even it is less than optimal, considering Lomborg's statement. Another scheme that lamentably fails the Lomborg test is that of the Renewable Energy Target, which is certainly worse than direct action and should be dumped. Forcing the generators to use uneconomic methods of generating power is a sop to green carpetbaggers, costing the Australian community dearly. For the sake of argument, let's assume the most catastrophic climate projections are correct. Even if Australia completely ceased emitting anthropogenic carbon dioxide tomorrow, the net "benefit" in terms of forestalling temperature increases is vanishingly close to zero. The simple fact is, even under this scenario, the only way to help the situation is to come up with a global solution that conforms with the need to be economic to be sustainable. At present the only methods of generating power that emit minimal levels of carbon dioxide conforming to this proposition are nuclear power and hydroelectricity, both of which the green and other left movements see as anathema. Other methods such as wind and solar are a long way from being able to generate baseload power economically. So, what can be done? Instead of foisting uneconomic "solutions" on the market, we need to find ways of making alternatives economic (and for those who argue renewables are economically competitive, the reality check is the generators would jump on them if they were, no subsidies or RETs required). The show stopper for most of the alternatives is economically competitive energy storage. We should address this at the cheap end of the innovation pipeline - research! Australia should commit to providing significant funding for energy storage research. The government should stay away from cherry-picking the research proposals. Selection of the most worthy research proposals should be left to the Australian Research Council. By putting money into energy research, many benefits will follow. For those concerned with global warming, it provides potential for a real energy solution globally that conforms to Lomborg's statement and would have global energy consequences. For Australia, it provides a realistic prospect for large windfalls as a result of the intellectual property generated, giving a positive return on the investment put into the research, unlike the other methods of trying to solve the anthropogenic global warming problem, which are a financial burden to Australians. Last, but by no means least, it provides a means of reinvigorating our struggling science sector, giving realistic prospects of careers in scientific research and improving the quality of the intake of those aiming for a science-related profession. Win, win, win - plus the prospect of coming up with a path on the climate change issue on which most, if not all, could agree. Former CSIRO research scientist and defence analyst Dennis Jensen is the
Re: [geo] What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton | ANTHEM
he great existential crisis of the modern world, the need to shift to a sustainable regulation of atmospheric carbon, is interpreted by Hamilton in a way that confuses and belittles the real scientific efforts to come to grips with the existential emergency of climate change. These comments draw on my Master of Arts Honours Degree from Macquarie University for a thesis on The Place of Ethics in Heidegger’s Ontology, my finalist proposal in the 2013 MIT Geoengineering competition, my review of Hamilton’s book Earthmasters and my current work for the Australian Government in the energy and resources section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. These are solely my personal views. Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 19 January 2014 7:31 PM Subject: [geo] What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton | ANTHEM http://anthem-group.net/2014/01/18/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering-clive-hamilton/ What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton Abstract: Proposals to respond to climate change by geoengineering the Earth’s climate system, such as by regulating the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, may be seen as a radical fulfillment of Heidegger’s understanding of technology as destiny. Before geoengineering was conceivable, the Earth as a whole had to be representable as a total object, an object captured in climate models that form the epistemological basis for climate engineering. Geoengineering is thinkable because of the ever-tightening grip of Enframing, Heidegger’s term for the modern epoch of Being. Yet, by objectifying the world as a whole, geoengineering goes beyond the mere representation of nature as ‘standing reserve’; it requires us to think Heidegger further, to see technology as a response to disorder breaking through. If in the climate crisis nature reveals itself to be a sovereign force then we need a phenomenology from nature’s point of view. If ‘world grounds itself on earth, and earth juts through world’, then the climate crisis is the jutting through, and geoengineering is a last attempt to deny it, a vain attempt to take control of destiny rather than enter a free relation with technology. In that lies the danger. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Restorative Ocean Geoengineering
Here are slides (10MB powerpoint) from a talk I presented today to my work (Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) on Restorative Ocean Geoengineering. Robert Tulip -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Going Rogue: Russ George and the Problem of Governance in Geoengineering
Dear Andrew I shared thisevent notice with Russ George, who had not heard about this plan to discuss his work before I drew it tohis attention. The discourteous languagethe organizers use is surprising given their apparent collegiate academic intent. Russ askedhow the event will address the collapse and possible restoration of the oceanecosystems, and whether there will be any person willing to speak on behalf ofnature in this venue. Best Regards Robert Tulip From: AndrewLockley To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, 18 March 2016, 8:28 Subject: [geo] Going Rogue: Russ George and the Problem ofGovernance in Geoengineering https://isaconf.confex.com/isaconf/forum2016/webprogram/Paper74676.html Third ISA Forumof Sociology (July 10-14, 2016) Going Rogue:Russ George and the Problem of Governance in Geoengineering Sunday, 10 July2016: 14:27 Room: HörsaalII OralPresentation AndrewSZASZ, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA He convincedthe Vatican that he was going to help it go carbon neutral by planting trees inthe central plains of Hungary (where trees don’t grow). He sold aCanadian First Nation tribe on the idea that seeding the Pacific Ocean withiron filings would make algae bloom, creating a powerful carbon sink whilebringing back abundant runs of salmon. Visionarydreamer? Manic-depressive? Incorrigible sociopath? Whateverthe individual diagnosis, the phenomenon that is Russ George urges us toconsider the question of governance. If the only thing that’s left isPlan B, nation states are not going to be the only actors. That would behard enough, given the troubles we see in reaching, and further troubles thenenforcing, international agreements, treaties, protocols. But the problemof governance goes far beyond that, from the potential for action by acoalition of nations deciding to act without global consent, to the potentialfor action by non-State actors of various kinds, from, possibly, privatecorporations down to and including (as the case of Russ George shows) rogueindividuals. In this paper Ireview the evidence on how the world has dealt – or, more exactly, failed todeal -- with Russ George. I then ask: What can we learn fromthe failure to control him about the problem of governance if the world’snations at some point start think that geoengineering is the only option leftto them? See moreof: Climate Change, Capitalism, Geoengineering See more of: RC02 Economy and Society See more of: Research Committees <> MeetingInformation When: July 10 - 14,2016 Where: Vienna, Austria Please notethis is a preliminary schedule and is subject to change. Theregistration deadline is April 5th, 2016. All participants who fail toregister by the deadline will be automatically deleted from the program. -- 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.
[geo] IMechE Meeting on Climate Repair 9/11/19 - Youtube Recordings
Presentations at Institute of Mechanical Engineers meeting in London on 9 September 2019, New Tools for Climate Repair - An Introduction for Engineers. Sir David King - A Fresh Look At Humanity's Greatest Ever Challenge - Climate Repair (42 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for Engineers. Sir David King FRS Professor Jim Haywood - Climate Repair - Why We May Need It (20 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: an Introduction for Engineers. Professor Jim Haywood Dr Renaud de Richter - Iron Salt Aerosol - A Natural Method to Remove Methane and Other Greenhouse Gases (27 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for Engineers. Dr Renaud de Richter Question and Answer session (31 minutes)New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for Engineers. Question and Answer session Robert Tulip -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/53403156.551643.1569730558255%40mail.yahoo.com.
Re: [geo] ABO Leads Effort to Get EPA to Recognize Carbon Capture and Utilization
DearCharles Thank youfor this CCU concept. I totally agreewith the utilization theme as a superior framework compared to carbonsequestration or storage. We can utilize carbon as fuel, food, feed, fertilizerand fabric. We need to make use of theseproductive forms of carbon in order to fund activity to stabilize the climate. Now Iwant to raise a controversial claim: We canutilize more carbon than we emit. Thatmeans emission reduction is not necessary to reverse global warming. We canutilize carbon as fabric including for materials construction for roads andbuildings. We canutilize carbon as animal feed and fertilizer to improve global food securityand nutrition. We canutilize carbon as fuel to address energy security. If abundantuseful carbon-based products could be made economically, the demand could bemore than the ten billion tonnes of carbon that humans add to the air everyyear. If we usemore carbon than we emit, the amount of carbon in the air will go down. Is itpossible? Yes. Ocean based industrial algae production canuse energy from wave, wind, tide, current and sun as low cost pumping,transport and heating sources, and can use abundant nutrient and carbon dioxide. Scaling algae production up to 2% of theworld ocean with efficient energy and materials could be enough to reduce theamount of carbon in the air and sea, with a profitable system that will pay forits own expansion at scale, while also improving biodiversity through reduction of water temperature and acidity. My mostrecent presentation on this topic, building on my MIT Climate Collaboration Finalist concept http://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/finalist-results-announced- andmaterial from Ocean Foresters http://oceanforesters.org/ was delivered at the Australian National University earlier this year. Here are the slides from my presentation, Ocean Forest Cultivation in Pacific Island Countries - Environmental and Economic Benefits and Strategies, Usingcarbon can change the climate stabilization paradigm away from the emissionreduction model towards a situation where the main issue is the balance betweenemissions and reuse, using technology to manage carbon stock and flow. Transformingcarbon into useful products could build to a larger scale than total emissions. Carbon can be mined from air and sea to produce valuable marketable commodities. This approach meansthat the fossil fuel economy can become compatible with a stable climate. Like any other product, carbon now seen aswaste can be turned into a resource for recycling. Further, that means it can be fine to dig up coal as long as we then turn the produced CO2 into something useful, such as roads or buildings. This objective presents a basis for alliance between efforts to stabilize the climate and the fossil fuel industry. We do notaddress sewerage by reducing defecation. Nor should we address carbon pollution by reducing emissions. That is like trying to stop the tide. We now have two competing old paradigms, bothof which are unscientific. The fossil fuel paradigm ignores globalwarming. The emission reduction paradigmignores the economy. We need to putthese paradigms together to get a new one, through an economic method to removecarbon from the air and sea. Therequirement to achieve this new paradigm is a method to transform carbondioxide and waste methane into useable products at a scale sufficient to reducecarbon level in the air. The best,and possibly only, way to turn waste carbon into useful products is to mimichow hydrocarbons occurred in nature. Algae falling to the bottom of shallow seas was heated and pressurisedover millions of years, gradually converting carbon dioxide intohydrocarbons. Industrial technology canreplicate this process in ways that are rapid and commercially profitable. Robert TulipResources and Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade From: Charles H. Greene To: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2014, 0:25 Subject: [geo] ABO Leads Effort to Get EPA to Recognize Carbon Capture and Utilization From: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/encourage-states-use-carbon-utilization-technologies-can-reduce-and-recycle-co2-valuable-products/RMvQcjxd | | | | | | | Algae InSightEdition: October 16, 2014 | | | | | | | In This Issue | | Executive Director's Report | | Algae Biomass Summit Recap | | Learn Algae Cultivation Basics | | Student Award Winners | | Senators Compare Notes on Carbon Utilization | | Upcoming Events | | New Members | | Member News | | Industry News | | Join the ABO | | Quick Links | | ABO Website HomepageMembership Sign-UpABO Events ABO on YouTube | | | | Executive Director's Report | | Today you have an opportunity to personally help create jobs, reduce emissions and unleash the power of innovative technologies across the country. An
Re: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink
The 'decarbonisation' theme discussed by Noah Deich has become a central concept in advocacy for emission reduction, but in my view it is not a good way to understand the CDR agenda. And the 'moral hazard' of CDR can more usefully be framed as a moral opportunity. Thecentral problem of global warming is summarized in the McKibben Stock PriceProblem (link). This is the fact, as noted by leading climatescientist Bill McKibben, that the stock prices of leading energy companies all factorin plans to move enough carbon from the crust to the atmosphere to cook theplanet, without any remediation strategy. This is not possible, because the business as usual scenario would lead the world economy to collapse before the ecosystemscollapse. Climate stabilityis a prerequisite for economic stability. The solutions to deliver climatestability are either to either move less carbon into the air (reduce emissions) or stabiliseit once it is moved (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Current plans to move carbon without stabilising it are not possible dueto the constraints of physics. And SolarRadiation Management is more an emergency tourniquet than a climate solution. Reducingemissions is the primary focus of global warming politics, supporting thepremise of decarbonisation of the economy. But emission reduction faces massive, apparently insurmountable,problems, seen in the steady 2.5 ppm per decade acceleration of the CO2 emissionincrease rate. The economic incentivesto burn coal and gas and oil are more powerful than the political incentives toswitch to sustainable energy. And in any case, emission reduction still assumesongoing increase in CO2 level in the air. Ongoing increase should be unacceptable, because we need to drive CO2 levelsdown through negative emissions. Political agreements around emission targets are useless, essentially serving as a cover for failure of will and vision. The political targets of ongoing warming buildin massive danger of phase shift from the stable Holocene climate pattern thathas prevailed for the ten thousand years of the growth of human civilization onour planet. The implication is that theremust be a technological focus on CDR, or we cook. An end to Holocene stability is an unacceptablerisk with a planetary population of ten billion people, given the likelihood it brings of conflict and collapse of civilization and loss of biodiversity. In Londonin 1850, the problem of cholera was solved by pumping sewage out of thecity. Global warming is like a choleraepidemic for the twenty first century. We need new sanitarians to work out how to pump carbon out of the air tosolve the problem of global warming. Funding that process means establishing economic and scalable methods toconvert the harmful extra CO2 into useful forms. That means finding practical commercial usesfor more than ten billion tonnes of carbon every year. The only way to do that, in my view, is toapply solar and ocean energy to grow algae on industrial scale. This callto focus on algae as a useful form of carbon requires understanding of thedistinction between carbon storage and carbon utilization. Storing CO2 through geosequestration is notan economic contribution to stopping global warming. Carbon stored as CO2 has no value, except to help pump up more fossilfuels. But if CO2 is converted to algae,and the algae is then held in large fabric bags at the bottom of the sea, we havean enduring resource, a carbon bank. The oceanis a perpetual motion machine driven by earth’s orbital dynamics. 1.3 billion cubic kilometers (teralitres) of water move upand down by about half a meter each tide on average. Tapping a fraction of this energy source forpumping should be a primary objective for an algae production and CDR system. Such asystem would not decarbonise the economy, but would enable a massive increase in thepractical use of carbon. We can applyingenuity and know-how to create innovative new methods to make good use of carbon stored as algae for infrastructure, energy and food. An industrial productionsystem that is largely automated, and that uses oceanic energy to manufacture its ownreplication resources, can become profitable. Against this objective, ideas about prices oncarbon, and the strategic model of decarbonisation, are not helpful. We need a new integratedeconomic and ecological paradigm with a focus on mining more carbon than weemit. The stockprices of energy majors can remain realistic only if their factored carbonreserves can be stabilised once they are burnt into the air. It is therefore possible to work in cooperation with the fossil fuel industry to stabilise the global climate., turning their commercial resources and skills to advantage for new sustainable technology. Decarbonisation wrongly poses the question in terms of conflict rather than cooperation. CDR is a moral opportunity, not a moral hazard. The focus s
Re: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and _the_Carbon_Sink
ecologically sustainable. This requires a low cost source of CO2 suchas Gorgon to start, and would store the carbon as algae only temporarily. Theaim would be to prove that this method can also be economic using CO2 minedstraight from the air and sea, using wave and wind power at sea. The scale needed to reduce atmospheric CO2 is aboutten thousand times the Gorgon project, producing equivalent of a cube of algaewith edge about three kilometres per year. The world ocean is on average four kilometres deep, and nearly 400million square km in area. There isplenty of space to achieve the required carbon storage goal, in a way that wouldprovide abundant sustainable energy and related carbon products while rapidlyprotecting biodiversity, water acidity and temperature, and climate stability. Robert Tulip Disclaimer: This is my personal work and does notrepresent views of the Australian Government. From: "markcap...@podenergy.org" To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering Sent: Friday, 7 November 2014, 3:09 Subject: RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and _the_Carbon_Sink Robert, Great arguments for countries to adopt simple carbon fees on both domestic fossil fuels and imports of fuel and the carbon footprint of imported goods. Minor edit - We don't want to stash whole algae at the bottom of the ocean in plastic bags. At full scale, the algae would also be storing over 10 times the global production of fertilizer nitrogen (ammonia and nitrite) plus similar proportions of other nutrients needed to keep growing algae. Better to separate the carbon and the nutrients out of the algae. Use some carbon to replace fossil fuels. Store some carbon. Recover all the nutrients to grow more algae. For quick high-volume carbon storage, it is hard to beat storing CO2-hydrate in plastic bags on the seafloor. During the few thousand year life of the appropriate geosynthetic membranes, we react the CO2 with silicate minerals for more permanent storage or recover the carbon for other uses. Mark Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: Re:_[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and _the_Carbon_Sink From: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering" Date: Sat, November 01, 2014 11:45 pm To: "gh...@sbcglobal.net" , geoengineering The 'decarbonisation' theme discussed by Noah Deich has become a central concept in advocacy for emission reduction, but in my view it is not a good way to understand the CDR agenda. And the 'moral hazard' of CDR can more usefully be framed as a moral opportunity. The central problem of global warming is summarized in the McKibben Stock Price Problem (link). This is the fact, as noted by leading climate scientist Bill McKibben, that the stock prices of leading energy companies all factor in plans to move enough carbon from the crust to the atmosphere to cook the planet, without any remediation strategy. This is not possible, because the business as usual scenario would lead the world economy to collapse before the ecosystems collapse. Climate stability is a prerequisite for economic stability. The solutions to deliver climate stability are either to either move less carbon into the air (reduce emissions) or stabilise it once it is moved (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Current plans to move carbon without stabilising it are not possible due to the constraints of physics. And Solar Radiation Management is more an emergency tourniquet than a climate solution. Reducing emissions is the primary focus of global warming politics, supporting the premise of decarbonisation of the economy. But emission reduction faces massive, apparently insurmountable, problems, seen in the steady 2.5 ppm per decade acceleration of the CO2 emission increase rate. The economic incentives to burn coal and gas and oil are more powerful than the political incentives to switch to sustainable energy. And in any case, emission reduction still assumes ongoing increase in CO2 level in the air. Ongoing increase should be unacceptable, because we need to drive CO2 levels down through negative emissions. Political agreements around emission targets are useless, essentially serving as a cover for failure of will and vision. The political targets of ongoing warming build in massive danger of phase shift from the stable Holocene climate pattern that has prevailed for the ten thousand years of the growth of human civilization on our planet. The implication is that there must be a technological focus on CDR, or we cook. An end to Holocene stability is an unacceptable risk with a planetary population of ten billion people, given the likelihood it brings of conflict and collapse of civilization and loss of bi
Re: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd _the_Carbon_Sink
Dear Mark Some might see me as a sort of devil's advocate,but I wish to respectfully challenge your premise that eliminating fossilfuel use is essential to stabilise the global climate. In terms of carbon utilisation, the problem is thatwe are adding about ten billion tonnes and growing of carbon to the air eachyear. To stabilise the climate, the options must include measures toremove this carbon. That requires finding profitable uses in order to generateeconomic incentive for speed and scale of response. Emission reductiononly reduces the amount of carbon we add, and does nothing to remove thedangerous carbon we have already added to the air and sea. Carbon is used for a wide array of usefulproducts. For example road construction uses about two billion tonnes ofasphalt every year, containing a significant portion of carbon. If roadand building and plastic industries could find economic ways to incorporate carbonmined from air and sea into their construction materials, it would present a longterm sequestration method with incentive for replication, including finding innovative new expanded uses for carbon. Such materials could compete against land based products, serving to enhance biodiversity and food security. My view is that automatic ocean based algaeproduction at mega scale has potential to provide carbon products at lower costthan mining fossil fuels. Plastic systems can be invented which woulddrive capital and operating cost for CDR sourcing from industrial algae down to profitable levels. Thatmeans the focus should be on establishing such possible new technology. Now, the reality is that the best way to achieve this goal of profitable carbon extraction is in alliance with the fossil fuel industry, because only they have the skillsand power and money and incentive to make it happen. If we can use CDR as a source ofindustrial materials, we can foresee a path to this growing to bigger than theten billion tonnes of carbon we add through emissions, so the net effect willbe to reduce the ppm of carbon in air and sea. And that can happen alongside ongoing fossil fuel extraction, enabling evidence based market response to the McKibben stock price problem of energy reserve values requiring us to cook the planet. The ODI G20 press release puts this climate problem for the energy industry into stark relief, with a direct attack on government subsidies for energy exploration. The energy industry will only prosper if it supports practical profitable ways to remove the waste it adds to the environment. Chevron's Gorgon project could be a CDR pilot. Chevron plans to spend $2 billion to geosequester four million tonnes of CO2 byproduct peryear as part of its $55 billion gas project. This geosequestration has negative commercial value, whereas conversion of CO2 to algae could turn a profit, and offer a path to sourcing carbon from air and sea. Sources TheAsphalt Paving Industry - A Global Perspective Chevron planto invest $2billion to bury four million tonnes of CO2 per year as 15% byproduct of LNG. I have suggesteda way to turn this CO2 into useful hydrocarbons and related products, usingalgae and hydrothermal liquefaction. Robert Tulip Disclaimer: Personal Views Only. From: "markcap...@podenergy.org" To: c...@cornell.edu Cc: geoengineering ; Robert Tulip Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2014, 3:50 Subject: RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd _the_Carbon_Sink Dear Chuck, I like to think we are all on the same team with essentially the same two goals, 1) eliminate fossil fuel use, and 2) reduce impacts from the sudden increase in greenhouse gases. Our emphasis between the two goals, the scale of our efforts, and our planning horizon vary. Might you share a description of your most promising process? We should all be cheering however much fossil fuels you can displace. Perhaps the PODenergy/Ocean Foresters group can help you past the limits of scale. Based on what I have read below, you have at least two limits on scale: 1) You may cause a decrease in the commodity price of defatted algal biomass unless your production of same is coordinated with expansion of markets. We might help expand the fish feed market. Also, I have been pushing for someone to develop the algae-based equivalent of Plumpy'Nut (a peanut based paste with a long non-refrigerated shelf life ready-to-use therapeutic food.) 2) You will be exporting all the fertilizer and CO2 needed to grow more algae with the biofuel and the defatted algal biomass. Eventually, the cost of supplying nutrients will become too expensive. We should discuss ways to extend the nutrient limit. Hitting these two limits is a great problem to have! Mark Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: Re:
Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
What a great vindicationfor Russ George. This article raises issues that all concerned with thepolitics, economics and science of climate change should consider. Theenvironmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted Russ George should apologize and hang their heads in shame. The science on iron fertilization is not settled, but the indicationsare very positive. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722 "for the past two years, salmonhave flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest in sometimesrecord numbers "the iron sulfide bloom is a likely factorcontributing to those runs." It looks like theopposition to the successful Haida Salmon experiment had less to do withprotecting the environment than with using climate politics to damage thecapitalist system. The real moral hazardhere is that climate politics has been hijacked by people who have an agenda toreduce economic growth on principle, and an ideological hostility to the profitmotive. It appears these critics are obliviousto environmental science due to their eagerness to cast business as the enemy. The fact is, profitable CDR enterprises are likely to be the maincontribution to a possible future stabilisation of the climate. This is insufferable for some who have putall their eggs in the emission reduction basket led by expanded governmentregulation and tax. The Pacific salmoniron algae project occurred in a safe environmental location with no apparentrisk as a limited and well planned scientific experiment aimed to deliversignificant economic and environmental benefits, targeted to poor indigenouscommunities. It provided a structuredreplication of much bigger natural volcanic processes. The fact that this fieldexperiment was not under academic auspices should be secondary to the actualmethods and ideas, and the indifference of universities is more a condemnationof the failure of experts to be pro-active and get involved. RussGeorge’s logic is impeccable and simple: feed baby fish and more of them willsurvive. The false alarmsraised about this pioneering work are entirely unjustified, as this articleshows. The intimidating attacks directedagainst this salmon algae work have been damaging for science, growth andecology. Robert Tulip Disclaimer: PersonalViews Only From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014, 21:23 Subject: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722The first of a two-part series.GEOENGINEERING:Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?Joshua Learn, E&E reporterClimateWire: Wednesday, November 12, 2014The first of a two-part series.For the past 100 years, the Haida First Nations tribe in Canada has watched the salmon runs that provided its main food source decline. Both the quantity and quality of its members' catch in the group of islands they call home, off the coast of British Columbia, continued to drop.In the late 1990s and early 2000s, they became determined to do something about it. They built a hatchery, fixed watersheds damaged by past logging practices and sent more fish into the ocean for their multiyear migrations.But the larger influx of fish that went out didn't return, and the search for better solutions for the small village of Old Massett on the north end of Graham Island in British Columbia eventually led the Haida down a path that culminated in the largest ocean fertilization project of its kind ever attempted.In the summer of 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Council (HSRC) joined forces with a California businessman, Russ George, and dribbled 100 tons of iron sulfate into Canadian and international waters in the Pacific Ocean off the back of a ship.SPECIAL SERIESDid an ambitious 2012 experiment to "fertilize" the ocean with iron filings reduce CO2? That remains a controversy. But Pacific salmon seem to have enjoyed it.The idea, promoted by George, was that this would stimulate the growth of plankton, which would be eaten by larger ocean dwellers and begin a feeding frenzy by the juvenile fish heading into the ocean. That might ultimately lead to higher survival rates and better fishing results when the fish came back to the island streams to spawn.The sheer size of this experiment, when it was discovered, sent a shock wave through communities of environmentalists and scientists concerned about geoengineering -- schemes to intentionally manipulate the planet's climate. They called the actions a "blatant violation" of international laws set up to restrict the undertaking of such vast experiments due partly to the unknown secondary effects they may cause (Greenwire, Oct. 17, 2012).But for the past two years, salmon have flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northw
Re: [geo] REFLECTIONS ON TEACHING GEOENGINEERING – Guest Post – Paul Wapner, American University | WGC
hope. PW: “…our deepest,safest, and sanest orientation involves measured actions that directly addressthe causes of our problems rather than masking them. Distraction as strategyequals, in my book, immaturity.” ·That is a telling statement against SRM, but actually provides a clearpath to support CDR. The cause of our climate problems is that there is too much carbon in the air. Direct action requires reduction of theamount of carbon in the air. Reducing theamount we add is only indirect, since it only delays (if at all) the arrival ofhighly dangerous and destabilising tipping points. So CDR is in fact the only direct action tostabilise the climate. PW: “In the future, eyes will light up and handswill rise to discuss the possibility of actually lowering carbon emissions,shifting to clean energy systems, and building a post-carbon world.” ·This concept of a “post-carbon world”, and its related theme ofdecarbonisation of the economy, is not only unrealistic, but is actually harmful. Instead we should be focussing on innovativeways to use carbon as a resource, and to recycle the excess carbon now in theair and sea. I feel that advocates ofemission reduction don’t comprehend the Sisyphian nature of their ideas, like pointlesslypushing a boulder up a mountain. ·Rather than optics-driven targets of emission reductions that willinevitably fade like mirages as we approach them, the real target we shouldhave is to remove twenty billion tonnes of carbon from the air each year. Robert Tulip (Personal views only) From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014, 12:09 Subject: [geo] REFLECTIONS ON TEACHING GEOENGINEERING – Guest Post – Paul Wapner, American University | WGC http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/11/30/teaching-climate-geoengineering/Extract We slog through various literatures dejected by climate change’s magnitude and the darkness of possible futures. After weeks of depressing news—having examined why states, companies, and ordinary citizens have failed to marshal sufficient political will to mitigate greenhouse gases—we turn to geoengineering. All of a sudden, the classroom becomes animated. Hands start going up asking about the details of shooting sulfates into the atmosphere, the amount of sulfuric acid that would make a difference, the effects of such action on the ozone layer, and so on. Finally, it seems, students see light at the end of a climate tunnel, and awaken to the excitement of finding a way out.As a professor, I love to see such lit-up eyes. Nothing is more gratifying than engaging students in lively conversation about books that they’ve read and ideas that they think stand as genuine possibilities for improving the world. Teaching about geoengineering, it turns out, is really fun.Most students supported further research on geoengineering and a little over half supported piloting a small-scale test in some part of the world.After two weeks of studying various geoengineering scenarios, I took a poll. Most students supported further research on geoengineering and a little over half supported piloting a small-scale test in some part of the world. Keith and others had won. They got their cohort. At least my class, beaten down by the structural and behavior impediments to meaningful mitigation, grabbed onto geoengineering’s promise. They were ready if not willing advocates of altering the biophysics of the planet in the service of climate protection.-- 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.
Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
ight and most recent discoveries, webelieve it is time to start delivering that potential to the world." He had photos of cold fusion devices working in his lab - I've even seen aphoto I can't find now of the prototype room heater. It was supposed tobe on the market by 2007. A cold fusion and Russ George debunker in 2008 pubished this: "Highlights of RussGeorge's Business and Science Activities" On Friday, November 14, 2014 3:12:21 PM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote: What a great vindication for Russ George. Thisarticle raises issues that all concerned with the politics, economics andscience of climate change should consider. The environmentalists and UNagencies who have persecuted Russ George should apologize and hang their headsin shame. The science on iron fertilization is not settled, but theindications are very positive. -- 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 emailto 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.
Re: [geo] Does this graph tell the truth?
The NASA graph does 'tell the truth' of CO2 rise since 2005. Data with seasonal variance is also readily available, for example this chart of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | View on upload.w... | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | Two points emerging from this chart are that CO2 level has an annual cycle of about up seven down six ppm, and that the rate of increase has accelerated significantly since the 1960s. Brian Cartwright makes a very good point about the potential of the biological cycle to draw down carbon. Leveraging the scale of the natural carbon cycle through Carbon Dioxide Removal could deliver a bigger contribution to climate stabilisation than reducing anthropogenic emissions. Robert Tulip From: Brian Cartwright To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Adam Sacks Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 0:02 Subject: [geo] Does this graph tell the truth? http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ CO2 levels here are "corrected for seasonal cycle". I would suggest that by showing the annual sawtooth effect of photosynthesis and decay/respiration the graph could suggest the potential of the biological cycle to draw down carbon. I know many physical scientists discount this as a given, but when an increasing proportion of earth's surface is deforested, desertified, etc, the natural drawdown effect decreases; it should instead be amplified by restorative human activity and not edited out of our climate data. Brian Cartwright-- 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.
Re: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich
Here is the New Republic article linked by Noah DeichThe Climate Agreement in
Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Better Solution.
| |
| | | | | | | |
| The Climate Agreement in Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Bet...This new
technology stands a better chance of reducing carbon in the atmosphere. |
| |
| View on www.newrepublic.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
Direct Air Capture could provide CO2 input to grow algae at sea, as a
profitable scaleable negative emission technology. That is the sort of thing a
new Manhattan Project should study. But the article shows that the global
climate negotiation process is preventing such essential research by holding
the planet hostage to its flawed theories of social and political science
around impossible global agreements on emission reduction.
Robert Tulip
From: Peter Flynn
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Sent: Sunday, 21 December 2014, 5:35
Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs
to prevent climate change | Deich
#yiv2275964106 #yiv2275964106 -- _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2275964106
#yiv2275964106 p.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106
li.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 a:link,
#yiv2275964106 span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 a:visited, #yiv2275964106
span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106
span.yiv2275964106EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2275964106
.yiv2275964106MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv2275964106 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106WordSection1 {}#yiv2275964106 I
find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its subset,
geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how will we
govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take action
with a smaller chorus of negativity. One constant element in such commentary is
that any action (sometimes even research) will decrease the incentive for
emissions reduction, and hence such action should be not taken. I reflect on
King Canute who, when wanting to convince subjects of the limitations of his
power, went to the surf and ordered the tide not to come in. Let those
convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince
the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce
worldwide emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of
thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless. I would love to see a
demonstration scale direct capture program in any country; it would add to the
body of knowledge about the numerous choices that lie in the future. Ditto re a
biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re many others. And I would love to
see some of the energy that goes into seemingly endless discussions of
governance shift into populating our knowledge of options. Peter Flynn Peter
Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for
EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of
Albertapeter.flynn@ualberta.cacell: 928 451 4455
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: December-20-14 9:44 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to
prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs.
https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/The
flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate
changeDECEMBER 20, 2014
For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to
produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track
record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New
Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing
heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments.The idea in
the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed
country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”)
systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be
buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock
formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund
massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG
emissions.Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan:Problem
#1: The hypothetical costs of
Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
Bill Stahl's perceptive observationthat Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae production) could be independent andprofitable as a carbon dioxide reduction technology points to the centrality ofalgae for climate stabilisation, as a way to mimic and industrialise naturalprocesses to provide scalable and sustainable rapid ways to fix more carbonthan we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels. OIF should be consideredthe starting point for scientific research programs to define objectives andmassively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff technologies. For example, containing the produced algae fromOIF in the OMEGA membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentratingthis algae as a useful commodity, offers a path to global economictransformation, turning carbon dioxide from waste to resource. Carbon taxes are merely anincidental distraction to this objective of carbon dioxide removal, which willstand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to compete against fossilfuels on purely market based economics without long term subsidy. The role of governments is to provide seedfunding for innovation, in recognition that global warming is a primaryplanetary security emergency. Robert Tulip From: Bill Stahl To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jrandomwin...@gmail.com; rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; nua...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 4:08 Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? good point Bhaskar. What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with circumstances). On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar wrote: Bill The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very low.The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special ships used. You wrote -"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?) " Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold. Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very profitable. Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the goal of increasing fish. Regards Bhaskar On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote: A belated response: This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the resulting ROI on the 2 million USD? On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But *in addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's respectability by way of contrast. Include an open-minded paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data, then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was beheading hamsters in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even amid a storm of disapproval. If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other reasons, that will pretty hard to stop. Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage the latter, even i
[geo] Forward Osmosis Membrane
ForwardOsmosis Membrane DearMichael & other readers Responseto comment from Michael Hayes that plastic bags are too flimsy for industrialproduction of algae at sea. Mydiscussion of the use of plastic bags to grow algae at sea is based on mycooperation with Mr Terry Spragg, another of those failed Californiaentrepreneurs who had a great visionary idea that no one has ever funded. Terry’s site www.waterbag.comdescribes his invention of a floating flexible barge using strong flexible plasticbags (not osmotic membranes) to tow fresh water from areas of abundance (egPacific Northwest USA, North Queensland, Turkey) to areas of shortage (egCalifornia, Southeast Australia, Gaza). His 1996 waterbag demonstrationvoyage in Puget Sound failed due to quality control on stitching, not weakmaterials. As StevenJohnson explains in his wonderful book WhereGood Ideas Come From – The Natural History of Innovation, inventors often needto make mistakes and fail before they can succeed with a radically innovativenew technology that opens up undreamt of realms of the adjacent possible. That is the evolving situation for marinealgae production. Safe controlled scientificexperiments are needed to test what can work. Unfortunately there is an intense and pervasive political hostilitytowards innovation which results in market failure to provide the necessaryventure capital or even discuss the ideas properly in any public forum. At sea, aplastic bag full of fresh water will float, becoming part of the oceanwave. Such a bag can easily be made strongenough to survive safely in an ocean swell. My suggestion is to use plastic waterbags as containers for algae farmsat sea, with the surrounding waterbag providing buoyancy, stability and pumpingenergy. In bad weather the whole systemcan be temporarily sunk beneath the waves. A great test location would be Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, wherealgae farms can provide insurance against global warming by reducing waterheat, acid and nutrient load, protecting the coral against the highrisk of bleaching and preventing the impending catastrophic loss of reefbiodiversity. Osmosisis only required to dewater the algae once a bloom is mature, not during thegrowth phase. My opinion is that dewateringwould best be done using vertical pipes to the deep ocean floor, where highpressure and temperature can be applied to convert the algae into hydrocarbonsand other profitable commodities. This methodcould be tested with some the million tonnes of carbon that the Gorgon GasProject plans to sequester each year, converting the waste CO2 into valuablehydrocarbons and other commodities, providing the revenue stream for scalableCO2 removal from air and sea. RobertTulip From: "voglerl...@gmail.com" To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; bstah...@gmail.com;bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jrandomwin...@gmail.com;nua...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 26 December 2014, 22:01 Subject: RE: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in theNorthwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? Robert, . The foreward osmosis membrain is not robust enough for any use beyondwhatTrent has indicated. Large scale off shore algal farms will need ridgidtanks. -- 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.
[geo] Sixth Extinction
I have just read this great new book and was interested to see Ken Caldeira feature, discussing coral futures at One Tree Island on the Great Barrier Reef. My review is at Amazon.com: Robert Tulip's review of The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. | | | | | | | | | | | Amazon.com: Robert Tulip's review of The Sixth Extinctio...Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History at Amazon.com. Read honest and unbiased product reviews from our... | | | | View on www.amazon.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | -- 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.
Re: [geo] 'Climate hacking' would be easy – that doesn't mean we should do it
Thisarticle claims that "we already have an affordable solution with arelatively well-understood outcome: reducing our carbon emissions." This isa political assertion with dubious empirical basis. Their claims that global agreement on emissionreduction is “affordable” and has “relatively well understood outcomes” are tendentiousand rhetorical. It is entirely wrong tojump from the true observation that the science of climate change is settled tothe false claim that our knowledge of what to do about it is equally settled. Such a jump seems to bedevil climate debate. Continued net positive carbon emissions will merely delay thearrival of probable dangerous environmental tipping points. And we do not know if global agreement toreduce emissions is politically feasible in the face of the power of fossil fuel industries. The likely outcomes of efforts to achieve global agreements are not wellunderstood at all, and hold planetary stability hostage to a dubious politicaltheory. The debate on climate stability needs to be reframed to includenegative emission technology such as BECCS,but this is often seen as outside the scope of the global agreement process. The upheaval that would result from a winding down of fossil fuelindustries presents highly complex technical, political and economic problems,and in any case the ambition would be crueled by optouts. Blithely asserting that these problems for emissionreduction are well understood and affordable does not serve the interests ofevidence based policy. Use of the derogatory terms “hacking” and “immoral” furtherillustrates the politically driven nature of the comments from these academics.They make the particularly weak assertion in their argument against SRM that “manyspecies are already struggling to adapt tothe current pace of change.” Surely thatis a reason to try to slow down climate change through all means available, notan argument to rule out major methods? SRM is hardly a cure-all for the climate. But putting all our eggs in the basket theypropose, “to negotiate a worldwide treaty to cut carbon emissions from nationsacross the globe”, involves extremely high stakes and is hardly well understoodand affordable. Robert Tulip From: AndrewLockley To: geoengineering Sent: Monday, 5 January 2015, 9:27 Subject: [geo] 'Climate hacking' would be easy – that doesn't mean weshould do it Poster's note : the site onwhich this article appears is straplined "academic rigour, journalisticflair". In my opinion, neither applies to this piece, despite itsseemingly credible authorship. http://theconversation.com/climate-hacking-would-be-easy-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-do-it-35200 ‘Climate hacking’ would beeasy – that doesn’t mean we should do it AUTHORS Erik van Sebille, ResearchFellow and Lecturer in Oceanography at UNSW Australia Katelijn Van Hende, Lecturerin Energy Law and Geopolitics at University College London Some people might argue thatthe greatest moral challenge of our time is serious enough to justifydeliberately tampering with our climate to stave off the damaging effects ofglobal warming. Geoengineering, or “climatehacking”, to use its more emotive nickname, is a direct intervention in thenatural environments of our planet, including our atmosphere, seas and oceans. It has been suggested thatgeoengineering might buy us time to prevent warming above 2C, and that weshould look at it seriously in case everything goes pear-shaped with ourclimate. There are two problems withthis argument. The first is that we already have an affordable solution with arelatively well-understood outcome: reducing our carbon emissions. The second is thatgeoengineering itself is fraught with danger and that, worryingly, the mostdangerous version, called solar radiation management, is also the most popularwith those exploring this field. Down in flames In essence, solar radiationmanagement is about mimicking volcanoes. Climate scientists have known foryears that major volcanic eruptions can eject so much ash into the highatmosphere that they effectively dim the sun. The tiny ash particles blockthe sunlight, reducing the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth’s surface.A major volcanic eruption like that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 can causeworldwide cooling of about 0.1C for about two or three years. As global temperatures willrise in the business-as-usual scenario, leading to a projected increase ofalmost 4C in the coming century, the ash of a few volcanic eruptions each yearcould theoretically offset the temperature rise due to the burning of fossilfuels. Science has also taught usthat depositing the ash, or something similar, into the high atmosphere is notvery difficult. Some studies show that by using balloons, it could cost aslittle as a few billion dollars per year. It certainly sounds like amuch cheaper and easier approach than trying to n
Re: [geo] National Academies reports: CDR
Noah Deich provides a good summary of the CDR report at Recap and Commentary:
National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal
I have made a comment at his blog.
Robert Tulip
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences ...Earlier today, the
National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) released a comprehensive study dedicated
to carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”). To date, CDR has largely been ... |
| |
| View on carbonremoval.wordp... | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
From: "Rau, Greg"
To: "j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl" ;
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015, 6:31
Subject: Re: [geo] National Academies reports
Also
this:http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-suggests-thinking-carefully-first/To
quote: "In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into
carbon removal technology. "Overall, there is much to be gained and very low
risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies
that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more
cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term," it
concludes. "In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are
currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues
rather than direct costs."But beyond the research programs, it's clear that
neither of these approaches is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that
either of them can ever be made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation
of what would have been the US'largest carbon capture experiment. That's in
sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology is already
mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those of fossil
fuels."Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential
approaches and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of
the latter.Greg
From: "J.L. Reynolds"
Reply-To: "j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl"
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] National Academies reports
#yiv1141488040 #yiv1141488040 -- _filtered #yiv1141488040 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1141488040 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4
3 2 4;}#yiv1141488040 #yiv1141488040 p.yiv1141488040MsoNormal, #yiv1141488040
li.yiv1141488040MsoNormal, #yiv1141488040 div.yiv1141488040MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1141488040 a:link,
#yiv1141488040 span.yiv1141488040MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1141488040 a:visited, #yiv1141488040
span.yiv1141488040MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1141488040
span.yiv1141488040EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1141488040
.yiv1141488040MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1141488040 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt
70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv1141488040 div.yiv1141488040WordSection1 {}#yiv1141488040
Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume
report on climate engineering. They are available here
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration
One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The
newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington
Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO
reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came
out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were
supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution
expressed).
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See
https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal
https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers
Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and
climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and
Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ --
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, sen
Re: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton
I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of thepolitics of geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technologyadvocates he usefully but wrongly describes. I would really welcome intensive Republican and military and big oilinterest in carbon dioxide removal, as that is the only thing with prospect ofdelivering results on climate security and energy security. Multinational companies have to invest in CDRto protect their stock prices, their reputations and their sources of supply. CDRcan deliver a win-win for the climate and the economy. Clive’s scientificdreams falsely assume that the science on warming means the science is also inon workable responses (ie emission reduction). Emission reduction will not happen, and would not stabilisethe climate even if it did, since it would only slow the upward CO2 trajectory.We need commercial negative emission technology on a scale bigger than totalemissions. Economic growth powered bycoal is a freight train that no one will stop. Emission reduction is as likelyas suggesting the French could have stopped Hitler by reforming their taxsystem. UN emission targets, even if anyare agreed, are nothing but a mirage that will recede as their datesapproach. The entire emission reduction strategy is based on falseassumptions about science, economics and politics. The power of the fossil energy industry will easilybrush aside carbon taxes and global regulations. So rather than demonise Newt Gingrich asHamilton suggests, a better strategy is to reach out to the right wing, to getmoney, political will and ingenuity to identify and deliver mutual goals onglobal scale. The political reality is that anyone perceived as hostile to the oil and coal and gas industry cannot gain the trust of the people who make globally crucial decisions. As Bjorn Lomborg argues,the priority should be R&D to make CDR commercially profitable. My view is that we can burn coal and oil and gas and thenmine the produced carbon using industrial algae farms at sea, deliveringprofitable commodities to fund scale up. Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough abouthow the Earth system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious argument that ignores globalrealities. Nine billion people means achoice between climate regulation and a runaway greenhouse. Humans have planetary dominion whether welike it or not. A Gaia Apollo project candeliver negative emission technology in the next decade to remove more carbonfrom the air than we add. The best target for the Paris climate conference isto harness private enterprise to remove twenty billion tonnes of carbon fromthe air each year within a decade. Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, 13 February 2015, 10:39 Subject: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html?referrer=By CLIVE HAMILTONFEBRUARY 12, 2015THE Republican Party has long resisted action on climate change, but now that much of the electorate wants something done, it needs to find a way out of the hole it has dug for itself. A committee appointed by the National Research Council may just have handed the party a ladder.In a two-volume report, the council is recommending that the federal government fund a research program into geoengineering as a response to a warming globe. The study could be a watershed moment because reports from the council, an arm of the National Academies that provides advice on science and technology, are often an impetus for new scientific research programs.Sometimes known as “Plan B,” geoengineering covers a variety of technologies aimed at deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warming.Despairing at global foot-dragging, some climate scientists now believe that a turn to Plan B is inevitable. They see it as inscribed in the logic of the situation. The council’s study begins with the assertion that the “likelihood of eventually considering last-ditch efforts” to address climate destabilization grows every year.The report is balanced in its assessment of the science. Yet by bringing geoengineering from the fringes of the climate debate into the mainstream, it legitimizes a dangerous approach.Beneath the identifiable risks is not only a gut reaction to the hubris of it all — the idea that humans could set out to regulate the Earth system, perhaps in perpetuity — but also to what it says about where we are today. As the committee’s chairwoman, Marcia McNutt, told The Associated Press: The public should read this report “and say, ‘This is downright scary.’ And they should say, ‘If this is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.’ ”Even scarier is the fact that, while most geoengineering boosters see these technologies as a means of buying time for the world to get its
[geo] Tidal Pump
The tidal pump is a proposal I have submitted to the MIT Climate Collaboration Energy-Water Nexus Challenge, as a first step to enable commercial implementation of global carbon dioxide removal as a practical method to stabilise the climate. The judges have described the proposal as "technically very interesting indeed", and have selected it as a semi-finalist. I have responded to judges comments at the link below, and would welcome comment or suggestions. Link is Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab | | | | | | | | | | | Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus -...The Tidal Pump, now at proof of concept, aims to shift large volumes of liquid in the ocean at lowest possible cost using new technology.. Enter one of 18 contests ... | | | | View on climatecolab.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | Robert TulipResources & Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade -- 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.
