Re: [geo] Re: Survey, last chance to participate

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew, cc two lists

I have responded despite the failure to include biochar as one of the 7 
subject CDR options.  

I urge any who think biochar should have been listed to also respond.

Ron



> On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:29 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> PS pls share the link, to get the largest possible sample 
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/D6BCBQQ 
> 
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, 13:15 Andrew Lockley,  > wrote:
> Hi
> 
> If anyone's not yet filled out this survey on CDR, it would be great to get 
> your responses. It will be closing soon.
> 
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/D6BCBQQ 
> 
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> 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 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] Geoengineering and diversity

[Ronal W. Larson]

  Andrew, cc Clare and list:

Per your request, I respond for one part (the biochar part) of the CDR 
part of Geo - as I think you have raised several important topics.

> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Clare James  wrote:
> 
> Agreed that commercial perspectives are vital for any useful assessment of 
> geoengineering possibilities alongside the physical science/legal/ethical 
> considerations. The interaction between commerce and research seems haphazard 
> - happy