Re: [geo] Tidal Pump
John Nissen wrote : “HiRobert, I'm sorry I've only just readthe description [1], because I immediately jumped to the conclusion that itssignificance was as a champion for theuse of algae for serious CDR, with potential to draw down more CO2 thanbeing emitted while 'only' using one or two percent of the planet's ocean area.The pump itself is almost a distraction!” RT:Many thanks John for your comments here. You are correct that the Tidal Pump is almost a distraction. I have focused on it in order to suggest atangible incremental practical step towards the big idea of ocean based algaeproduction to remove carbon dioxide. Imet Australia’s CSIRO national algae biofuel experts, and this proof of initialtechnology concept approach was the process they suggested, which I agree with. Even if tidal pumping proves to be only partof the picture, I hope it kickstarts discussion of how large scale ocean basedalgae production can become possible using a range of pumping and other methods. JN: “However Robert appears towant to take the CO2 from concentrated sources, such as coal-fired powerstations, and use the algae to turn the CO2 into something else. Thus it is thecarbon capture part of CCS and of commercial interest to FF companies. But itdoes not have a net effect of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, as requiredboth for reducing global warming and staying reasonably below the 2 degree Cso-called safe limit, touted by IPCC, and for reducing ocean acidification.” RT: In fact the mainconcentrated source that I suggest is the Gorgon Liquefied Natural Gas projectwhich plans to geosequester 3000 tonnes of CO2 every day as part of its $50billion investment, which is Australia’s biggest ever project. My reason for taking this approach is thatif algae biofuel can be made profitable for the fossil fuel industry, it willpresent a critical path towards scaling up the technology to mine carbon from the air and sea. JN: “I found this altercation between Michael Hayes andRobert in the comment section [2] particular illuminating: RT: Yes, I wouldlove to see coal burning become ecologically sustainable through HighEfficiency Low Emission technology linked to ocean based algae biofuelproduction to recycle all its produced carbon. We do have to massively raisethe bar, as Michael puts it, to exclude all denialism and develop technology tomake energy production ecologically sustainable. MH: “As to the end strategy ofbringing the FF industry to the wonderfully idealistic paradigm shift of"turning their commercial interests, resources and skills to advantage fornew sustainable technology.": There simply is no plausible indicationwithin this proposal that Mr. Tulip's patented marine bag/tidal pumptechnologies, nor the stated end strategy can, nor will ever, cause, compel orlead the FF industry into a new 'kinder' profit motive.”” RT: Thanks John for drawing attention to this debate. I find it interesting that Michael links toNASA research on offshore membranes (OMEGA) but argues that use of plastic bagsat sea is impractical. This is clearly aquestion in need of much more research. My suggestion of public private partnership is obviously one that willrankle with the more left wing end of the climate science community, but asnoted above in my comments about Gorgon, I think it is the only way to achieverapid results at scale. My perception isthat debate on these topics often involves many unstated assumptions, which Isuggest should be brought into the open. JN: “I am all for algae to drawdown CO2, but they must takethe CO2 out of the atmosphere (or out of solution in water) directly ratherthan from a concentrated source. And, if they also produce an edibleend-product (e.g. fish) or can be converted to a soil improver (e.g. biochar),so much the better for feeding the world! Cheers, John [1] http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301501/phaseId/1309178/planId/1320162 [2] http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301501/phaseId/1309178/planId/1320162/tab/COMMENTS” RT: You are jumping to the end goal while ignoring the needfor a practical way to get from here to there. Algae technology has to grow in stages, funded by commercialprofit. That means use of concentratedsources. I had a similarly lively debateon that issue with an algae scientist who maintained that cost of and access toCO2 was a primary constraint. My pointis that the scale of the Gorgon geosequestration plan provides an abundant free sourceof concentrated CO2, linked to strong capacity and incentives. Link to HELE coalplants is a possible subsequent step, as are direct air capture, etc. Coal and gas willbe big whatever we do, and we should look to removing their waste carbon from theair and sea at point of emission by reprocessing into useful products usingalgae. Thanks again and best regards Robert Tuli
Re: [geo] Tidal Pump
My response to comments by Michael Hayes on this proposal is at link.Robert Tulip Comments - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab | | | | | | | | | | | Comments - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus -...The Tidal Pump, now at proof of concept, aims to shift large volumes of liquid in the ocean at lowest possible cost using new technology.. Enter one of 18 contests ... | | | | View on climatecolab.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" Sent: Monday, 6 July 2015, 11:04 Subject: [geo] Tidal Pump The tidal pump is a proposal I have submitted to the MIT Climate Collaboration Energy-Water Nexus Challenge, as a first step to enable commercial implementation of global carbon dioxide removal as a practical method to stabilise the climate. The judges have described the proposal as "technically very interesting indeed", and have selected it as a semi-finalist. I have responded to judges comments at the link below, and would welcome comment or suggestions. Link is Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab | | | | | | | | | | | Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus -...The Tidal Pump, now at proof of concept, aims to shift large volumes of liquid in the ocean at lowest possible cost using new technology.. Enter one of 18 contests ... | | | | View on climatecolab.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | Robert TulipResources & Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade -- 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.
Re: [geo] Tidal Pump
This proposal has advanced as a finalist to the MIT CoLab public voting stage
open to 12 September.
The Energy-Water Nexus Competition Judges wrote: "Combining ocean energy with
algae production is an interesting topic. This revised proposal incorporates
the judge comments well and brings forth an intelligible process for which
algae farming can lead to a significantly positive impact on our environment.
This proposal recognized the issue regarding commercial viability and does a
good job at presenting possible solutions to that issue. The end product focus
and using locally provided energy to generate the end products are welcome
considerations."
From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Monday, 6 July 2015, 11:04
Subject: [geo] Tidal Pump
The tidal pump is a proposal I have submitted to the MIT Climate Collaboration
Energy-Water Nexus Challenge, as a first step to enable commercial
implementation of global carbon dioxide removal as a practical method to
stabilise the climate.
The judges have described the proposal as "technically very interesting
indeed", and have selected it as a semi-finalist. I have responded to judges
comments at the link below, and would welcome comment or suggestions.
Link is Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus -...The Tidal Pump, now
at proof of concept, aims to shift large volumes of liquid in the ocean at
lowest possible cost using new technology.. Enter one of 18 contests ... |
| |
| View on climatecolab.org | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
Robert TulipResources & Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade --
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.
[geo] Carbon Mining
Here is a letter published in The Australian at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/last-post-january-25/news-story/f80bbc5b900fa469495044963915048b Malcolm Turnbull should immediately cancel the gesture politics of renewable energy targets. RETs harm the economy and do nothing for the climate. However, the PM can restore credibility for his themes of agility and innovation by opening a discussion about negative emission technology. Carbon dioxide removal is emerging as the best market method to stabilise the global climate and reverse global warming. Robert Tulip I expand on my views on carbon mining at a blog on Governance and Extractive Industries Carbon Mining | | | | || | | | | | Carbon Mining Carbon Mining - A Better Way to Fix the Climate Reducing carbon dioxide emissions, far from being the only solut... | | | | -- 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.
Re: [geo] Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals
This article makes observations about the inadequacy of renewables for climate repair which have been extensively discussed by Bjorn Lomborg for years, but which have been ignored by the climate lobby because Lomborg is right wing and opposed to subsidies for renewable energy. Expanding renewables does nothing for climate stability. The only way to prevent dangerous warming is to remove carbon from the air and sea on very large scale. The article concludes with the false statement "Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility." That is untrue. With negative emission technology at very large scale, alongside ongoing fossil fuel emissions, the world could remove double the amount of carbon we add to the air. Under that scenario fossil fuel emissions are compatible with a path towards climate stability. Until this NET bullet is bitten, the world will remain on a path to climate crisis. Robert Tulip Carbon Mining On Friday, 3 February 2017, 12:54, Greg Rau wrote: via This Week in Carbon Removal:https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html ""Wind and solar alone are not sufficient to meet the goals," Peters said.The bottom line, the study suggests, is how much carbon pollution seeps into the atmosphere, and on that score renewable have—so far—barely made a dent. Investment in solar and wind has soared, outstripping fossil fuels for the first time last year. And renewables' share of global energy consumption has increased five-fold since 2000. But it still only accounts for less than three percent of the total.Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period. Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century." ""Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility."In an informal survey last week of top climate scientists, virtually all of them said that goal is probably already out of reach." GR - So do we hold a wake for the Earth now, or seriously explore other options in the time remaining? -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Ideological obstacles to effective climate policy:
The implication of the policies proposed by this article, as with many anti growth opinion pieces, appears to be that the authors consider the best way to fix the climate is to institute a global communist dictatorship with enforced mass poverty. That is a highly unrealistic suggestion. It illustrates the need instead for practical ways to address climate stability within the parameters of existing democratic politics. The technological challenge is to find ways to protect the environment that are compatible with economic growth. Robert Tulip On Wednesday, 22 February 2017, 9:36, Andrew Lockley wrote: Poster's note : I don't find this seemingly neo-Luddite philosophy persuasive http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309816817692127 Ideological obstacles to effective climate policy: The greening of markets, technology, and growthRyan Gunderson, Diana Stuart, Brian PetersenFirst Published February 16, 2017 research-article | | | | Abstract In light of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, this project synthesizes and advances critiques of the possibility of a sustainable capitalism by adopting an explicit ‘negative’ theory of ideology, understood as ideas that conceal contradictions through the reification and/or legitimation of the existing social order. Prominent climate change policy frameworks – the ‘greening’ of markets (market-corrective measures), technology (alternative energy, energy efficiency, and geoengineering), and growth (the green growth strategy) – are shown to conceal one or both of the two systemic socio-ecological contradictions inherent in the current social formation: (1) a contradiction between capital’s growth-dependence and the latter’s degrading impact on the climate (the ‘capital-climate contradiction’) and (2) a contradiction between the potential of using technological infrastructure that aids in emissions reductions and the institutionalized social relations that obstruct this technical potential (the ‘technical potential-productive relations contradiction’). Attempts to reform the very techniques and institutions that brought about the climate crisis will remain ineffective and reproduce the social order that results in climate change. After proposing a way in which societies might move out of the ideological trappings of green markets, technology, and growth, two alternatives are proposed: economic degrowth coupled with Marcuse’s conception of a ‘new technology’. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2
The International Energy Agency and Financial Times are claiming the opposite. https://www.ft.com/content/540ebb0c-0a60-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43 makes the false claim of "global CO2 levels in 2016 virtually unchanged from the two previous years, the International Energy Agency said." Robert Tulip From: Greg Rau To: Geoengineering Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2017, 5:41 Subject: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2 https://phys.org/news/2017-03-carbon-dioxide-rose-pace-2nd.html "The two-year, 6-ppm surge in the greenhouse gas between 2015 and 2017 is unprecedented in the observatory's 59-year record. And, it was a record fifth consecutive year that carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 2 ppm or greater, said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network." GR - If anthro emissions have plateaued, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-nearly-stable-for-third-year-in-row why the dramatic increase in CO2? A runaway GH is upon us? Anyway, is it time yet to admit that anthro emissions reduction is failing and to find out if CDR is more than a figment of IPCC's imagination? -- 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. -- 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.
[geo] Geoengineering by whales
Sustainable Human This five minute video explains how whales transfer iron and nitrogen to the ocean surface to increase the fish and krill population in a benign form of geoengineering. We should mimic this activity. | | | | || | | | || Sustainable Human When whales were at their historic populations, before their numbers were reduced, it seems that whales might ha... | | | | -- 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.
Re: [geo] A roadmap for rapid decarbonization - Science
This roadmap paper is unrealistic. The numbers involved in its calculations are not politically feasible, and have major technical and economic conceptual weaknesses. The main value I would suggest in this roadmap is in enabling discussion and debate about possible realistic strategies to achieve climate stability. My view is that we need radical questioning of the dominant climate language around decarbonisation and mitigation. Expanding on Greg Rau's observation that the roadmap paper ignores ocean sinks, its proposal for "pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050" is too small and slow to materially affect climate change, let alone to deliver climate stability, and the related decarbonisation proposals are politically and economically impossible. My view is that a possible roadmap should focus on ocean sinks. Industrial algae factories on one percent of the world ocean could remove twenty cubic kilometers of carbon from the air every year, a goal that can be called Carbon Mining, funded mainly by conversion of CO2 to hydrocarbons. Twenty cubic kilometers is double total emissions, and fifteen times the 5 gigatonnes of CO2 proposed in this paper. Addressing ocean based methods of carbon mining can replace the need for decarbonisation, mitigation and solar radiation management. The ocean is the main new planetary frontier, with more than double the total area of the land, and desert areas bigger than Australia. Using the ocean the world can mine more carbon than we add, improving biodiversity in locations with no competing spatial use, rapidly stabilising the climate and removing the need for decarbonisation as a climate change goal. Mitigation of emissions cannot lead a viable path to climate stability. In fact, mitigation has glaring inadequacies. Mitigation is far too small and slow to actually affect the climate. As the UN INDC 2015 Synthesis Paper noted, total Paris commitments would still have emissions up to 52% above 1990 levels over the next decade. Mitigation technology such as solar and wind crowds out the real solutions of simple technology for carbon dioxide removal. Add to those technical problems the powerful political hostility from the fossil fuel industry and its allies, and it is clear that mitigation strategies need a rethink. I believe the thinking in the roadmap is constrained by failure to engage with oceanic scale and energy. Using the ocean, climate stability could be achieved with a practical roadmap, as a politically, economically and environmentally sound and viable approach. Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: RAU greg Cc: "johan.rockst...@su.se" ; geoengineering ; "rog...@iiasa.ac.at" ; "direc...@pik-potsdam.de" Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 2:19 Subject: Re: [geo] A roadmap for rapid decarbonization - Science Yes I agree this paper is based on a dubious premise. In all likelihood the doubling rate of renewables will be the controlling factor. There's going to be a slow start, a rapid transition, but then a tailing-off - as hard-to-switch uses (eg intercontinental flight) become dominant in carbon budgets Andrew On 24 Mar 2017 17:06, "Greg Rau" wrote: http://science.sciencemag.org/ content/355/6331/1269/tab-pdf "...we propose framing the decarbonization challenge in terms of a global decadal roadmap based on a simple heuristic—a “carbon law”—of halving gross anthropogenic carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions every decade. Complemented by immediately instigated, scalable carbon removal and efforts to ramp down land-use CO2 emissions, this can lead to net-zero emissions around mid-century, a path necessary to limit warming to well below 2°C." "We need urgent research to ascertain the resilience of remaining biosphere carbon sinks (10). Strong financial impetus must be provided for afforestation of degraded land and for establishment of no-regret approaches to net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere—such as the combination of second- and third-generation bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or direct air CCS (DACCS). Trials of sustainable sequestration schemes of the order of 100 to 500 MtCO2/year should be well under way to resolve deployment issues relating to food security, biodiversity preservation, indigenous rights, and societal acceptance." GR - Seems unlikely we can halve emissions each decade, or that AR, BECSS and DAC alone can take up the slack. So given the task and the risk of failing, how is it that we have the luxury to ignore enhancing the sink potential of the ocean - 70% of the Earth surface, half of the bio C cycle, and half of the annual CO2 sink? Wouldn't this help "resolve [CDR] deployment issues relating to food security, biodiversity preservation, indigenous rights, and societal acceptance." See attached. -- You received this message because you are s
Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
Copying also to Russ George, whose work on the Haida Salmon Project prompted
much of this debate.
It is clear that the Haida iron fertilization work successfully produced a
massive salmon population boom, and that failure to fertilize the oceans -
along the lines Russ proposes in his "ocean pasture" concept - is causing
catastrophe.
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity campaign against ocean geoengineering
deserves primary blame and censure for this catastrophe - see
http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/12/un-to-extend-freeze-on-geoengineering/
A review of the Haida experiment at Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment
Gone Right | PlanetSave rightly states that "satellite imagery showed that a
massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf
of Alaska, centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The
following year, in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest
showed a 400% increase over the previous year."
As Russ George explains at
http://russgeorge.net/2017/03/22/alaska-salmon-emergency-order-halts-2017-king-salmon-season/
the prevention of fertilization means salmon are starving at sea.
As Greg Rau says in his comment below, emission reduction will very likely
fail. The UN is using emission reduction as a futile gesture, while preventing
essential action to protect biodiversity.
Robert Tulip
From: Greg Rau
To: "macma...@cds.caltech.edu"
Cc: geoengineering ; "kgeo...@middlebury.edu"
; Jim Thomas ; "moo...@etcgroup.org"
; "di...@etcgroup.org"
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 5:07
Subject: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse,
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
Roger that, Doug. As we've learned casting doubt and fear can be very
effective in countering reason in the climate change arena, and now applied by
fringe elements to potential climate solutions. Given that their apparently
favored solution, emissions reduction, will very likely fail to single handedly
solve the problem (IPCC), it would seem counterproductive to attack additional
actions without making sure that a particular action's risks an impacts in fact
do out weight its benefits. I'm no fan of OIF, but under the circumstances it
would seem unwise to ignore the ocean's CO2 and climate management potential -
Mother Nature doesn't.
I cite the following, little-noticed legal review as a counter to the "hands
off the ocean" governance mentality that dominates some quarters:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771&context=lawreview
which concludes:"Until nations sit down for real discussions to support risk
assessments of ocean fertilization experiments,rogue environmentalists will
likely continue to act as a distraction using the lack of international
progress as a rationale for their actions."
Greg
On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
#yiv2565813334 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv2565813334
filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2565813334
p.yiv2565813334MsoNormal, #yiv2565813334 li.yiv2565813334MsoNormal,
#yiv2565813334 div.yiv2565813334MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2565813334 h1
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2565813334
a:link, #yiv2565813334 span.yiv2565813334MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2565813334 a:visited, #yiv2565813334
span.yiv2565813334MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2565813334 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2565813334
span.yiv2565813334Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2565813334
span.yiv2565813334EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2565813334
.yiv2565813334MsoChpDefault {}#yiv2565813334 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in
1.0in;}#yiv2565813334 div.yiv2565813334WordSection1 {}#yiv2565813334 I haven’t
read the article, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t been following
this, the abstract by itself is extremely misleading. It would be pretty
stupid and irresponsible to issue carbon credits for an approach for which
there is no evidence for the claimed amount of net drawdown of atmospheric CO2.
I suppose that being aware of big uncertainty could be labeled as an
“interpretation” of uncertainty. And contrary to what ETC folk keep repeating
endlessly no matter how many times people point out that they are wrong, the
governance that was put in place doesn’t ban further research on OIF. This
basically elevates the role of the extreme anti-geoengineering rhetoric of ETC
rather than emphasizing the role played by basic common sense. From:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:33 PM
To: geoengineerin
Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In
Adam Your quantification of the world carbon storage need at 800 GtC has to be annualised to produce a realistic path and to address the problem you raise of the absence of viable technologies for climate stabilisation. Humans add about ten gigatonnes of carbon to the air every year, in the form of 40 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. A gigatonne of water is a cubic kilometre. The order of magnitude for a path to climate stability is therefore roughly equivalent to storing about twenty cubic km of algae in geotextile bags at the bottom of the ocean every year. Such a scale of storage would enable fossil fuel emissions to continue, obviating the need for decarbonisation, while also reducing the amount of carbon in the air. Is such a proposal technically feasible? If carbon in the form of algae (mainly hydrocarbon) could be marketed as a valuable commodity, such a method could pay for itself. My estimate is that the implication of these numbers is that industrial microalgae production on one percent of the world ocean would solve global warming. Ocean Foresters propose a less intensive strategy, using nine percent of the world ocean for macroalgae, in their article Negative Carbon via Ocean Afforestation published in 2012 in the Process Safety and Environmental Protection journal of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering. Tim Flannery cited this paper in his popular book Atmosphere of Hope as a key climate solution, but Ocean Foresters have not found much traction for research. It looks like the politics of negative emission technology is too difficult for the climate movement to engage on it. Robert Tulip From: Adam Dorr To: jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au Cc: Geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017, 14:57 Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In I should perhaps clarify that I have thus far seen no viable CDR scenarios that depend on social/political/economic change alone in the absence of major technological shifts. Perhaps this book will be filled with new a compelling evidence to the contrary, but my current understanding is that no practicable amount of recycling and biking to work and conservation tillage and reforestation and BECCS and all the rest can get us anywhere near sequestering 800 GtC by 2050. And that 800 *billion* tons (!) is only what must come out of the air that we've already put in - it doesn't include the 300 GtG more we're slated to emit by then! There are pathways to CDR at the hundred-gigaton scale, but they are entirely dependent upon future technologies like machine-labor-driven DACCS and enhanced weathering. Again, I do very much hope I'm wrong, but the task ahead of us is absolutely staggering and the social/political/economic pathways that depend on local conservation practices (as this book seems to imply) are likely doomed to disappoint. On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Jonathan Marshall wrote: I certainly agree that it sounds as if it is overly optimistic It will be interesting to see whether it suggests any socio-political remedies or whether it will be purely technological jon From: adamd...@gmail.com on behalf of Adam Dorr Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:53 PM To: Jonathan Marshall Cc: Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In Again, without salient details my fear is that this is the pop-science version of clickbait. I'm surely do hope I'm wrong, but unless these are fundamentally new CDR scenarios that have not yet been discussed anywhere in the geoengineering literature, my confidence in the claim that we can somehow "reverse the build-up of atmospheric carbon within thirty years" in the absence of radical technological change will have to remain discouragingly low. On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Marshall wrote: I thought the website was reasonably clear as to what the book was about "Drawdown maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most substantive solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its history, the carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the path to adoption, and how it works. The goal of the research that informs Drawdown is to determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric carbon within thirty years. All solutions modeled are already in place, well understood, analyzed based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding around the world." In other words they are asserting that viable solutions already exist - and perhaps that if you combine them you can get a successful programme whether we do have viable solutions, or they can achieve a description in a useful way, is another matter. jon From:adamd...@gmail.com on behalf of Adam Dorr Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:29 AM To: Greg Rau Cc: Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In After reading the blurb on the website, I'm still unclear what th
Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
This article from Nature contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon Experiment. The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked." This alleged failure to see any evidence ignores extensive data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results. Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not exist. Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave states the Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more dramatically than anyone could have foreseen... satellite imagery showed that a massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf of Alaska, centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The following year, in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% increase over the previous year." The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by this failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and fact checking to its false statement about evidence for the Haida Salmon experiment. Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs. You are up against a venal climate lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate repair, and who are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean iron fertilization in support of dubious political objectives. Robert Tulip | | | | || | | | | | Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave A rogue ocean fertilization experiment carried out in 2012 may well prove to be the saviour of the world-renowne... | | | | From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017, 17:11 Subject: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031 Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but researchers doubt its motives. - Jeff Tollefson 23 May 2017 Article tools - PDF - Rights & Permissions Blickwinkel/AlamyPhytoplankton need iron to make energy by photosynthesis.Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium on commercial ocean fertilization.The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that it is seeking permits from the Chilean government to release up to 10 tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of Coquimbo as early as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the organization grew out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions of Vancouver, that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some researchers suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an unproven and potentially harmful activity.“They claim that by producing more phytoplankton, they could help the recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo Ulloa, director of the Millennium Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, Chile. “We don’t see any evidence to support that claim.” Related stories - Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods - Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire - Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan More related storiesTensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute went public with their concerns in response to Chilean media reports on the project. The government has since requested input from the Chilean Academy of Science, and the institute is organizing a forum on the project and related research on 25 May, at a marine-sciences meeting in Valparaíso, Chile. The Oceaneos foundation, which declined an invitation, has accused the scientists of improperly classifying its work as geoengineering, rather than ocean restoration. Oceaneos president Michael Riedijk says that his team wants to work with Chilean scientists and will make all the data from its experiment public. The foundation plans to hold its own forum later, but if scientists aren’t willing to engage, he says, “we’ll just move on without them”.Researchers worldwide have conducted 13 major iron-fertilization experiments in the open ocean since 1990. All have sought to test whether stimulating phytoplankton growth can increase the amount of carbon dioxide that the organisms pull out of the atmosphere and deposit in the deep ocean when they die. Determining how much carbon is sequestered during such experiments has proved difficult, however, and scientists have raised concerns about potential adverse effects, such as toxic algal blo
Fw: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
- Forwarded Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: Robert Tulip Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 18:00 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Suggest you post this to the list On 7 Jun 2017 00:10, "Robert Tulip" wrote: Hi Andrew I have been thinking about your email below, and looking at some of the sources. I had thought Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) and biodiversity was a 'no-brainer', but can see that this analysis is not shared by others. Today Russ George posted a really good summary of why ocean restoration including OIF is key to planetary biodiversity at http://russgeorge.net/2017/ 06/06/un-ocean-conference- denies-oceans-what-it-offers- lands/ I have been reading some of the scientific papers on OIF against the challenge you raise and look forward to further discussion on how we can best focus on ocean biodiversity. Russ was physically banned at the gate from attending the UN Ocean Conference. To me this is a highly disturbing and puzzling occurrence, in view of his highly informed scientific approach, and indicates that the UN is unable to cope with legitimate debate. Regards, Robert From: Andrew Lockley To: Robert Tulip Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017, 16:46 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy I suggest you've yet to successfully make your case on biodiversity benefits of OIF On 27 May 2017 04:19, "Robert Tulip" wrote: Thanks Andrew, I understand your policy and am sorry if you considered any of my statements to be personal criticisms rather than responses to specific statements and policies. My comments were not intended as personal criticisms, but as factual statements about ideological views that are widespread among climate activists. It is a scandal that OIF action that promotes biodiversity is prevented by activists who hypocritically claim to represent biodiversity. Robert From: Andrew Lockley To: Robert Tulip Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017, 3:04 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Ad hominem attacks are not permissible A On 26 May 2017 13:28, "Robert Tulip" wrote: This article from Nature contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon Experiment. The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked." This alleged failure to see any evidence ignores extensive data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results. Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not exist. Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave states the Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more dramatically than anyone could have foreseen... satellite imagery showed that a massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf of Alaska, centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The following year, in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% increase over the previous year." The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by this failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and fact checking to its false statement about evidence for the Haida Salmon experiment. Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs. You are up against a venal climate lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate repair, and who are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean iron fertilization in support of dubious political objectives. Robert Tulip | | | | || | | | | | Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave A rogue ocean fertilization experiment carried out in 2012 may well prove to be the saviour of the world-renowne... | | | | From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017, 17:11 Subject: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- sparks-controversy-1.22031 Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but researchers doubt its motives. - Jeff Tollefson 23 May 2017 Article tools - PDF - Rights & Permissions Blickwinkel/AlamyPhytoplankton need iron to make energy by photosynthesis.Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium on commercial ocean fertilization.The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that it is seeking permits from the
Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Thanks Phil, it seems Russ maynot have been familiar with the UN accreditation process. The big issues here are about the debatearound the IPCC vision of climate change, the political priority the ParisAccord gives to emission reduction, and how OIF and carbon dioxide removal morebroadly fit that vision. The Convention on Biological Diversitymeeting in December 2016 agreedthat “climate change should primarily be addressed by reducing anthropogenicemissions by sources and by increasing removals by sinks of greenhousegases”. Further linkedstatements indicate that sinks do not include Ocean Iron Fertilization. A mediareport interpreted this CBD decision as “the UN is sticking to afamiliar line: pumping the atmosphere with tiny mirrors to deflect sunlight,boosting the uptake of CO2 in oceans by stimulating plankton growth, or burningwood and pumping the emissions underground could be a bad idea.” Leaving aside SRM and wood burning,ocean management is key to climate stability so this decision against OIFshould be much more widely discussed. The science on ocean ironfertilization is fairly simple in its significant contribution tobiodiversity. Claims thatstimulating plankton/algae growth is a risk for biodiversity look like anexcuse to retain the political focus and pressure on emission reduction. Volcanic ash as fertiliser for the surface ocean is a scientific paper which found“strong evidence for natural fertilisation in the iron-limited oceanic area ofthe NE Pacific, induced by volcanic ash from the eruption of Kasatochi volcanoin August 2008. Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were favourable to generatea massive phytoplankton bloom in the NE Pacific Ocean which for the first timestrongly suggests a connection between oceanic iron-fertilisation and volcanicash supply.” The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the eruptionof Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model study found the eruption “led to ashdeposition into the iron-limited NE Pacific Ocean… and generated a massivephytoplankton bloom.” This volcano releasedfar more iron than Russ George’s tiny experiment. Considering related general observationsthat phytoplankton blooms generateincreased fertility up the food chain and thereby enhance biodiversity, thisUN decision gives the impression that CBD opposition to Russ George isprimarily political, in a perception that OIF challenges the paradigm ofemission reduction. It looks like his independent approach, replicatingKasatochi on small scale, was just used as an excuse to attack him, despite thelow risk and apparent success of the Haida Salmon Experiment. Robert Tulip -- 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.
Re: [geo] Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test vital | New Scientist
that lobbyists will try to put in the way of all carbon dioxide removal and other geoengineeringprojects that undermine the belief that emission reduction is the best way toaddress global warming. While obviously the science is settled on global warming, the hypothesisthat emission reduction is the best way to stabilise the climate is purelypolitical and faces the observation from MIT at http://news.mit.edu/2015/paris-commitments-insufficient-to-stabilize-climate-by-2100-1022that all Paris commitments would only reduce warming by 0.2 degrees. The ParisEmperor has no clothes. In this context we should welcome, promote and expandthe visionary activities of independent entrepreneurial scientists such as RussGeorge who are opening better ways to deliver climate stability and protectbiodiversity. Robert Tulip From: Charles H. Greene To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" Cc: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 17:47 Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test vital | New Scientist Just to set the record straight, Olive Heffernan’s New Scientist article continues a tradition of the media mischaracterizing what was observed in the Haida-supported, iron-addition study off British Columbia. While I am not an advocate of iron fertilization as a climate remediation approach, and I am especially skeptical of this particular study, the comment that there was "no evidence of benefits to the sockeye salmon population it was hoping to revive, or to the Haida community that helped fund the project” misrepresents the actual observations. There was an unusual phytoplankton bloom following the release of iron, and the salmon runs exploited by the Haida were also much stronger than usual after an appropriate time lag. Of course, the study was not truly experimental as it was not replicated, nor did it have controls. Therefore, we will never know whether the addition of iron actually led to the observed bloom and enhanced salmon runs or whether these phenomena were just coincidental and the results of other processes. The study was poorly conceived and conducted, but mischaracterizing the observations only muddies the waters further. In addition, the famous quip by John Martin occurred in Woods Hole in 1988, not 1998. -- 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. -- 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.
[geo] Paris Pledges
DearDr Burns Thankyou for the link to the clarification by MIT’s Dr Reilly of his2015 statement about the Paris Accord that “those pledges shave 0.2 Cof warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessedwould have been the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020]based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun,” I do not see how mystatement that “all Paris commitments would only reducewarming by 0.2 degrees” mischaracterises Dr Reilly’s point. “All Paris commitments” mean those newly madein Paris. They do not include theprevious commitments or possible future commitments that Dr Reilly cited in hisexplanation that emission reduction efforts could be greater than just the Parispledges. RobertTulip From: Wil Burns To: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 11 June 2017, 23:01 Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test vital | New Scientist While I won't wade into the OIF controversy (at least right now), I think it's important to note that Robert's characterization of the MIT study's conclusions about the impacts of the Paris Agreement is, in itself, a mischaracterization. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/trump-used-our-research-to-justify-pulling-out-of-the-paris-agreement-he-got-it-wrong/?utm_term=.f70b18f5c27a. Donald Trump cited this study as one of his justifications to withdraw from Paris, and I thought the researchers did an excellent job of explaining why this interpretation was incorrect. Moreover, the stocktaking and review provisions of the Paris are designed to ensure that the level of Party commitments increase over time (see, particularly, Arts. 4(3), 4(9) and Art. 14, so taking a snapshot of what Nationally Determined Contributions will yield by 2100 based on current NDCs is misleading. I also don't think it makes sense for the geoengineering community to denigrate Paris as a justification for geoengineering. wil | Dr. Wil Burns Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, School of International Service, American University | | 650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype: wil.burns | 2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 | On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:49:04 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: https://www.newscientist.com/ article/2133372- geoengineering-fears-make- scrutiny-of-ocean-seeding- test-vital/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.
Re: [geo] The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
It is surprising that a professor of physics at Oxford could state "If we emit a trillion tons of carbon ... most of that warming will still be around in 10,000 years." Carbon Removal, either by sequestering and storing carbon or converting it into useful products at larger scale than total emissions, would mean that all of that warming would not still be around in ten thousand years. If instead of a focus on emission reduction, the world just focused on removing the extra carbon, preferably using algae to convert it into useful products, addressing global warming would be simpler, quicker and cheaper. Why do people on the IPCC continue to peddle this mistruth about the permanency of emissions? Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2017, 3:50 Subject: [geo] The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://thebulletin.org/trouble-geoengineers-%E2%80%9Chacking-planet%E2%80%9D10858 FacebookTwitterLinkedInPinterestYouTubeGoogle+SearchMENU - - - - The John A. Simpson Archive - About John A. Simpson - - Agree to Disagree - Analysis - Columnists - Development and Disarmament Roundtable - Explain This - Multimedia - Nuclear Notebook - Opinion - Reports - Nuclear Roundup - What We're Reading - Voices of Tomorrow - - - Biosecurity - Climate Change - Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Weapons - - Background and Mission - Staff - Science and Security Board - Board of Sponsors - Governing Board - Media Center - Columnists - Next Generation Program - 2016 Annual Report - 2015 Annual Report - Donor Information - Open Positions - Write for The Bulletin - Contact Us - - Current time - Timeline - Multimedia - FAQ - Museum exhibit You are here - Home › - Features › - Analysis › - The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” ANALYSIS23 JUNE 2017 The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Ray-pierrehumbert1.jpg RAYMOND T. PIERREHUMBERT Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is Halley Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford. He was a lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and co-author on several...MoreSUBSCRIBEFOLLOWGeoengineering seems to be the new darling idea making the rounds of the science and technology media. But what is geoengineering? Loosely speaking, the term refers to deliberate manipulation of the Earth’s ecosystem so as to achieve some desired climate effect—usually a cooling to offset the effects of human-caused global warming. Many researchers who have studied the subject are uncomfortable with the word “engineering” applied to meddling with a system we still understand rather poorly, so other terms—such as “Hacking the planet”—have come into play. In National Research Council reports on the subject, of which I was a co-author, we settled on the term “Climate Intervention,” which carries less freight in assuming that the undertaking will necessarily achieve the desired end.Climate intervention comes in two main flavors. One is albedo (i.e., reflectivity) modification, which involves putting something in the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back out into space. The other is carbon dioxide removal and sequestration, which involves removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stowing it somewhere where it will hopefully stay put for a few thousand years. The latter technique is relatively benign, though highly technologically challenging. It is albedo modification, which has some truly terrifying implications, which I will be concerned with here.Geoengineering in the news. Albedo modification has been mooted as the savior of the Great Barrier Reef. The Christian Science Monitor wonders if it’s time to re-engineer our climate. MIT’s Technology Review basically thinks the answer is “yes,” having described it earlier as “cheap and easy.” The Atlantic seems quite smitten with Economist writer Oliver Morton’s vision of remaking the planet, which geoengineering booster Jane Long breathlessly called “geopoetry.” The idea received recent coverage (much of it favorable) by New Scientist, NBC, and in TED talks; I myself have recently participated in an NPR panel discussion on the subject.Too many science writers have been suckered in by one of two seductive narratives, which make for easy copy and a ready-made lead. One is the panic attack: After noting (with justifiable alarm) the woefully insufficient progress on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the storyline goes that it’s time to get ready for albedo modification as a fallback measure, or in other words a bad idea whose time has come.The other narrative
Re: [geo] The international politics of geoengineering
The problem with the supposed “Plan A” of global agreementon mitigation is that it cannot possibly deliver climate stability. All the Paris commitments can only reduceexpected warming by a fraction of a degree. The withdrawal of America and the duplicity of other Paris signatoriesmean even that minimal impact is not realistic. Emission reduction faces insuperable political and economic barriers. Likea mirage, emission goals will evaporate as they are approached. Putting eggs inthe emission reduction basket condemns the world to worsening conflict,dislocation and loss of biodiversity. Theinstability and risk of a four degree warmer world is inevitable under theglobal agreement path. Research anddevelopment of new technology to remove carbon from the air at a larger scalethan total emissions should be Plan A. Large scale ocean based algae production could achieve that goal. Robert Tulip From: CE News To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017, 22:53 Subject: [geo] The international politics of geoengineering http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967010617704142 Corry, Olaf (2017): The international politics of geoengineering. The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. In Security Dialogue 48 (4), pp. 297–315. DOI: 10.1177/0967010617704142. AbstractGeoengineering technologies aim to make large-scale and deliberate interventions in the climate system possible. A typical framing is that researchers are exploring a ‘Plan B’ in case mitigation fails to avert dangerous climate change. Some options are thought to have the potential to alter the politics of climate change dramatically, yet in evaluating whether they might ultimately reduce climate risks, their political and security implications have so far not been given adequate prominence. This article puts forward what it calls the ‘security hazard’ and argues that this could be a crucial factor in determining whether a technology is able, ultimately, to reduce climate risks. Ideas about global governance of geoengineering rely on heroic assumptions about state rationality and a generally pacific international system. Moreover, if in a climate engineered world weather events become something certain states can be made directly responsible for, this may also negatively affect prospects for ‘Plan A’, i.e. an effective global agreement on mitigation. -- 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. -- 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.
[geo] Can Seaweed Save the World? Australian Television Program
Can Seaweed Save the World? Thisprogram aired on Tuesday, 22 August 2017 on the ABC Catalyst ScienceShow. It can be viewed at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4722454.htm Transcript Downloadvideo: mp4 | Watchon iview ABC Summary: “ProfessorTim Flannery investigates how seaweed is helping to save the world - fromgrowing the foods of the future, helping clean polluted water and evencombating climate change. Growingseaweed is now a ten billion dollar a year global industry. Tim travels toKorea to see some of the biggest seaweed farms in the world and meets thescientists who are hoping to create a seaweed revolution here in Australia.” Comment Thisprogram is an essential milestone in the movement of carbon removal into the centreof the climate debate. The scale of potential seaweed production at sea, andthe range of storage and profitable commodity options, mean that industrialseaweed production is the best option for a scalable method to stabilise theplanetary climate by removing carbon from the air. Flannery cites the work ofOcean Foresters that found “if you cover 9% of the world ocean in seaweedfarms, you could offset all of current emissions.” Theprogram starts by discussing the range of technological innovations occurringin North Queensland, interviewing Professor Rocky de Nys of James CookUniversity, who is leading research on seaweed as a profitable method to removenutrient pollution that is harming the Great Barrier Reef, using the produced seaweedfor food, biochar fertilizer, reduction of cattle methane emissions and to growfish. De Nys observes that the lack of structure in seaweed enables it to growfar faster than any terrestrial plant, with major productivity benefits. Next PiaWinberg explains the high value nutraceutical, plastic, food and carbon removalpotential of seaweed. Then Dr Flannery visits South Korea, where theInternational Seaweed Expo illustrates the current large scale and lift-offpotential once the industry goes pelagic. He visits the small islandof Wando which produces a million tons of seaweed a year, and could roll out onoceanic scale once nutrient supply is developed. That problem should be simpleto solve as noted below, since wave energy can pump rich water from below thethermocline. Such farms could remove an estimated 160,000 tons of carbon persquare kilometre, either sending it to long term storage on the ocean floor orusing it for stable construction storage such as bricks. But in atelling comment, Professor Ik Kyo Chung explains that “everyone wants to dosome terrestrial environment like trees.” The barrier is political - the carboncapture industry suffers from terrestrial bias, ignoring how seaweed grown atsea has much greater technical and economic potential than trees, and does notcompete with other higher value uses of the space. A marinepermaculture solution to some of the engineering problems, using wind and waveand solar to pump ocean nutrient to the surface, is being developed by Dr BrianHerzen of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. With ocean sediments alreadynaturally storing millions of tons of seaweed carbon each year, speeding upthis process offers excellent prospects. AdamBumpus explains research status on conversion to bricks, and the potential forseaweed to address global food security. Flannerycomments that “when transformative new ideas grip the world, the changes theycreate can happen quickly.” My reviewof Flannery’s recent book Sunlight and Seaweed is here. RobertTulip RelatedInfo Feeding seaweed to cows to reduce methane levels Prof Rocky de Nys looks at applied algal biotechnologies The unique Wando Seaweeds Expo Seagrasses, saltmarshes and mangrovesas a climate change solution -- 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.
Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies
Humans add about ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year. The ocean is about a billion cubic kilometres in size. Storing all the added annual carbon in the sea would add 0.01% to the size of the sea, if the CO2 could be converted to pure carbon. A better storage location might be tarring all the roads of Asia, using bitumen made from ocean produced algae,Robert Tulip . From: Peter Eisenberger To: Klaus Lackner Cc: Robert H. Socolow ; Greg Rau ; Geoengineering ; "vcar...@umich.edu" Sent: Saturday, 26 August 2017, 10:17 Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies On the question of whether there is enough storage capacity to accomodate the amount of carbon we need remove in human infrastructure I would like to point out that the answer is not a matter of some constraint because as far as I know there is no limit to the useful carbon based infrastructure one could build. Since the building of infrastructure is known to have the largest positive feedback in terms of its social return on capital employed the more infrastructure we build the more jobs there will be , the more poverty will be eliminated (see attached paper) . A good example of a different way of thinking about carbon based infrastructure is that carbon based buildings can be much taller allowing for more space to provide living space without consuming more land area. Architects I talk to alrady recognize that carbon fiber will revolutionize our buildings and of course our transportation system as well. Less well appreciated is the carbon based technlogy is likley in the longer term to replace silicon. Of course all our chemicals and pharmecuticals are also carbon based and all of them can be made starting from gaseous CO2. But my point is that using Co2 from the air removes the classic problem that has plaqued our natural resource economy where there are mal distribution of resources and limits to their availabiity.I once asked my Princeton Economic Professor what prevents our economy from being a big posey scheme -the more people buy the more jobs there are the more people have income to buy etc his answer was resource constraint that would eventually raise the cost and today he would add the cost to our environment. In the attached paper is a formal argument how having an economy that does not have constraints and does not have environmental costs formally enables this postive feedback economy. A simple way to make this point is that in nature an ecosystem that uses more sun , more water and more CO2 is a tropical forest -nature propers - I argue we are part of nature and will also prosper if we make our in puts renewable energy , water and co2 from the air. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Klaus Lackner wrote: Let me clarify a point. CCS is not just geological storage, it is not just point source capture at power plants and CCS in my view is necessary to balance the books. If we do not capture CO2 and store it safely and permanently, we will not manage 2 degrees. We may make 5 degrees without it. Unlike Peter, I am not sure that we have enough infrastructure to hold the carbon we need to hold. I am very open to all sorts of strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. If we do, that would be great, if not we end up storing the carbon we get from somewhere. I very much doubt that this somewhere includes many old coal plants. I very much doubt that retrofitting of coal plants is what will save us. First there are not enough of them, and second we haven’t figured out how to do it cost-effectively. I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that fossil fuels will keep playing a role in the future. But I also want to be very clear that looking to retrofitting old coal plants is a lousy insurance policy. In my view it will simply not work. At the same time, I understand the conundrum of the old coal plants, which is mainly a problem for their owners. I also realize that many of these “old” coal plants outside of the United States are brand new coal plants and therefore would under normal circumstances have a 50 to 70 year life span left. They are only “old” in the sense that they have been built already and are running. They result in a locked in amount of future CO2 emissions. Eliminating these emission means shutting them down. The hope is that we can remove 70% of their carbon footprint by retrofitting them with scrubbers and CCS. I doubt this will work. This makes a 2 degree strategy very difficult. I also agree with you that our strategy should not be 2 degree or bust, we should figure out how to stop warming as expeditiously as we can. In part, this will depend on the political will to deal with the problem, which also includes tradeoffs between economic growth and CO2 mitigation, which are not always ours to make. It may very well be that the next generation wi
Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
The assumption behind the NYTinteractive model that the upper bound for carbon
removal is 12 GT CO2 by2080 is too slow and small. We should think five times
as muchand five times as fast. Immediateaggressive investment to build
industrial algae factories at sea could removetwenty gigatons of carbon (50 GT
CO2) from the air per year by 2030, using 2%of the ocean surface, funded by use
of the produced algae. That would stabilise the climate and enableno change in
emission trajectories, a policy result that would satisfy both theneeds of the
climate and the traditional economy.Robert Tulip
From: Eric Durbrow
To: geoengineering
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 3:13
Subject: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
#yiv3066183641 body{font-family:Helvetica, Arial;font-size:13px;}
FYI There is a slick interactive graphic at the NYTimes that lets people see if
they can meet the world’s carbon budget restriction but a combination of
reduced emissions AND achieving Carbon Removal.
At
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/29/opinion/climate-change-carbon-budget.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
I failed after clicking on Reduce in all geographic areas and Achieve in Carbon
Removal.
--
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.
--
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.
Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
Thanks Cristoph.Deep Ocean Water, with volume about a billion cubic kilometres
below the thermocline, has about three ppm nitrate and phosphate, about 3000
cubic kilometres of each, as I understand the numbers. Tidal pumping arrays
along the world's continental shelves could raise enough DOW to the surface,
mimicking natural algae blooms, to fuel controlled algae production at the
scale required for seven million square kilometres of factories. Piping CO2
from power plants etc out to ocean algae farms could clean up all the polluted
air of the world.Robert Tulip
From: Christoph Voelker
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 8 September 2017, 8:43
Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
I must admit that I am getting skeptical when I hear numbers in that order of
magnitude:
The total net primary production in the oceans presently is about 50 Gt
carbon, and 80% of that is converted back into inorganic carbon (and nutrients)
by heterotrophs before it gets a chance to sink out from the sunlit upper layer
of the ocean. The roughly 10 Gt carbon (some newer works even estimate just 6
Gt carbon) that sink out have to be balanced by the upward mixing of nutrients
(and a little bit by atmospheric deposition of bioavailable nitrogen and
phosphorus) in the Redfield ratio of about 106:16:1 of C:N:P.
So, if you want to remove 20 Gt carbon per year from the atmosphere, you'd
have to increase the nutrient supply to the total surface ocean by a factor of
three, maybe four. Maybe I am a bit too pessimistic here, because there are
species like Sargassum which have a higher C:N:P ratio than the average
phytoplankton, so you get somewhat more carbon per nitrogen/phosphorus. But
even if it is just doubling, I can't imagine that you can sustain such a
nutrient consumption by fertilizing from outside the ocean (especially since
phosphorus is scarce already now), you'd have to tap into the inorganic
nutrients stored in the deep ocean. How long can you do that?
If we assume that we harvest all the 20 Gt carbon in algae from these
factories and do something durable with them (to minimize lossed through
heterotrophy and problems with creating oxygen minimum zones), we effectively
remove nitrogen/phosphorus from the ocean. How much is that per year?
Let us for simplicity assume Redfield ratios, I grant errors by a factor of
two or so. 20 Gt carbon then corresponds to (20
g/12(g/mol)/6.625(molC/molN))*1.0e15 or about 2.5e14 mol nitrogen. The ocean
has a volume of 1.33e18 m^3, and the average concentration of available
nitrogen (mostly nitrate) is 30 micromol/L or mmol/m^3 (calculated from the
world ocean atlas), most of that is in the deep ocean. This gives a total
inventory of 4.0e16 mol nitrogen. 2.5e14 mol/year is thus more than half of a
percent of the total available nitrogen in the world oceans, which means you
could try that for about 150 years, then everything is gone At that pace,
nitrogen fixers are unlikely to resupply the loss (nowaday, the residence time
of nitrogen is roughly 5000 years), and they can do that only for nitrogen, not
for phosphorus anyway. Letting technological problems aside (like: How do you
move 2.5% of the total nitrogen in the world oceans evry year up to an area 2%
of the ocean surface) I would call the whole idea - at least that the scale
suggested - a prime example of an unsustainable process.
Best regards,
Christoph Voelker
On 07.09.17 23:37, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:
The assumption behind the NYT interactive model that the upper bound for
carbon removal is 12 GT CO2 by 2080 is too slow and small. We should think
five times as much and five times as fast. Immediate aggressive investment to
build industrial algae factories at sea could remove twenty gigatons of carbon
(50 GT CO2) from the air per year by 2030, using 2% of the ocean surface,
funded by use of the produced algae. That would stabilise the climate and
enable no change in emission trajectories, a policy result that would satisfy
both the needs of the climate and the traditional economy. Robert Tulip
From: Eric Durbrow
To: geoengineering
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 3:13
Subject: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
#yiv1081158045 body{font-family:Helvetica, Arial;font-size:13px;}
FYI There is a slick interactive graphic at the NYTimes that lets people see
if they can meet the world’s carbon budget restriction but a combination of
reduced emissions AND achieving Carbon Removal.
At
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/29/opinion/climate-change-carbon-budget.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
I failed after clicking on Reduce in all geographic areas and Achi
Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
Dear AndrewThank you very much for bringing this potential problem with Deep Ocean Water as an algae nutrient source to attention. I would like to find out more about the possible mechanism that you allude to. I looked again at the 2005 IPCC paper on Ocean Storage led by Professor Caldeira but did not find anything to support your reference. If more recent work shows that raising DOW could cause warming I would like to see it. I am following up other responses to my comments directly with their authors. Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: Robert Tulip ; geoengineering Sent: Friday, 8 September 2017, 10:47 Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive Caldeira et al showed that moving water in this way causes warming. A On 8 Sep 2017 00:15, "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering" wrote: Thanks Cristoph.Deep Ocean Water, with volume about a billion cubic kilometres below the thermocline, has about three ppm nitrate and phosphate, about 3000 cubic kilometres of each, as I understand the numbers. Tidal pumping arrays along the world's continental shelves could raise enough DOW to the surface, mimicking natural algae blooms, to fuel controlled algae production at the scale required for seven million square kilometres of factories. Piping CO2 from power plants etc out to ocean algae farms could clean up all the polluted air of the world.Robert Tulip From: Christoph Voelker To: geoengineering@googlegroups. com Sent: Friday, 8 September 2017, 8:43 Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive I must admit that I am getting skeptical when I hear numbers in that order of magnitude: The total net primary production in the oceans presently is about 50 Gt carbon, and 80% of that is converted back into inorganic carbon (and nutrients) by heterotrophs before it gets a chance to sink out from the sunlit upper layer of the ocean. The roughly 10 Gt carbon (some newer works even estimate just 6 Gt carbon) that sink out have to be balanced by the upward mixing of nutrients (and a little bit by atmospheric deposition of bioavailable nitrogen and phosphorus) in the Redfield ratio of about 106:16:1 of C:N:P. So, if you want to remove 20 Gt carbon per year from the atmosphere, you'd have to increase the nutrient supply to the total surface ocean by a factor of three, maybe four. Maybe I am a bit too pessimistic here, because there are species like Sargassum which have a higher C:N:P ratio than the average phytoplankton, so you get somewhat more carbon per nitrogen/phosphorus. But even if it is just doubling, I can't imagine that you can sustain such a nutrient consumption by fertilizing from outside the ocean (especially since phosphorus is scarce already now), you'd have to tap into the inorganic nutrients stored in the deep ocean. How long can you do that? If we assume that we harvest all the 20 Gt carbon in algae from these factories and do something durable with them (to minimize lossed through heterotrophy and problems with creating oxygen minimum zones), we effectively remove nitrogen/phosphorus from the ocean. How much is that per year? Let us for simplicity assume Redfield ratios, I grant errors by a factor of two or so. 20 Gt carbon then corresponds to (20 g/12(g/mol)/6.625(molC/molN))* 1.0e15 or about 2.5e14 mol nitrogen. The ocean has a volume of 1.33e18 m^3, and the average concentration of available nitrogen (mostly nitrate) is 30 micromol/L or mmol/m^3 (calculated from the world ocean atlas), most of that is in the deep ocean. This gives a total inventory of 4.0e16 mol nitrogen. 2.5e14 mol/year is thus more than half of a percent of the total available nitrogen in the world oceans, which means you could try that for about 150 years, then everything is gone At that pace, nitrogen fixers are unlikely to resupply the loss (nowaday, the residence time of nitrogen is roughly 5000 years), and they can do that only for nitrogen, not for phosphorus anyway. Letting technological problems aside (like: How do you move 2.5% of the total nitrogen in the world oceans evry year up to an area 2% of the ocean surface) I would call the whole idea - at least that the scale suggested - a prime example of an unsustainable process. Best regards, Christoph Voelker On 07.09.17 23:37, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote: The assumption behind the NYT interactive model that the upper bound for carbon removal is 12 GT CO2 by 2080 is too slow and small. We should think five times as much and five times as fast. Immediate aggressive investment to build industrial algae factories at sea could remove twenty gigatons of carbon (50 GT CO2) from the air per year by 2030, using 2% of the ocean surface, funded by use of the produced algae. That would stabilise the climate and enable no change in emission trajectories, a policy result tha
Re: [geo] Geostorm
deploy systems that will stabilise andrepair the climate as a primary global security concern. A bunch of reviews are at https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/geostorm/,but as you might expect from the usual foolish cynics writing in popular media,they have no eye for the meaning of this movie. They wrongly see it onlythrough a surface movie industry lens without caring about its meaning andpurpose for core ethical problems facing humanity. Geostorm raises major existential concerns ofour age in an accessible popular way. It should be celebrated and debated as amajor event. Geostorm could help achieve the political tipping point we need todeploy geoengineering systems with sound governance, reversing the current pathtowards mass extinction and economic and social displacement and collapse infavour of practical methods to stabilise the global climate. Robert Tulip http://rtulip.net/blog/2017/10/25/geostorm-movie-review/ From: Alan Robock To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2017, 23:26 Subject: [geo] Geostorm I saw Geostorm in 3D IMAX on Sunday and here are my impressions: I liked the movie because: - It points out that one of the dangers of large-scale albedo modification is that it can be used as a weapon. - It points out that large-scale albedo modification technology can break and get out of control. (These are two reasons that I doubt that large-scale albedo modification will ever be deployed.) I did not like the movie because: - The technology of satellites controlling weather is magical and never explained. - There are many violations of the laws of physics, like gravity on a space station, air magically appearing in empty space as soon as a spaceship lands on the space station and the door is closed, and individual satellites locked in a grid that is stationary over specific locations on Earth, with individual satellites controlling the weather over individual locations. - The rapid development of complex space structures and launch capabilities in the near future, yet they still use space shuttles. - The unexplained requirement that a huge space station with manufacturing facilities and humans sitting in front of computers controlling the weather, rather than doing it all much more cheaply on Earth. - The portrayal of the climate system going crazy in just two years, with extremes getting so extreme that the world agrees to work together to control the weather. Both the meteorology and level of international cooperation are unbelievable. - The 3D looks great when the entire scene is computer generated, but when there are actors it is not very well done. - Too much gratuitous violence and destruction. - Too loud. - The acting. - The story. But you better see it soon, because it got such bad reviews that I don't think it will be in theaters for long. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN! Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Geostorm
of business as usual (including the limited reduction with the present Paris commitments), and then showing how modest climate engineering could be used to shave the peak warming and impacts down further, with SRM being phased back out as further mitigation and CDR pull the GHG loading back down to less than 350 ppm CO2e or so. Without some good indication of where we need to go, it will be hard for the public and decision-makers to have a sense of the closing escape route from the path we are on. The draft IPCC 1.5 report really fails to make all of this clear. They label their pathways by its eventual stabilization level, so a 1.5 pathway can allow the temperature to go up to 4 C or so if it eventually comes back to 1.5 C. And then, without really talking about the seriousness of a prolonged 1.5 C world, there is an acceptance of long-term stabilization at 1.5 C because that will be a less bad world than a 2 C world. In a 1.5 C world, there will be real damage to species and landscape and also to many, many of the most vulnerable in the world given what they experience will likely be more than the global average. Those most at risk should be clamoring far more than the leaders of the island nations who got the Paris Accord expressing a goal of 1.5 C as the resulting pace of sea level rise and then also ocean acidification at the associated CO2 concentration level will likely be quite serious. I really don't see how an absurd fantasy movie based on misusing and misrepresenting the tourniquet the would needs to deal with the true situation that we face can really help in advancing the discussion of how to work through the delicate and combined application of the range of approaches that need to be applied to avoid the rapidly worsening situation that we are in. Somehow suggesting that climate engineering is at all likely to lead to much, much worse consequences than not using it just seems not helpful at all. Mike MacCracken On 10/25/17 8:40 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote: Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit. In watching an action fantasy world apocalypse movie like Geostorm, a temptation for the cynical can be to just see the surface appearance. First a village mysteriously freezes solid in an instant in Afghanistan, then the streets of Hong Kong erupt in flaming explosions sending skyscrapers collapsing like dominoes while a driver miraculously escapes through the rippling volcanic chasms opening around him. And next the bikini babes on Copacabana turn to blocks of ice as a super cold front somehow pushes a tsunami onto the Rio beachfront. The cause of the disasters is problems with geoengineering satellites deployed in 2019. But is this just a programming malfunction? If not, who are the baddies who have sabotaged the world weather management system run by the USA? Why and how did they do it, and how can they be stopped? Who is the rogue on board the geoengineering space station? Will the clock that he started tick down to zero, causing a geostorm, a fiery end to life on earth? Will the US President die in the robot car chase through massive lightning bolts hitting every second? Will the hero return from exile, and will he survive on the space station? Will his brother get the girl? Which city is next? Such plot details are classic Hollywood formula. This movie combines amazing disaster scenes, excellent visuals and production, a strong simple plot, a vivid range of characters and great acting into a gripping thriller. Geostorm is full of tension and drama and surprise and new ideas down to the wire. It is a worthy popular successor to Independence Day and Godzilla, which were both also produced by the Geostorm producer/director Dean Devlin. Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit for a serious reason though. This movie makes an important and well considered contribution to advancing policy debate on response to climate change. The question raised at the start is how to address the threat that global warming could destroy the world economy. This explicitly raises the need for urgent concerted technological response to avert catastrophe, since previous methods focused on emission reduction have failed. The movie deliberately chooses an impossible geoengineering technology, aiming to blend the topical ideas of weather management and space travel to create a science fiction fantasy. But the risk parable is equally applicable to realistic geoengineering proposals, ranging from solar radiation management to large scale ocean based algae production for carbon mining. Any large scale climate intervention needs proper risk management if it is to help forestall the impending climate impacts. In a nod to human corruption, the plot raises the risk of weaponizing a peaceful technology, evoking the failed military Star Wars Initiative idea of death from the skies. And recognising human fall
Re: [geo] Geostorm
Thanks Veli.
I like your point that investments in clean technology and fuel efficiency are
good for business and society and the environment. However, are they really
good for the world climate as you say? A big part of the broad political
concern about the climate movement is that it has peddled exaggerated messages
about how these sensible innovations could fix the climate.
Emission reduction does nothing to fix the climate, and actually causes harm by
deflecting focus from the need for carbon removal. In economic terms, emission
reduction has high opportunity cost because it crowds out better investment in
carbon removal.
At the level of world climate impact, clean technology can't do more than
provide minor help to delay global warming, unless it specifically removes
carbon from the air.
Solar and wind are great energy sources, but do nothing to stop climate change.
Robert Tulip
From: Veli Albert Kallio
To: "rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au" ;
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" ;
"mmacc...@comcast.net"
Sent: Sunday, 29 October 2017, 0:49
Subject: Re: [geo] Geostorm
#yiv6143163111 #yiv6143163111 -- P
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv6143163111 "I like that message
becausemitigation of climate change through emission reduction is a pointless
failure. The world is best off just abandoning emission reduction as a goal and
instead looking to how to use technology to remove more carbon from the air
than total emissions, with solar radiation management as a stopgap."
I strongly disagree with the above on basis that if thereweren't any efforts
being made to reduce our global CO2 emissions, no businesses would invest in
cleaner technologies or try to conserve fuels. UNFCCC's COP roadshow - despite
its all huge shortcomings - also increases the public awareness of the climate
issue (like IPCC does). Notably, if there wasn't any portrayal of the real
issue at stake (namely CO2), all kinds of speculators and media manipulators
would quickly fill this void. Quickly, theories about the cause would arise
ranging from countless proposed issues such as the falling religious
observances in our increasingly post-Christian (secularized) world all the way
to blame the Russian Communists for it. Very quickly scapegoats would be set up
as explanations (i.e. the Buddhist, Moslem, Christian, Hindu or religious
non-observer minorities in various societies, or even Bermuda Triangle or the
aliens from the by-passing comet). So? Indeed, we are far better off in a world
where the appropriate information is being disseminated through UNFCCC's COP
process setting up targets for governments in CO2 emissions reduction and the
IPCC.
I agree: The oil drillers often pop their Champagne bottles while they are
looking at the tiny Greenpeace rubber boats loaded with their campaigners going
around their immense rigs. They (like Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers and many
others like them)despise these good willing campaigners immensely seeing them
nothing more than just a bunch of Donald Ducks. This is all very depressing for
but it still does not justify what Robert stated above.
Veli Albert KallioVice President, Environmental Affairs Department
Sea Research Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society
| | Sea Research Society - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.orgThe Sea Research Society
(SRS) is a non-profit educational research organization founded in 1972. Its
general purpose is to promote scientific and educational ... |
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com on
behalf of Michael MacCracken
Sent: 27 October 2017 21:00
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Geostorm Hi Robert--While I do agree that if done as a
straight documentary, it might not gain a big audience, but one does not have
to do it as a documentary--one can still have a drama with challenges and
characters (An Inconvenient Truth was a success, and the director explained it
as a drama--namely Gore suffering a loss by then refocusing and recovering
while it also explained aspects of the issue). One could do something bringing
to life Frost's poem about paths taken or not--so two portrayals, with and
without actions (or one might do it as an imagined conversation between two
interesting and historic characters or perhaps between the too cautious to take
up GE and others who, like some of us, think it will be essential, trying to
persuade someone to act--and then they do or don't and some fate befalls them.
I think a story is being done about the Our Children's Trust case--so the
consequences affecting the young and then there effort to get the US (and
world) on the right path. I just think some inspired writer could do something
interesting that was not so absurdly overdone and said to be an example of the
env movement being far too alarmist and so the do-nothings can dismis
[geo] Mitigation terminology
Dear Mike On terminology, your use of "mitigation" may reflect common usage but has a problem. Mitigation means slowing climate change, so includes carbon removal. Restricting mitigation to slowing emission growth wrongly leaves out the main agenda required for climate stability. Full implementation of Paris by 2030 would only remove 1% of the 6000 GT of carbon the world must get out of the air this century to achieve the 2° target, according to Bjorn Lomborg. I have not seen any refutation of his calculation, although he is comparing the 14 years of Paris to the 83 years of the century, so a like for like comparison might be more like 6%, but still effectively nothing, and risking a Permian Great Dying repeat. By contrast, my calculation is that a Manhattan/Apollo type project to remove carbon could remove 200% of emission growth by 2030, putting us back on a path to retain the stable Holocene climate, addressing the top security threat facing our planet. Robert Tulip From: Michael MacCracken To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com Cc: Douglas MacMartin ; Greg Rau ; geoengineering Sent: Monday, 13 November 2017, 5:42 Subject: Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’ Hi Peter--Interesting--a couple of questions that might be covered in the type of assessment that you suggest (and I agree) is worth doing: 1. Were the world to get serious enough to be taking on the issue in the way you suggest, what are the relative costs and benefits of investing the same amount of money and effort on mitigation, so not putting the materials into the atmosphere in the first place? Would it make more sense to just be investing in CDR research until the cost-benefit leans to CDR versus mitigation (and considering other effects, such as job creation, etc. (this point/plateau might vary a great deal by location, etc.)? 2. Once one captures the C, what does one do with it all? Where does one put all the captured CO2? What is the cost of disposal/storage/sequestration, etc. and what are the implications and risks of the various approaches? Best, Mike On 11/12/17 6:15 AM, Peter Eisenberger wrote: Hi Mike , The key issue is your sentence "While CDR can get started now, scaling up seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends mainly on level of commitment." . A serious Manhatten Project Level Project or Going to the moon effort would make an assessment of the time versus commitment level for the only known solution at this time that can scale -DAC where the carbon is either stored in a material (carbon fiber or cement and sequestered or sequestered directly The number of units needed are comparable and less than many things we already mass produce by sigificant ratios - a shipping container sized unit of GT technology captures 2000 tpy and is amenable to mass production . :For 40 giga tonnes pyr capacity one would need 20 million units -there are currently 17 million shipping containers used in the world . Today GT has made two such units in a year say which is conservative estimate for installed capacity for the industry as a whole .To make the 20 million one would need would take 22 doublings of capacity. If one had a conservative 2 yr doubling time this would take 44 years and if it was a global emergency so one had a high doubling time of 1 year it would take us only 22 years to install 40 gigatonnes per year capacity with us making 4 million units per year at the end - we currently make 60 million new cars per year . The capital cost to make a DAC 2000 tpy unit is about $500,000 which in the end would cost 2 trillion dollars or close to 1 % of GGDP at that time and like solar it would create jobs. My only point is that these are not unreasonable numbers and most importantly no one has tried to do a serious assessment , yet many make statements as if it is obvious that the needed capacity cannot be reached in a timely fashion . But even more significant is that we seem content with a research effort rather than an implementation effort yet we claim we are in an emergency . As I am prone to say - the only barrier to CDR to remove the needed capacity (we know how to do it and that it is affordable) is to decide to do it. Peter On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Michael MacCracken wrote: Hi Peter--You might be interested that at the hearing Rep. Veasey (ranking Democratic member on one of the subcommittees at the hearing--see https://veasey.house.gov) indicated that he would soon be putting forward a bill pursuing CDR research/efforts. He has a Subcommittee on Energy minority staffer, Joe Flarida, working on this issue who sounds both quite well-informed and also interested in getting input (joe.flar...@mail.house.gov). While there was discussion about might be done on SRM, I did not get the impression that a bill on that was as far along. On SRM &
[geo] Fw: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific
Hi Russ. Have you seen this piece of slander? - Forwarded Message - From: Greg Rau To: Andrew Lockley ; Carbon Dioxide Removal Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018, 15:21 Subject: Re: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific If adding iron to the ocean is a bad idea, the natural Fe flux to the ocean surface is about 50x10^3 tonnes/yr - perhaps we should stop that too. Where's the outrage? And what is ETC's better idea? Greg From: Andrew Lockley To: Carbon Dioxide Removal Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 1:23 PM Subject: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/07/pirates-of-the-pacific/ ☰ PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC JUL 12 2018Paracas National Reserve. Ica, Peru: one of the areas of the Pacific targeted by Oceanos. by Silvia RibeiroThe pirates of marine geoengineering are not giving up easily. Although there is a UN moratorium on ocean fertilisation, the company Oceaneos wants to experiment with this risky technology in Chile and Peru, despite not having permission from the authorities. The company turned up in 2018 at an Open Angel investors dinner in Vancouver, Canada, seeking funds for these polluting activities as though it was just one more straightforward investment opportunity.Giving false information to communities, authorities and investors seems to be common practice for the group behind Oceaneos. A number of its members were previously part of the company Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) that in 2012 carried out the biggest illegal experiment of ocean fertilisation in indigenous territory in Haida Gwaii, British Colombia, Canada, deceiving the resident Indigenous community. The notorious rogue geoengineer Russ George, who previously tried to do a similar experiment in the Galápagos Islands, was the scientific director at HSRC.They convinced the Indigenous community of Old Masset to commit 2. 5 million dollars to the company HSRC, with the promise of increasing the salmon stocks through ocean fertilisation and obtaining carbon credits in the process.Oceanos did not tell them – or the authorities in Chile and Peru, or the potential investors at the Open Angel meeting – that because of the great risks to marine ecosystems and food chains, ocean fertilization has been subject to a de facto moratorium under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), or that the 2013 Amendment to the London Protocol on Ocean Dumping has prohibited marine geoengineering. Both cases make exceptions for small-scale scientific experiments, but these do not qualify for carbon credits.When civil society organisations protested the illegal experiment in Haida Gwaii, Canadian environmental authorities began a legal investigation that is still ongoing. The experiment caused controversy among the Haida people, but when they understood the context and the risks, they rejected the project and the company.John Disney, part of the Oceaneos team alongside HSRC member Peter Gross, managed the Indigenous community’s financial support to HSRC. The current President of Oceaneos, Michael Riedijk, was responsible for “monetising” the carbon credits to be generated by HSRC’s ocean fertilisation activities, through his company Blue Carbon Solutions.In an attempt to distance itself from this murky episode in which HRSC was subject to legal questioning, Oceaneos changed its company name and activity. Geoengineering with ocean fertilisation was rechristened “ocean seeding’. There is no more open talk of carbon credits: it is merely a technology to increase fish populations. Before it was presented as a magic solution to climate change; now it is the technique that will solve the problem of declining ocean fish stocks. However, there is still references to the illegal Haida Guaii experiment as evidence of success of the technology.In the “Deal Book” presented by Open Angel to the investors for the 2018 event, Oceaneos presents itself as a Vancouver-based “Green Tech Company, with a unique Ocean Seeding Technology to restore ocean life and bring collapsing fish stocks back to historical levels”. In the Company Description of the same document, they explain what ocean seeding (ocean fertilization by another name) is, and they add: “A first trial project executed by our scientific team in British Columbia resulted in an 85% increase in wild fish stock with a market value of $ 400 million. Currently [Oceaneos is] raising $ 10 million to execute two large scale commercial trials in Latin America and Asia Pacific”.In Chile, they present themselves as the “Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation” but it is evident they stem from the for-profit Canadian company Oceaneos Environmental Solutions, which owns numerous patents for ocean fertilisation techniques as a means for carbon capture.In Peru, they presented themselves directly as a commercial company: Oceaneos Peru S.A.C. They filed requests to carry out ocean fertilisation experimen
Re: [geo] Re: Fw: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific
As Russ George explained in his interview with The Ecologist, the only reasons Nature could say there was a lack of scientific outcomes from the Haida Salmon Restoration Project were firstly, that Nature ignored the resulting salmon boom, and secondly, that the Canadian Government sent in a SWAT-style team to steal and destroy the Haida Salmon data, after bankrolling the project and engaging fully with its scientific basis. The apparent basis for the persecution of this vital climate restoration technology is solely the spurious moral hazard argument that removing carbon from the air undermines the incentive for emission reduction. Russ George was an easy political target. If people were genuine about the science they would not have arranged for the London Protocol to falsely define addition of one cup of fertilizer to a hectare of ocean as dumping waste. Instead of sending a chilling signal that has stopped scientists and investors from engaging with ocean fertilization, people with genuine interest in climate restoration would support field trials to test the range of questions that have been legitimately raised. Oceaneos explains its project at Oceaneos - restoring ocean life | restaurando la vida marina showing that all the claims propagated by the ETC activist group should be regarded as highly dubious. I recommend reading the Oceaneos FAQ. | | | | || | | | | | Oceaneos - restoring ocean life | Frequently Asked Questions | | | | | | | | || | | | | | Oceaneos - restoring ocean life | restaurando la vida marina | | | | | | | | || | | | | | Can we remove a trillion tons of carbon from the atmosphere? The oceans cover 72 percent of the planet - but are all but ignored in discussions about reducing levels of atmo... | | | | From: Jonah Shaw To: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018, 2:52 Subject: [geo] Re: Fw: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific While the ETC article is clearly written with the intent to disparage ocean fertilization projects, it does make many of the same points covered in a more nuanced article published last year in Nature. Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy | | | | || | | | | | Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but researchers doubt its motives. | | | | On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:51:20 AM UTC-5, Florian Rabitz wrote: I'm genuinely curious how these people plan to obtain carbon credits from ocean fertilization - I doubt that there is a single (legit) carbon market that accepts OIF offsets. But maybe that's just the kind of stuff you tell to potential investors. Best,Florian -- 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. -- 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.
[geo] Lomborg on Paris
Interesting article copiedbelow is published today in TheAustralian. I disagree withLomborg’s argument that “The best estimates show global warming has roughly a zero net cost tohumanity.” This and related comments unduly discount the risks of climate tipping points of medium probability buthigh impact. However, Lomborg’s critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his callfor a shift in energy policy from subsidies to technology R&D should makehim an important ally of the geoengineering community. Lomborg makes the following pertinent comments: ·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it wouldrequire the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossilfuel by 2021.· even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and everynation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent ofprogress towards the “easier” target of 2C.·“no major advanced industrialised country is on track to meet itspledges”. (Nature) ·each dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-termclimate benefit of 3c ·Green energy is not yet ready to compete with fossil fuels, so forcingeconomies to switch means slowing them down.·More than $100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solarand wind energy, yet this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of theglobe’s energy needs.· The Paris Agreement is not the right answer but a solution is needed. ·Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen Consensus on Climate found weshouldn’t just double R&D but make a sixfold increase, to reach at least$100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than the proposed Paris cuts andit would actually have the prospect of making a significant impact on temperaturerises. It would do so without choking economic growth, which continues to lifthundreds of millions out of poverty.·Fixing climate change requires boosting innovation so green energyeventually will become so cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not makingfossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers.·In a related 2017article, Lomborg says the case for geoengineering research is compelling. Here is the article text. Abbott is right: Paris climate treaty fails to fight global warmingMost signatories to the Paris Agreement are failing to meet theiremissions reduction obligations.·The Australian, July 14, 2018·BJORN LOMBORG https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/abbott-is-right-paris-climate-treaty-fails-to-fight-global-warming/news-story/c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e593b(paywall) Political language on climate changeoften amounts to empty puffery: bold promises that are not going to bedelivered and aspirational rhetoric that proves impossible to achieve. It is therefore remarkable that Tony Abbott hasacknowledged Australia would not have signed the Paris Agreement if he hadknown in 2015 that the US would withdraw, and that trying to reach nationaltargets would damage the Australian economy. Internationally, very few politicians have admittedthe inherent failings of the Paris treaty, but the truth is that it was alwaysoversold. This begins with the treaty itself, which includesthe fiction that pledges under the agreement will somehow keep the planet’stemperature rises to 2C or even 1.5C. The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show thatachieving it would require nothing less than the entire planet abandoning theuse of every fossil fuel by February 7, 2021. Given our reliance on fossilfuels, that would mean we stop cooling and heating our homes, stop all airtravel, and the world’s farmers stop making half the world’s food, producedwith fertiliser almost exclusively made from fossil fuels. The list goes on. As for the less stringent 2C target, keeping theglobal temperature rise below that requires a reduction in emissions duringthis century of almost 6000 billion tonnes. The UN body that oversees the ParisAgreement has estimated that even if every single country (including the US)were to achieve every national promise by 2030, the total greenhouse gas cutwould be equivalent to just 60 billion tonnes of CO2. This means that even if completely successful, withthe US rejoining tomorrow and every nation doing every single thing promised,the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent of progress towards the “easier” target of2C. Not only is the treaty not binding, but evenbinding agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol did not hinder countries such asCanada from promising to cut emissions by 6 per cent and instead increasingthem by 24 per cent. In Paris, many governments made vows they have notlived up to because they are finding — like Australia — that there are costs todoing so. In fact, research last year in Nature found that “nomajor advanced industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. Few nations are forthcoming about their failures,but we kno
Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
Thanks Antonio. My impression is that calling Lomborg a "notorious denier" is generally used as a political stratagem by those who wish to focus only on the decarbonisation of the world economy as the sole permissible response to global warming. Lomborg may be wrong about the risk analysis of climate change, but that does not make him a climate denier. Such false labels are a way to ignore and deflect Lomborg's factual analysis of the gross inadequacy and delinquency of the Paris Accord, and of the need to shift climate policy from subsidy to R&D. On your comment that Lomborg has helped to delay action, it is a good thing to delay an overhasty switch to renewable energy when this proposed switch is based on inaccurate claims about cost, subsidy, reliability and climate impact. From: Antonio Donato Nobre To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: Geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018, 23:05 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris Agree with Leon. As a notorious denier, Bjorn Lomborg has caused massive damage to civilization as he helped to delay action. Not a good source now for wisdom. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 9:32 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote: Interesting article copiedbelow is published today in TheAustralian. I disagree withLomborg’s argument that “The best estimates show global warming has roughly a zero net cost tohumanity.” This and related comments unduly discount the risks of climate tipping points of medium probability buthigh impact. However, Lomborg’s critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his callfor a shift in energy policy from subsidies to technology R&D should makehim an important ally of the geoengineering community. Lomborg makes the following pertinent comments: ·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it wouldrequire the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossilfuel by 2021.· even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and everynation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent ofprogress towards the “easier” target of 2C.·“no major advanced industrialised country is on track to meet itspledges”. (Nature)·each dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-termclimate benefit of 3c·Green energy is not yet ready to compete with fossil fuels, so forcingeconomies to switch means slowing them down.·More than $100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solarand wind energy, yet this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of theglobe’s energy needs.· The Paris Agreement is not the right answer but a solution is needed. · Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen Consensus on Climate found weshouldn’t just double R&D but make a sixfold increase, to reach at least$100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than the proposed Paris cuts andit would actually have the prospect of making a significant impact on temperaturerises. It would do so without choking economic growth, which continues to lifthundreds of millions out of poverty.·Fixing climate change requires boosting innovation so green energyeventually will become so cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not makingfossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers.·In a related 2017article, Lomborg says the case for geoengineering research is compelling. Here is the article text. Abbott is right: Paris climate treaty fails to fight global warmingMost signatories to the Paris Agreement are failing to meet theiremissions reduction obligations.·The Australian, July 14, 2018· BJORN LOMBORG https://www.theaustralian.com. au/news/inquirer/abbott-is- right-paris-climate-treaty- fails-to-fight-global-warming/ news-story/ c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e59 3b(paywall) Political language on climate changeoften amounts to empty puffery: bold promises that are not going to bedelivered and aspirational rhetoric that proves impossible to achieve.It is therefore remarkable that Tony Abbott hasacknowledged Australia would not have signed the Paris Agreement if he hadknown in 2015 that the US would withdraw, and that trying to reach nationaltargets would damage the Australian economy.Internationally, very few politicians have admittedthe inherent failings of the Paris treaty, but the truth is that it was alwaysoversold.This begins with the treaty itself, which includesthe fiction that pledges under the agreement will somehow keep the planet’stemperature rises to 2C or even 1.5C.The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show thatachieving it would require nothing less than the entire planet abandoning theuse of every fossil fuel by February 7, 2021. Given our reliance on fossilfuels, that would mean we stop cooling and heating our homes, stop all airtravel, and the world’s farmers stop making half the world’s food, producedwith fertiliser almost exc
Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
which the climate community seems loath todo.
I see you have been engaged in a lively debate with Lomborg, forexample with
his replyto your earlier comments. To my reading,you both have some very good
points mixed in with some dubious ones. It all raises central climatepolicy
problems in a practical way. Thechallenge should be to create a focus on the
big strategic problem of stoppingglobal warming as the primary security threat
facing our planet. Neither decarbonisation nor denial engagewith that problem,
so Lomborg is correct at the strategic level that implementinggeoengineering
solutions is urgent.
Robert Tulip
From: "Ward,RE"
To: "'geoengineering@googlegroups.com'"
Sent: Monday, 16 July 2018, 20:33
Subject: RE: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
#yiv3621482841 #yiv3621482841 -- _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3621482841
#yiv3621482841 p.yiv3621482841MsoNormal, #yiv3621482841
li.yiv3621482841MsoNormal, #yiv3621482841 div.yiv3621482841MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv3621482841
a:link, #yiv3621482841 span.yiv3621482841MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3621482841 a:visited, #yiv3621482841
span.yiv3621482841MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3621482841 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv3621482841
span.yiv3621482841EmailStyle18 {color:#44546A;}#yiv3621482841
.yiv3621482841MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv3621482841
div.yiv3621482841WordSection1 {}#yiv3621482841 I am afraid that the Lomborg
article suffers from multiple serious
defects:http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-australian-promotes-bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-propaganda/
Bob Ward Policy and Communications Director Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment London School of Economics and
Political Science Houghton Street London UK WC2A 2AE Tel. +44 (0) 20 7107
5413 Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346 Web:http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham Twitter:
@ret_ward From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
Sent: 14 July 2018 13:32
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Lomborg on Paris Interesting article copied below is
published today in The Australian. I disagree with Lomborg’s argument that
“The best estimates show global warming has roughly a zero net cost to
humanity.” This and related comments unduly discount the risks of climate
tipping points of medium probability but high impact. However, Lomborg’s
critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his call for a shift in energy
policy from subsidies to technology R&D should make him an important ally of
the geoengineering community. Lomborg makes the following pertinent
comments: ·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it
would require the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by
2021. ·even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow
and every nation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1
per cent of progress towards the “easier” target of 2C. ·“no major
advanced industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. (Nature) ·
each dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-term
climate benefit of 3c ·Green energy is not yet ready to compete with
fossil fuels, so forcing economies to switch means slowing them down. ·
More than $100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solar and wind
energy, yet this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of the globe’s
energy needs. ·The Paris Agreement is not the right answer but a
solution is needed. ·Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen
Consensus on Climate found we shouldn’t just double R&D but make a sixfold
increase, to reach at least $100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than
the proposed Paris cuts and it would actually have the prospect of making a
significant impact on temperature rises. It would do so without choking
economic growth, which continues to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. ·
Fixing climate change requires boosting innovation so green energy
eventually will become so cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not making
fossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers. ·In a related2017
article, Lomborg says the case for geoengineering research is compelling.
Here is the article text. Abbott is right: Paris climate treaty fails to
fight global warming Mos
Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
Thanks Bob, Maribeth and Steve for your replies. Bob, since you have engaged with Lomborg on his peer reviewed article at Global Policy, Impact of Current Climate Proposals, which he constantly references in his popular newspaper articles, it is surprising that you state he does not publish his view in peer-reviewed journals. My reading of that article is that his critique of the Paris Accord is completely correct. I agree with you that Lomborg overstates the limitations of renewable energy, but that is possibly a reasonable political response to the widespread exaggeration of the climate benefits of decarbonisation by renewable advocates. Maribeth, as Steve noted, relying on the Sourcewatch link that you provided is ad hominem fallacious reasoning, 'playing the man not the ball'. The obvious bias reveals political rather than scientific motives on the part of the Sourcewatch authors. Their article does not engage with Lomborg's critique of the Paris Accord, which is the question at issue here. It was interesting to see that Sourcewatch article quote Ken Caldeira, "If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly". While that is true for Solar Radiation Management, it is not clear for Carbon Dioxide Removal. The sociology of climate change is well illustrated by responses to Lomborg, who is widely seen by climate activists as beneath contempt, while his factual analysis is ignored. This failure of engagement is a source of political oxygen for the climate denial movement. Robert Tulip From: "Ward,RE" To: "mmiln...@unl.edu" Cc: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 8:14 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris Bjorn Lomborg has a consistent track record of misrepresenting scientific and economic evidence, of downplaying the risks of climate change and of overstating the limitations of current low-carbon technologies. He does not publish his views in peer-reviewed journals and never acknowledges his errors. Trying to use Lomborg’s arguments to boost the case for geoengineering does not seem very wise. Sent from my iPhone On 17 Jul 2018, at 19:49, Maribeth Milner wrote: I remembered hearing Lomberg's name in the context of climate denying so I looked him up at Source Watch https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bjorn_Lomborg Of course... any new work needs to be properly evaluated, but knowing his history can be useful. On 7/15/2018 9:22 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote: Thanks Antonio. My impression is that calling Lomborg a "notorious denier" is generally used as a political stratagem by those who wish to focus only on the decarbonisation of the world economy as the sole permissible response to global warming. Lomborg may be wrong about the risk analysis of climate change, but that does not make him a climate denier. Such false labels are a way to ignore and deflect Lomborg's factual analysis of the gross inadequacy and delinquency of the Paris Accord, and of the need to shift climate policy from subsidy to R&D. On your comment that Lomborg has helped to delay action, it is a good thing to delay an overhasty switch to renewable energy when this proposed switch is based on inaccurate claims about cost, subsidy, reliability and climate impact. From: Antonio Donato Nobre To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: Geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018, 23:05 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris Agree with Leon. As a notorious denier, Bjorn Lomborg has caused massive damage to civilization as he helped to delay action. Not a good source now for wisdom. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 9:32 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote: Interesting article copied below is published today in The Australian. I disagree with Lomborg’s argument that “The best estimates show global warming has roughly a zero net cost to humanity.” This and related comments unduly discount the risks of climate tipping points of medium probability but high impact. However, Lomborg’s critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his call for a shift in energy policy from subsidies to technology R&D should make him an important ally of the geoengineering community. Lomborg makes the following pertinent comments: ·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it would require the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by 2021.· even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and every nation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent of progress towards the “easier” target of 2C.·“no major advanced industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. (Nature)·each dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-term
Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
Peter Wadhams’ bad encounter with Lomborg at the DavosBusiness Summit in New York in 2002 presents understandable reason to doubtLomborg’s approach at that time. However, that would be a distorted, wrong and even dangerous conclusion. Lomborg published a paper called FixThe Climate: Advice for Policy Makers for the Copenhagen 2009Conference. It is completely sound inits research and its findings, but these evidence-based approaches stick in thecraw of the “emissions only” ideology that dominates climate politics. This paper, peer reviewed by Nobel EconomicLaureates, found that the most effective use of resources would be to invest inresearching solar radiation management technology, a technology-led policyresponse to global warming that is designed to develop green technology fasterand researching carbon storage technology. They found that emission reduction is a very poor response. The absence of discussion in the climate science community of this prestigious research published by Cambridge University Press in 2010 is a scandal,illustrating that the false ad hominem scare campaigns against Lomborg haveworked to sustain the harmful polarisation in climate politics, and to avoidmeaningful debate about the inadequacies of the Paris strategies. The Source Data page on Lomborg is woefully incomplete andbiased. For example, it leaves outinformation from that 2010 Fix The Climate publication, where Lomborg’s biostates he was named one of the 75 most influential people of the 21st Centuryby Esquire magazine, one of the 50 people who could save the planet by theGuardian, one of the top 100 public intellectuals by Foreign Policy, and one ofthe world’s 100 most influential people by Time. He was Editor of the book GlobalCrises, Global Solutions first and second edition (Cambridge University Press). The point of my comments here, which Peter wrongly dismisses,is that the Paris Accord pledges can remove 10% of emissions by 2030 in thehighly unlikely event they are fully implemented, whereas geoengineeringsolutions involving SRM and CDR could achieve many multiples of that result ata fraction of the price, if the world could summon the political will to studythe facts. Robert Tulip From: Peter Wadhams To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: "r.e.w...@lse.ac.uk" ; "mmiln...@unl.edu" ; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 20:04 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris Dear all, Maribeth is right here and Tulip is completely wrong. Read Maribeth's link to the Sourcewatch article. I had a personal experience with Lomborg which was not pleasant. In 2001 I was invited to the World Economic Forum which was held that year in New York instead of Davos, in solidarity with the victims of 9-11. It was my one and only visit to WEF (I don't think they ever invited a climate change specialist back again). I found to my surprise that I was expected to share the climate change lectures, round tables and similar events with a a very cynical youth with an affected American drawl, of whom I had never heard. He plainly knew little or nothing about climate yet he gave out the most outrageous bogus unscientific statements reflecting extreme cynicism about climate change and the need to do anything about it. Of course the fat cats at the meeting, businessmen and politicians alike, lapped this up and he did enormous damage. He gave me the impression that he would do or say anything to build his fame and fortune and basically he had cleverly discovered a niche, denialism, which would give him a shortcut to personal glory. When I got back I read his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which was published by CUP , and found it full of errors, some of them glaring, all of them in one direction only - denial of change. How could my own university publish such errors, I thought (I was still very naive). Patiently, and assuming that he was honest but mistaken, I wrote him a 6 page critique of the errors that I havd found, complete with references to better sources. Instead of thanking me he just replied "I don't have time to deal with this right now". And that was it. I subsequently watched his personal trajectory from afar; he hasnt yet crashed to earth despite repeated demonstrations that most of what he says is invalid. Peter Wadhams On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:51 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote: Thanks Bob, Maribeth and Steve for your replies. Bob, since you have engaged with Lomborg on his peer reviewed article at Global Policy, Impact of Current Climate Proposals, which he constantly references in his popular newspaper articles, it is surprising that you state he does not publish his view in peer-reviewed journals. My reading of that article is that his critique of the Paris Accord is completely correct. I agree with you that Lomborg oversta
[geo] Economist: Blood, Sweat and Geoengineers
Aug 2nd 2018, The Economist, Lead Article onClimate Change Key Points ·Calamities once considered freakishare now commonplace – scientists caution that weather patterns will go berserk ·Greenhouse-gas emissions are up. Soare investments in oil and gas. In 2017, demand for coal rose. Subsidies forrenewables are dwindling. Nuclear isexpensive and unpopular ·Mankind is losing the war. Decarbonisationis proving extraordinarily difficult ·In 2006-16, Asia’s emerging economiesenergy consumption rose by 40%. Use of coal grew at an annual rate of 3.1%, naturalgas grew by 5.2% and of oil by 2.9%. ·Fossil fuels are easier to hook up totoday’s grids than renewables ·Economic and political inertia: lobbies,and the voters who back them, entrench coal ·Steel, cement, farming, transport andother forms of economic activity account for over half of global carbonemissions. They are technically harder to clean up than power generation andare protected by vested industrial interests. ·Sturdier grids, zero-carbon steel, carbon-negativecement, research into “solar geoengineering” should all be redoubled. ·Blood, sweat and geoengineers: Westerncountries must honour Paris commitment to help poorer places adapt and abate withoutsacrificing growth ·the world looks poised to get a lothotter first. Full Article In the line of fire: Theworld is losing the war against climate change Rising energy demand means use of fossil fuels is heading in the wrongdirection https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/02/the-world-is-losing-the-war-against-climate-change Print edition | Leaders Aug 2nd 2018 EARTH is smouldering. From Seattle to Siberia this summer, flames haveconsumed swathes of the northern hemisphere. One of 18 wildfires sweepingthrough California, among the worst in the state’s history, is generating suchheat that it created its own weather. Fires that raged through a coastal areanear Athens last week killed 91 (see article). Elsewherepeople are suffocating in the heat. Roughly 125 have died in Japan as theresult of a heatwave that pushed temperatures in Tokyo above 40°C for the firsttime. Such calamities, once considered freakish, arenow commonplace. Scientists have long cautioned that, as the planetwarms—it is roughly 1°C hotter today than before the industrial age’s firstfurnaces were lit—weather patterns will go berserk.An early analysis has found that this sweltering European summer would havebeen less than half as likely were it not for human-induced global warming. Yet as the impact of climate change becomes more evident, so too doesthe scale of the challenge ahead. Three years after countries vowed in Paris tokeep warming “well below” 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, greenhouse-gas emissions are up again. So are investmentsin oil and gas. In 2017, for the first time in four years, demand for coalrose. Subsidies for renewables, such as wind and solar power, are dwindling inmany places and investment has stalled; climate-friendly nuclear power isexpensive and unpopular. It is tempting to think these are temporary setbacksand that mankind, with its instinct forself-preservation, will muddle through to a victory over global warming. Infact, it is losing the war. Living in a fuel’s paradise Insufficientprogress is not to say no progress at all. As solar panels, wind turbines andother low-carbon technologies become cheaper and more efficient, their use hassurged. Last year the number of electric cars sold around the world passed 1m.In some sunny and blustery places renewable power now costs less than coal. Public concern is picking up. A poll last year of 38 countries foundthat 61% of people see climate change as a big threat; only the terrorists ofIslamic State inspired more fear. In the West campaigning investors talk ofdivesting from companies that make their living from coal and oil. DespitePresident Donald Trump’s decision to yank America out of the Paris deal, manyAmerican cities and states have reaffirmed their commitment to it. Even some ofthe sceptic-in-chief’s fellow Republicans appear less averse to tackling theproblem (see article). Insmog-shrouded China and India, citizens choking on fumes are promptinggovernments to rethink plans to rely heavily on coal to electrify theircountries. Optimists say that decarbonisation is withinreach. Yet, even allowing for the familiar complexities of agreeing on andenforcing global targets, it is proving extraordinarily difficult. One reason is soaring energy demand, especially in developing Asia. In 2006-16, as Asia’s emerging economies forged ahead,their energy consumption rose by 40%. The use of coal, easily the dirtiestfossil fuel, grew at an annual rate of 3.1%. Use of cleaner natural gas grew by5.2% and of oil by 2.9%. Fossil fuels are easier to hook up to today’s gridsthan renewables that depend on the sun sh
[geo] Re: Iron Salt Aerosol
Iron Salt Aerosol is both a GHG removal technology and a direct cooling method. If safety and efficacy can be proved, ISA could be the most efficient carbon removal method available. Here are twelve cooling effects, and a poster to be presented at the Canberra NET Conference this week. Robert Tulip From: Robert Tulip To: Carbon Dioxide Removal Cc: Franz Dietrich Oeste ; Renaud de RICHTER ; John Macdonald Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018, 20:38 Subject: Iron Salt Aerosol The 2017 article by Oeste et al on Iron Salt Aerosol led me to work with Franz Dietrich Oeste, Renaud de Richter and John Macdonald to propose field trials of Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA) in Australia. Our view is that ISA is the best way to start reversing global warming, substantially improving and integrating a range of previous ideas. We have established a website, with Frequently Asked Questions and a two page introductory Summary. Please look at these links, and feel free to comment here or at our ISA Facebook Page. We are seeking scientific and commercial support for our field trial proposal, and will present a Poster on ISA at the Negative Emission Technology conference in Canberra this month. | | | | || | | | | | Iron Salt Aerosol - ISA Summary Click here for pdf version | | | | Robert Tulip -- 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.
[geo] Re: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C
“Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net zero CO₂ by 2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately.” Not quite. Net Zero requires that carbon removal equal total emissions. While the primary focus of the IPCC remains reducing total emissions, the hope is that the NET task could be smaller if emissions can be cut. Unfortunately, all the emission trends seem to be in the wrong direction, so it looks like the NET task will actually be bigger. As well, the equation must include CO2 equivalents. The IPCC projections are that by 2030 total CO2e emissions will be 60 billion tonnes (gigatons or GT) under Business as Usual, and that full implementation of the Paris Accord would cut that by 10% to 54 GT (New York Times 6 Nov 2017, World Emissions Far Off Course). Therefore, the projected task for NETs to achieve net zero is to remove 54 GT of CO2e annually by 2030, unless emissions come down faster than agreed at Paris. Further to this massive task, climate restoration requires an even bigger goal. In order to steer the planet away from the hothouse precipice, NETs should aim to remove double total emissions, 100 GT. And in the meantime, solar radiation management should be deployed to help avoid unforeseen dangerous tipping points. These are the primary planetary security problems. Robert Tulip From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering ; "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com " Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2018, 4:47 Subject: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C Poster's note: mass media, but respected author and topical https://theconversation.com/amp/cop24-heres-what-must-be-agreed-to-keep-warming-at-1-5-c-107968?__twitter_impression=true COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°CHugh Hunt, University of CambridgeDecember 3, 2018 11.12am GMTThe Paris Agreement of 2015 has a central aim to keep global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to “pursue efforts” to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. This is an ambitious aim – global temperatures are rapidly approaching the 1.5°C target and the 2°C limit is not far away. The path to 1.5°C requires that the world achieve zero emissions before 2050. It is imperative, therefore, that we stop burning fossil fuels, known as mitigation. However, our present trajectory suggests we’re not on track. COP24 can’t take its eye off this ball –- there is no long-term plan that doesn’t include zero fossil-carbon emissions. The scientific consensus is that we need to reach “net zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050. But to tack closer to a scenario of 1.5°C warming, COP24 should set this target for 2035. Black, observed temperatures; blue, probable range from decadal forecasts; red, retrospective forecasts; green, climate simulations of the 20th century. The Met OfficeCarbon removal and non-CO₂ emissionsThe United Nations, in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC has accepted that there isn’t any obvious pathway to zero emissions in such a short time frame, so they have pegged their hopes on NETs – Negative Emissions Technologies. These approaches include carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves sucking CO₂ from the air and storing it deep underground. Carbon removal along these lines is the second imperative for COP24 in Katowice. Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net zero CO₂ by 2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately. But CO₂ isn’t the only problem. We emit other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which all contribute to climate change. Methane is on the rise and is 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO₂. It comes from cows, and it leaks from oil wells and coal mines as “fugitive methane”. It is also seeping out of the melting permafrost in the Arctic. This is a worrying form of “positive feedback” where global warming causes the further release of gases that cause further warming. Nitrous Oxide, which is 300 times more potent than CO₂, is rising too, caused by modern agriculture. And the concentration of refrigerant gases, such as CFCs, which are thousands of times more potent than CO₂, is not falling as fast as we’d hoped. So COP24 has a third imperative, to prevent the rise of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases. If we can stabilise non-CO₂ greenhouse emissions at present day levels we’ll be doing well, but concentrations are rising fast. Limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C requires mitigation (energy efficiency and renewable generation) and CO₂ removal. MCCDesperate times, desperate measuresAll of this is going to be hard work. We’re failing to cut down our emissions, the technologies for NETs don’t exist at any meaningful scale, yet and there are no political drivers in place to enforce their deployment. There is also a rea
[geo] Regulation to reduce sulphur from ships
https://medium.com/mit-technology-review/were-about-to-kill-a-massive-accidental-experiment-in-halting-global-warming-c009d15a610e "Studies have found that ships have a net cooling effect on the planet, despite belching out nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. That’s almost entirely because they also emit sulfur, which can scatter sunlight in the atmosphere and form or thicken clouds that reflect it away. In effect, the shipping industry has been carrying out an unintentional experiment in climate engineering for more than a century. Global mean temperatures could be as much as 0.25 ˚C lower than they would otherwise have been, based on the mean “forcing effect” calculated by a 2009 study that pulled together other findings (see “The Growing Case for Geoengineering”). For a world struggling to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 ˚C, that’s a big helping hand. And we’re about to take it away." (keep reading) 4 mins -- 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.
[geo] Harvard Commentaries on UNEA Nairobi Geoengineering discussion
and couldwelcome ongoing US domestic work through the National Academies committee. Maria Ivanova, AssociateProfessor of Global Governance and Director, Center for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, comparesthe UNEA resolution to the Oxford Principles of Geoengineering, noting the need for a political lift to higher level and deeperand wider scientific foundation. The uncertainty about whether geoengineeringis a climate issue or a broader environmental issue raised problems about UNEAas the right forum. The lack of public discussionbeforehand meant there was limited understanding of the issues. The strongopposition to all forms of geoengineering, including research, from some NGOs, meantdelegations needed a lot more information on the science and the policyimplications. Scientists must do more to inform government officials and theiradvisors, like the UK parliament 2010 report on“The Regulation of Geoengineering”, the US National Academies of Sciences reports oncarbon dioxide removal and on “reflecting sunlight to cool Earth” in 2015, andthe 2018 study bythe US National Academies on the SRM research and governance agenda. The increasein discussion about geoengineering suggests the UN Secretary-General shouldconvene further work through a revived UN Scientific Advisory Board. Overall,these commentaries challenge the simple public messaging from climate activiststhat the USA scuppered the talks because it wanted to promote climatedenial. It seems the situation is morethat the USA does not trust UN systems to properly advance geoengineeringdiscussions, and is actually the country that is most supportive ofgeoengineering, at least of CDR. Robert Tulip -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts
Speaking to some astronomer friends, they say the Pinatubo eruption effect was certainly measurable as a (pretty much global) change in the extinction properties of the atmosphere, adding an important "grey" aerosol contribution to the usual reddening (one study). From New Zealand, once the particulates reached them (after about 80 days), the extinction in the V-band around 550 nm increased from 0.13 to 0.21 magnitude/airmass (similar to other temperature sites both north and south - reference). A similar change was observed for the eruption of El Chichon. These analyses suggest that the settling time for all measurable extinction effects of these eruptions can be decades. You can see the increase in extinction in the U, B, and V passbands very clearly in this figure http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/t2...&filetype=.gif from the paper by Burki et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics, 112, p. 383 (1995), available at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...6AS..112..383B A number of other papers by observers at other locations confirm these results. Robert Tulip On Monday, 8 April 2019, 2:01:00 am AEST, Douglas MacMartin wrote: There’s not that much ground-based astronomy in UV, relative to optical and IR astronomy. Impact on optical astronomy is straightforward; if you lose 5% of the direct light, you need 5% longer integration time to get same number of photons. Impact on IR astronomy is less obvious, as limited by the background from the sky, which depends on water vapour and temperature through the atmospheric column (with most telescopes being at 14000’ or so). Shouldn’t be hard to estimate, I’ve never gotten someone interested enough to do the calculations but I could try again (my other job is being on the design team for the Thirty Meter Telescope). I did ask people whether they noted anything after Pinatubo, and the answer I got was no… that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an effect, but it wasn’t something that the astronomy community by and large remembered. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Russell Seitz Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 9:31 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts Why would reductions in the downwelling tropospheric light flux increase any of the above? I'd instead ask instrumental astromomers what they think SO2 scattering would do in the UV , as they have a lot to lose from scattered light, which can cost them contrast and degrade the signal to noise ratio in interferometry and spectroscopy. Try the Magellan and OWL teams On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 7:47:35 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: Has there been any investigation of SRM effects on vision? Eg perceived glare, macular degeneration, corneal sunburn, vision development in infants, object recognition when driving (and their equivalent in animals)? Andrew Lockley -- 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 togeoengineering+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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques
Dear Mark Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 FinalReport DE-AR916 on the potential for seaweed forests to addressglobal needs for food, fuel and climate. Iencourage readers to review the linked report, as it provides a compellingscientific agenda for reversing global warming and cleaning up the oceans. I would like to know ifthere has been media coverage of this project, as it seems to me one of thebiggest and most important efforts now underway for practical climate action. Best wishes Robert Tulip On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST, wrote: A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than the Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report. Estimated initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume that the Feed the world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly snowball to full global capacity. The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering. It could use any good-for-millennial and ocean restorative carbon storage technique. Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.orgFeed the world. Fuel the world. Reverse climate change. Original Message Subject: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques From: Andrew Lockley Date: Tue, March 12, 2019 4:41 am To: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com " , geoengineering http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques 2019 #98 (143p.)Author(s): GESAMPPublisher(s): GESAMPJournal Series GESAMP Reports and StudiesThis report comprehensively examines a wide range o marine geoengineering techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or boost the reflection of incoming solar radiation to space (albedo modification) or in some cases both. Further, the report recommends a) that a coordinated framework for proposing marine geoengineering activities, submitting supporting evidence and integrating independent expert assessment must be developed and b) that a greater expertise on wider societal issues is sought with the aim to establish a knowledge base and provide a subsequent analysis of the major gaps in socio-economics and geopolitics. -- 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. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/20190520114320.d9cc1239cd025ff256116092005df229.f0b5e7ff2c.wbe%40email12.godaddy.com. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/760731356.7755725.1559484546070%40mail.yahoo.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération
ion of the Shepherd diagram reflects the ongoing domination of politicsover science within climate advocacy, so it has not been properly revised toreflect accurate scientific information. Robert Tulip On Thursday, 11 July 2019, 02:24:42 am AEST, Andrew Lockley wrote: To give credit where credit's due, this was originally Shepherds famous napkin diagram. The srm line has been adjusted somewhat, however. I don't think that Doug's claims regarding Paris Commitments not conceivably being exceeded is supported empirically. Swansons law suggests very steep falls in the cost of energy by mid century, perhaps low single figure percentages of current costs. It would be implausible if large-scale use of fossil fuels would continue when renewable energy was one or two orders of magnitude cheaper On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, 17:12 Douglas MacMartin, wrote: Um… 1. Given that the Paris agreement commitments don’t actually tell you what’s going to happen towards even the middle of the century, drawing any line corresponding to those commitments is a guess, but regardless, it seems pretty remarkable to assert that no-one will *ever* cut emissions beyond what was agreed upon in Paris – that’s your hypothesis, and doesn’t reflect an “inaccurate” diagram. 2. Mostly wrong… actually, if net emissions are zero, then once you’ve paid the price for removing tropospheric aerosol cooling, the residual committed warming is mostly balanced by the residual drawdown of CO2… obviously not going to be exact, and depends a lot on whether there are nonlinear tipping points, but zero emissions is NOT the same thing as constant-concentration commitment, so to first order the original diagram is more accurate than your amended one. 3. The version of this that John posted has CDR continuing all the way down towards zero but not below it, your version goes below zero effects, so I’m not clear on what your point is here… Obvoiusly, that’s ultimately a choice where one stops. 4. Sure… again, that’s a choice, that doesn’t reflect an inaccurate diagram, simply that the diagram doesn’t show the full range of possible policy options. 5. Well, unclear given that there are no units or scales on the qualitative y-axis. Though RCP8.5, which is generally what people think of as BAU, does indeed result in roughly linear increase in temperature over time. Of course, the relationship between “effects” and temperature aren’t clear. Bottom line, it is completely inaccurate for you to refer to this conceptual diagram as being inaccurate or containing major errors. It is perfectly accurate to observe that none of the lines on the diagram are immutable. But given that there are no units, that’s hardly a criticism… From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 8:21 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération Further to the needed corrections mentioned by John Gorman, Stephen Salter correctly points out that this diagram is inaccurate. It actually embeds a series of major myths in climate politics. I read Benoit Lambert's link but did not find the chart there. Here is a revised version of the chart. It shows that every line of the previous version contains major error with strong potential to mislead decision makers and the public. 1. Full implementation of current Paris commitments (added) would only have small marginal effect on Business as usual, 2. Aggressive emission cuts do nothing about committed warming from past emissions, so do not flatline the climate effect 3. CO2 removal continues below the farcical imaginary floor of zero effect 4. Solar radiation management can produce net negative radiative forcing. 5. The BAU line (not changed here) should show ongoing exponential growth rather than the shown linear increase. Robert Tulip On Wednesday, 10 July 2019, 07:46:59 pm AEST, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All Zero emissions do not immediately mean zero temperature rises, especially if we have passed tipping points. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, scotlands.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195,WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change | | | | Index of /shs | | | On 10/07/2019 09:35, john gorman wrote: This diagram from the paper says it all in my opinion, and simply!! With, of course some variation in angles. Eg SRM could be angled down and I don’t believe cutting emissions will ever result in zero emissions. Good realistic paper! John gorman From:Benoit Lambert Sent: 09 July 2019 18:39 To: Carbon Dioxide Removal Subject: [CDR] blog 28, Elon
[geo] Solar Radiation Management for Great Barrier Reef
The Australian Government is investing AUD $1.6 million in SRM work this year. https://www.barrierreef.org/uploads/RTP_Annual%20Work%20Plan%202019-2020_FINAL.pdf "Activity: Solar radiationmanagement: Description: RRAP [Great Barrier Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program] model predictions indicate that keeping existing corals alive at a largescale would have the biggest impact of all considered interventions. Theconcept of creating shade through clouds, mist, fog, or surface films assumesthat decreased solar radiation protects corals from bleaching. Ecological andphysiological factors will be investigated through the foundational knowledgeactivity. Proof of concepts and assessment of the impact of manipulating solarradiation at scale will underpin risk and environmental impact assessments tobe considered under the regulation and policy activity. Deliverables: Proof of concept including environmental impact and regulatoryassessment. Budget: $1.6m" -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/298384362.3834184.1562846960431%40mail.yahoo.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] There is no Plan B for dealing with the climate crisis: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Vol 75, No 5
. Stability requires immediate staunching of the current dangerouswarming, stopping CO2 level from rising above its current dangerous level of415 parts per million, and then reduction toward the stable Holocene level of280 ppm. But Plan A would only result inthe 415 number gradually increasing, not decreasing, while doing nothing tostop feedback accelerators. The realsolution is to begin with the emergency tourniquet of Plan B, increasingplanetary albedo, while we invest in a global Climate Security Project to workour practical methods to remove carbon from the air at scale. Robert Tulip On Friday, 6 September 2019, 06:38:40 pm AEST, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All Let us agree that 'there is simply no substitute for decarbonisation'. But doing it will be difficult and slow. Geoengineering will give more time and so make it slightly less difficult. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 05/09/2019 22:23, Andrew Lockley wrote: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255 ABSTRACT To halt global warming, the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, cement production, and deforestation needs to be brought all the way to zero. The longer it takes to do so, the hotter the world will get. Lack of progress towards decarbonization has created justifiable panic about the climate crisis. This has led to an intensified interest in technological climate interventions that involve increasing the reflection of sunlight to space by injecting substances into the stratosphere which lead to the formation of highly reflective particles. When first suggested, such albedo modification schemes were introduced as a “Plan B,” in case the world economy fails to decarbonize, and this scenario has dominated much of the public perception of albedo modification as a savior waiting in the wings to protect the world against massive climate change arising from a failure to decarbonize. But because of the mismatch between the millennial persistence time of carbon dioxide and the sub-decadal persistence of stratospheric particles, albedo modification can never safely play more than a very minor role in the portfolio of solutions. There is simply no substitute for decarbonization. KEYWORDS: Global warming, geoengineering, climate change, carbon budgets, decarbonization, climate crisis, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05MoC_tvWkRgrew8%2BQP%3Dx6%3D1d-_FATdHRSYkQzBPbZ7rA%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/705fc82b-a55b-4820-5110-710338b4590e%40ed.ac.uk. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/705fc82b-a55b-4820-5110-710338b4590e%40ed.ac.uk. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2093066390.4971868.1568504312751%40mail.yahoo.com.
Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] IMechE Meeting on Climate Repair 9/11/19 - Youtube Recordings
Hi Ronal I agree these videos are well worth watching. The talks all present excellent information on new ideas for climate repair, and the videos are well produced and engaging, balancing the speakers and slides. I am working closely with Renaud de Richter and other colleagues on plans to show how iron salt aerosol can remove methane. The draft paper you asked about expects to seek peer review publication, so circulation will need to wait until it is accepted and finalised. Regards, Robert On Monday, 30 September 2019, 01:02:08 pm AEST, Ronal Larson wrote: Robert and ccs Thanks. All four videos worth watching. I was surprised to see you listed at the end of Dr. Renaud de Richter’s presentation. Can you say more on what you are working on? Also near the end of Sir King’s presentation, he called attention to a new paper with Clive Elsworth. Can that be made available to these lists? Ron On Sep 28, 2019, at 10:15 PM, Robert Tulip wrote: Presentations at Institute of Mechanical Engineers meeting in London on 9 September 2019, New Tools for Climate Repair - An Introduction for Engineers. Sir David King - A Fresh Look At Humanity's Greatest Ever Challenge - Climate Repair (42 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for Engineers. Sir David King FRS Professor Jim Haywood - Climate Repair - Why We May Need It (20 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: an Introduction for Engineers. Professor Jim Haywood Dr Renaud de Richter - Iron Salt Aerosol - A Natural Method to Remove Methane and Other Greenhouse Gases (27 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for Engineers. Dr Renaud de Richter Question and Answer session (31 minutes)New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for Engineers. Question and Answer session Robert Tulip -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/53403156.551643.1569730558255%40mail.yahoo.com. -- 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 carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8A05B056-0791-48F8-AE1C-F12D0873318B%40comcast.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1261937786.881026.1569852890432%40mail.yahoo.com.
[geo] Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2 budgets under control ABC Science
Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2budgets under control ABC Science Pressure ramps up to pull CO2 from the sky with geoengineering tech | | | | | | | | | | | Pressure ramps up to pull CO2 from the sky with geoengineering tech Malcolm Sutton Experts say humanity has only 10 years to have large-scale carbon dioxide reduction schemes up and running if gl... | | | By Malcolm Sutton 7 October 2019 Reflective clouds created by human industries likeshipping can be seen from space. (Supplied: NASA) It's 2029 and every merchant ship in the world is fertilising the oceanwith iron — a last-ditch effort to draw carbon dioxide from the air as globalemissions near the point of no return. This global attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere has been 11 yearsin the making — since 2018, when the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5Cspecial report warned that emissions reductions alone wouldnot be enough to restrict global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would also be required. Key points: ·Carbon dioxide removal techniques will be required to restrict globalheating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the 2018 IPCC report ·A UN Expert Group has reviewed potential marine geoengineeringtechniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ·Carbon removal at a global scale needs to be in effect within 10 years,experts said The hope is that the powdered iron will trigger a bloom of phytoplanktonthat will remove a gigatonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, by taking the carbonto the ocean floor when they die. There's evidence to support the concept — iron-stimulated blooms havebeen observed in nature for some time, sparked by events such as the 2010eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, and Saharan desert dustplumes. In 2029, it's just one of a number of ideas about to be employed acrossthe planet to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide. A recent working group reviewed a wide range of proposedmarine geoengineering techniques. (Supplied: GESAMP) How best to remove CO2? Back in the present, and as signs of global warming continue to mount, apush is on to find ways to draw CO2 from the atmosphere. "It's now abundantly clear from the IPCC 1.5C special report thatif we're going to restrict warming to 2 degrees or less, then mitigation of thereduction of emissions on its own is not enough," said Philip Boyd,professor of marine biogeochemistry at the University of Tasmania. "We have to go beyond that andwe now have to intervene in the climate." Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisoryorganisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of MarineEnvironmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marinegeoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degreesworldwide. The group particularly focused on: ·Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth's oceans by utilisingevery merchant ship in the world ·Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increaseCO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity ·Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes tocreate an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also coolingthe ocean's surface ·Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trencheswhere it can be stored for 1,000 years ·Increasing the ocean's reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increaseArctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particlesto the surface ·Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lyingstratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surfacetemperatures ·Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the oceanto sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels In short, the group found a lot of potential. But more research,modelling and pilot programs are required, especially in consideration of themassive scales required. "What we are trying to do now is put some incentives out there,create some of these models for feedback," Professor Boyd said. "But right now I can't see any one of them sticking outhead-and-shoulders above the rest." Saharan dust storms over the Atlantic ocean fertiliseoceans with iron minerals. (Supplied: NASA) Old concepts and natural evidence The concept of using reflective particles to reduce warming was floatedas early as 1965, when scientific advisors to US President Lyndon Johnsonrecognised that increased CO2 in the atmosphere could bring about climatic change. They raised the prospect of spreading small reflective particles overlarge oceanic areas in an effort to reduce warming and inhibit hurricaneformation. More recently, scientists have investigated spraying fine seawater intolow-lying stratocumulus clou
[geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch
The attack fromenvironmental NGOs and students at Cambridge University on the concept of climaterepair illustrates the dangerously irrational currents of opinion that areprevalent in the popular movement for action on climate change. The students allege that climate repair is anOrwellian front for fossil fuel industries, even though Sir David King, a mainadvocate of climate repair, has publicly distanced himself from fossil fuelsand solar geoengineering and has called for Cambridge to divest from fossilfuels, as noted in the post below. Ihave no personal contact with Cambridge University, but am interested in thisdebate from the perspective of seeking informed discussion on climate change. The scientificincoherence in the opposition to climate repair is seen in the false logic ofmoral hazard, the fallacy that removing carbon from the air undermines effortsto cool the planet. This moral hazardreasoning is nothing but an incorrect conspiracy theory, as stupid anddangerous as opposition to vaccination or chemtrails, and should be seen as socially and intellectually reprehensible. That moral hazard thinking has a niche in the intellectual environmentof Cambridge University shows the poor state of public information, illustratingthe failure to inform these ignorant students of basic facts about climatechange. It isobviously essential to analyse the risks of climate intervention, but advocacygroups like biofuelwatch who are behind these campaigns ignore the much largerrisks inherent in failing to research technologies that are needed to regulatethe planetary climate. The real moral hazard arises from failure to addressclimate repair. The error at work hereis the false belief that cutting emissions by decarbonizing the world economy couldpossibly be a sufficient response to climate change. In fact, as the climate repair concept indicates,slowing global warming requires carbon removal on large scale, alongsideefforts to cut emissions. A key pointto understand is that the main driver of warming is past emissions, not presentand future emissions. The goal should beto convert past emissions into safe and useful commodities. That requirescarbon mining at multi-gigatonne scale, based on intensive scientific research anddevelopment programs to assess technology options, aiming for net negativeglobal emissions as the basis of climate repair and restoration. The Oxford University site trillionthtonne.orgsays humans have added 635 gigatonnes of carbon to the air, growing by 20,000tonnes per minute, about ten gigatons a year. (Climate Action Tracker estimates the annual addition as 14GT, a significant discrepancy against the Oxford calculation). Moralhazard reasoning tells us to ignore that committed warming from past emissionsis the main cause of climate change. The line is that we should do nothingabout past emissions because removing carbon to repair and restore the climate isa rival political strategy to the sole focus on decarbonization. But that justignores how slowing down the speed at which the world burns new carbon into theair may be far more hard and costly than removing the carbon already added. The lack ofpublic debate and media coverage on the science and politics of climate repairis a problem that the new Cambridge Zero programs should address. Net zero emissions, let alone the need forlarge scale net negative emissions, can only be achieved through investment incarbon removal technology as a primary strategy. The myth that ‘all we have todo is cut emissions’ has to be challenged for the sake of good climate policy. Ignorantblocking of the essential work of climate repair undermines climate securityand is profoundly counter-productive, destroying prospects of movement toward asafe and stable planetary climate. It is alsoworth noting that the Guardian article linked below was edited afterpublication to include response from Dr Shuckburgh, stating that her work “inno way implies a ‘connection with the fossil fuel industry.’” It is disturbing that the public informationreleased by Biofuelwatch and Econexus appears to have contained numerouserrors. RobertTulip On Sunday, 24 November 2019, 07:48:12 pm AEDT, Andrew Lockley wrote: Poster's note: this PR / ad hom was picked up by the Graun, likely among others https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/23/students-accuse-cambridge-university-of-greenwashing-ties-with-oil-firms?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboardI think it's relevant to share as it's such a prominent and personal attack and the CNZ initiative is likely to be quite influential. https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2019/cambridge-accused-of-greenwashing-after-appointing-fossil-fuel-researcher-head-of-zero-carbon-initiative/ CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’Posted on November 19, 2019 by HennaPRESS CONTACTS:(1) AHSAN MEMON ahsa..
[geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch
Hi Chris,thanks for the point of clarification on the non-citation of Orwell by Cambridgestudent activists, but that is only a false quibble. Their quoted statements in this thread arecompletely in line with the opposition of Biofuelwatch to climate repair, asfurther explained at the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society twitterpost stating “We also targeted our criticism at Cambridge Zero’s promotionof ‘climate repair’ and other forms of geoengineering.” The Guardian article you mention is much morebalanced than the activist statements, but the thread here does not include it exceptas a link. Yourassertion that my comments are somehow “invalid" appears to bedefending the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, and associating them with theUniversity, by suggesting the alleged invalidity of my comments about CZCS hassome broader unspecified relevance to the University. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment? CZCSis a group that says the naming of Cambridge Zero “is exceptionally unhingedand morally bankrupt,” a “greenwashing initiative… to help [fossil fuelcompanies] locate oil reservoirs”. The threadsuggests that “criticism from students and staff at the university” includes that“under the name of ‘Climate Repair ’, Cambridge Zero will partner with the BPinstitute” and that “fossil fuel companies use the concept of climate repair tojustify their ongoing extractive practises and delay legislation to cut carbonemissions.” Now perhaps some may see the attribution of these views to Cambridgestudents and staff as a piece of mischief by Biofuelwatch, but the twit postabove rebuts that. My reference to Orwell is in full accord with the views ofthe Cambridge Zero Carbon Society. So Iam mystified Chris as to why you would seemingly imply that the divestmentfocus of this Zero Carbon Society at all reduces their apparent opposition to theconcept of climate repair. They are against climate repair. Theproblem I was drawing attention to was that CZCS and their NGO fellowtravellers have thoroughly misunderstood the meaning and importance of climaterepair as an essential goal for addressing global warming. Far from being “invalid”, support for climaterepair offers a different and challenging line of thinking from the preferredstrategy of emission reduction alone. KindRegards RobertTulip On Friday, 29 November 2019, 09:55:10 pm AEDT, Chris Vivian wrote: Robert, You did not read the Guardian report carefully enough. The Cambridge Zero Carbon Society did not “…allege that climate repair is an Orwellian front for fossil fuel industries…”. That statement was the view of EcoNexus and Biofuelwatch. If you look at the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society’s website (http://zerocarbonsoc.soc.srcf.net/) you will see that their focus is to get Cambridge University to divest fossil fuel investments. Consequently, the comments in your post related to the University are invalid. Chris. From: 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal Sent: 26 November 2019 01:41 To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com ; geoengineering ; Andrew Lockley Subject: Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch The attack from environmental NGOs and students at Cambridge University on the concept of climate repair illustrates the dangerously irrational currents of opinion that are prevalent in the popular movement for action on climate change. The students allege that climate repair is an Orwellian front for fossil fuel industries, even though Sir David King, a main advocate of climate repair, has publicly distanced himself from fossil fuels and solar geoengineering and has called for Cambridge to divest from fossil fuels, as noted in the post below. I have no personal contact with Cambridge University, but am interested in this debate from the perspective of seeking informed discussion on climate change. The scientific incoherence in the opposition to climate repair is seen in the false logic of moral hazard, the fallacy that removing carbon from the air undermines efforts to cool the planet. This moral hazard reasoning is nothing but an incorrect conspiracy theory, as stupid and dangerous as opposition to vaccination or chemtrails, and should be seen as socially and intellectually reprehensible. That moral hazard thinking has a niche in the intellectual environment of Cambridge University shows the poor state of public information, illustrating the failure to inform these ignorant students of basic facts about climate change. It is obviously essential to analyse the risks of climate intervention, but advocacy groups like biofuelwatch who are behind these campaigns ignore the much larger risks inherent in failing to research technologies that are needed to regulate the planetary climate. The real moral hazard arises from failure to address climate repair. The err
[geo] A Farewell To Ice by Peter Wadhams - Online Discussion
The discussion forum website Booktalk.org has just started discussing <https://www.booktalk.org/a-farewell-to-ice-a-report-from-the-arctic-by-pete r-wadhams-f292.html> A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Arctic - by Peter Wadhams Expert and general input would be highly welcome. Link is https://www.booktalk.org/a-farewell-to-ice-a-report-from-the-arctic-by-peter -wadhams-f292.html The following discussion threads have been set up including for each chapter. <https://www.booktalk.org/please-check-in-here-to-the-a-farewell-to-ice-book -discussion-t31158.html> Please "Check In" here to the "A Farewell to Ice" book discussion! <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-1-introduction-a-blue-arctic-t31157.html> Ch. 1: Introduction: a blue Arctic <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-2-ice-the-magic-crystal-t31156.html> Ch. 2: Ice, the magic crystal <https://www.booktalk.org/robert-tulip-has-volunteered-to-lead-the-discussio n-of-a-farewell-to-ice-t31162.html> Robert Tulip has volunteered to lead the discussion of "A Farewell to Ice" <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31155&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-3-a-brief-history-of-ice-on-planet-earth-t31155 .html> Ch. 3: A brief history of ice on planet Earth <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31154&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-4-the-modern-cycle-of-ice-ages-t31154.html> Ch. 4: The modern cycle of ice ages <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31153&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-5-the-greenhouse-effect-t31153.html> Ch. 5: The greenhouse effect <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31152&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-6-sea-ice-meltback-begins-t31152.html> Ch. 6: Sea ice meltback begins <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31151&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-7-the-future-of-arctic-sea-ice-the-death-spiral -t31151.html> Ch. 7: The future of Arctic sea ice - the death spiral <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31150&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-8-the-accelerating-effects-of-arctic-feedbacks- t31150.html> Ch. 8: The accelerating effects of Arctic feedbacks <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31149&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-9-arctic-methane-a-catastrophe-in-the-making-t3 1149.html> Ch. 9: Arctic methane, a catastrophe in the making <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31148&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-10-strange-weather-t31148.html> Ch. 10: Strange weather <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31147&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-11-the-secret-life-of-chimneys-t31147.html> Ch. 11: The secret life of chimneys <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31146&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-12-what-s-happening-to-the-antarctic-t31146.htm l> Ch. 12: What's happening to the Antarctic? <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31145&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-13-the-state-of-the-planet-t31145.html> Ch. 13: The state of the planet <https://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=31144&view=unread#unread> <https://www.booktalk.org/ch-14-a-call-to-arms-t31144.html> Ch. 14: A call to arms Link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Ice-Peter-Wadhams/dp/0241009413 Robert Tulip -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/008901d649bc%2457d5ff90%240781feb0%24%40yahoo.com.au.
RE: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Hello Cush As I mentioned, the issue is timeframes. You are correct that GHGs are the cause of climate change. That does not mean removing GHGs, let alone just slowing the rate of increase as the AR6 summary implies, is the only possible response. Reducing GHG levels and emissions will take a long time. Meanwhile we face extreme weather, biodiversity collapse and the risk of various dangerous tipping points. We have a planetary duty to address these crises. Increasing albedo could prevent many effects of warming. Brightening the pole would do far more to protect the AMOC than GHG removal would. Higher albedo would bring numerous beneficial flow on effects for planetary stability and security. It is absurdly stupid that these benefits of a brighter planet are not factored into IPCC calculations on risk, illustrating the dominance of politics over science. Cutting emissions will not protect AMOC on a timescale shorter than a century. That is far too slow to be relevant to the looming security emergency of a great oceanic disruption. The same issue applies for ice melt, methane release and other phase shifts now occurring. We need to buy time to ramp up GHG removal by brightening the planet. Regards, Robert From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:30 AM To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal ; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers Dear Robert I enjoyed pretty much reading your critique on the IPCC AR6 report and the AMOC report. I notices that thèse reports put an emphasis on mitigation and negative emissions as the way to slowing down ice melting and Climate variability. Yet, these arguments seem to be "unscientific" to you because of your take on Solar geoengineering. Yet, many observées think that brightening the marine clouds and spraying aérosols do not solve the very cause of Climate change, which is GHGe. Yet, to D. Hume's point of view, a "scientific" control is the one that Solves causality, meaning a solution that controls or stabilises the causes. What is your take on this? To what science do you refer to in your commenté? Who is fooling who? Thanks in advance for your feedback. Regards Cush Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 12:16, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > a écrit : I thought it was pretty bad that the <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf> IPCC report states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold) As the NOAA AGGI report <https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/> states, CO2 equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) think past emissions already commit the planet to 2°C. Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy. My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol. It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why. I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge. Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that means the
[geo] RE: [CDR] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Hello Valerie You may not have understood my comments. Sorry if I was not clear. You state “Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to climate policy at all.” That is not true. Per my first comment, headline B.1 of the SPM implies that only emission reduction can prevent dangerous warming. That is a climate policy assertion, ruling out the alternative view that preventing dangerous warming requires increased albedo. The complete absence of discussion of albedo from the SPM gives rise to the concern that it will not be addressed in later IPCC reports unless there is significant policy change. Robert From: Nucleation Capital Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:38 AM To: Robert Tulip Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal ; geoengineering ; vale...@nucleationcapital.com Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers Robert, Just so you are aware, the report released by the IPCC this week is just the IPCC Working Group 1 <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FAQ> portion of a much larger three-part report, looking at the Physical bases. The official description is: "The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science, and combining multiple lines of evidence from paleoclimate, observations, process understanding, and global and regional climate simulations." Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to climate policy at all, just a summary of the physical findings. I believe the Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/> , due out in September 2022, will have the policy discussion that you are looking for. See here <https://www.ipcc.ch/> for the IPCC's full description of the sections and contents of the Sixth Assessment (i.e. the 6th full assessment in 30 years). Valerie Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner <http://angel.co/v/l/P2Yp1> Nucleation Capital Fund Portal <https://nucleationcapital.com/> NucleationCapital.com M: (650) 799-4494 On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:16 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > wrote: I thought it was pretty bad that the <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf> IPCC report states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold) As the NOAA AGGI report <https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/> states, CO2 equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) think past emissions already commit the planet to 2°C. Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy. My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol. It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why. I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge. Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use the mantra "the science says" to oppos
[geo] No virtue in rich nations outsourcing their emissions
No virtue in rich nations outsourcing their emissions In political debates about climate change, governments in Europe have portrayed themselves as virtuous for their achievements and plans in cutting emissions. The <https://www.edfeurope.org/news/2020/11/12/european-council-sets-trailblazin g-target-cut-emissions-least-55> European Union has committed to reducing emissions 55% below 1990 by 2030. This has helped to convince the public that emission reduction remains the main game for preventing dangerous warming, that carbon dioxide removal can be deferred, and that solar radiation management should be banned as a moral hazard. However, as the article below by former Australian Senator Ron Boswell explains, achievements in emission reduction are largely fraudulent. Emissions from industrial processes in European industry fell by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2018. But that sits uncomfortably alongside global results, which, far from any cuts, have seen industrial emissions increase by 67%. How could this be? The reason is the emission accounting system is rigged so that when emissions are offshored, especially to China, they are counted against the country of manufacture rather than the country of benefit. The scam of emissions reduction is something worse and more insidious than the deceptions imagined by climate deniers. The real problem is that decarbonisation is unable to prevent the looming planetary security catastrophe of global warming, which can only be stopped by geoengineering, and the UN processes have signally failed to bring this situation to world attention. Emission reduction cannot reduce extreme weather or biodiversity collapse in this decade. Unfortunately, cutting new emissions only slows the speed at which GHGs increase, and is marginal to the overall task of stabilising the climate, which is mainly a geoengineering problem. The tragedy is that the lie of primary reliance on emission cuts could dominate proceedings at COP26 in Glasgow. This situation is morally appalling, a shocking triumph of spin over substance. This big lie has distorted the political debate to obscure the urgent need for major planetary cooling intervention. This month the UNFCCC explained how far short the world is of its Paris ratchet goals in this <https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_08_adv_1.pdf> report and <https://unfccc.int/news/full-ndc-synthesis-report-some-progress-but-still-a -big-concern> press release. To display the impudence and duplicity of the official climate system, the press release asserts in its headline sentence that "there is a clear trend that greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced over time." That is untrue. It is immediately contradicted by the "worrying findings" that "available NDCs. imply a sizable increase in global GHG emissions in 2030 compared to 2010, of about 16%." Even worse, the main report states that by 2030 emissions are projected to be 59.3 per cent higher than in 1990. In the parallel universe inhabited by Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change, "the synthesis shows that countries are making progress towards the Paris Agreement's temperature goals. This means that the in-built mechanism set up by the Paris Agreement to allow for a gradual increase of ambition is working". No, the Paris mechanism is not working. If COP26 agreed to change the rules so that emissions are counted against the country that uses the product instead of the country that produces it, we would suddenly have a far more accurate picture of climate responsibility. That might even prompt greater recognition of the urgency of climate engineering solutions. Robert Tulip No virtue in rich nations outsourcing their emissions <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Ron+Boswell> RON BOSWELL <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/no-virtue-in-rich-nations-outso urcing-their-emissions/news-story/de8981f7bb2669b9327ba26cc5634091> https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/no-virtue-in-rich-nations-outsou rcing-their-emissions/news-story/de8981f7bb2669b9327ba26cc5634091 SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 One of the great mysteries of the global economy is how so many countries are boldly pledging to hit net-zero emissions by 2050, yet global emissions keep rising. Despite a temporary dip last year because of the pandemic-induced slowdown, global greenhouse gas emissions are growing again and are expected to reach 55 billion tonnes by 2022-23. That's up from 51 billion tonnes in 2019. But if more than 100 nations have committed to net zero by 2050, why are emissions still going up? It's an accounting trick. It's called outsourcing. It works like this. At least a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions are generated in the production of goods traded across borders. This includes steel, aluminium, cement, cars, he
[geo] RE: [CDR] World Cooling Map
old to freeze seawater blocks for canal construction. Pumping seawater into surface containers to freeze in the winter cold would produce ice bricks, possibly large truck load size. This ice brick could then be trucked into position for placement to construct the ice canal. This ice production method could be expanded to maximise the ice volume and area across the whole Arctic Ocean in winter, to minimize summer melt. Stopping wind and currents from collapsing the ice canal would be a function of scale, materials and design. It might be possible to use carbon-fibre beams to reinforce the canal. The overall project would be designed to refreeze the whole Arctic wilderness so there is no polar blue water in summer. My view is that there should be three canals, the Northern Route, the North Pole Route and the Northwest Passage. It should be possible to keep these ocean thoroughfares permanently open while freezing the rest of the Arctic as a World Heritage Wilderness Area. I wanted to startle people with the map centred on the North Pole. It is a planetary perspective that people do not easily think about, especially seeing the relative size and position of the continents and oceans as accurately scaled in this projection. It highlights how the Arctic could provide direct ocean passage for bulk transport between major economic powers while also serving as a primary planetary cooling site. This is just the initial broad-brush concept which can be refined with more detail. Robert Tulip From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Anderson, Paul Sent: Saturday, 20 November 2021 3:59 PM To: Ronal Larson ; rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group ; Healthy Climate Alliance ; Planetary Restoration ; via geoengineering ; Carbon Dioxide Removal ; Biochar.groups.io Subject: RE: [CDR] World Cooling Map Ronal, My responses are below in a different color. Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:<http://www.drtlud.com/> www.drtlud.com Email: <mailto:psand...@ilstu.edu> psand...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: Office: 309-452-7072Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434 Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFPGo to: <http://www.juntosnfp.org/> www.JuntosNFP.org Inventor of RoCC kilns and author of Biochar white paper : See <http://www.woodgas.energy/resources> www.woodgas.energy/resources Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at <http://www.capitalism21.org/> www.capitalism21.org) with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves. From: Ronal Larson mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net> > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 3:36 PM To: Anderson, Paul mailto:psand...@ilstu.edu> >; rob...@rtulip.net <mailto:rob...@rtulip.net> ; John Nissen mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com> > Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group mailto:arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com> >; Healthy Climate Alliance mailto:healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com> >; Planetary Restoration mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> >; via geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >; Carbon Dioxide Removal mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> >; Biochar.groups.io mailto:m...@biochar.groups.io> > Subject: Re: [CDR] World Cooling Map Robert and Paul, John and 6 ccs. (note that Paul added “biochar.io <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiochar.io%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C567046371ca142bef8cf08d9aba49ca8%7C085f983a0b694270b71d10695076bafe%7C1%7C0%7C637729545760375094%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=xvnffSCEqUTqgj1DB%2BmZjrbPJye9RqgSF05sxsfsg%2Fk%3D&reserved=0> ”, but did not otherwise use that word. I am mainly responding for biochar reasons) RWL1. I write because I agree with Paul on all 3 of Robert’s 3 ideas below. Paul said; "others can embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet. “ see other inserts below in both Paul’s and Robert’s messages today On Nov 19, 2021, at 9:24 AM, Anderson, Paul mailto:psand...@ilstu.edu> > wrote: Robert, AWESOME!!! Each of the 3 possible cooling interventions has merit for separate discussions. Please keep me included in any discussion / work regarding the focus on Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents I am a retired geography professor. I offer the following contribution: A. The green dot indicating an Algae farm in the North Atlantic Ocean is either too far north or a second dot is needed in the Sargasso Sea. That is the area in the center of the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean. Also referred to as the Doldrums because of LACK of winds and very little
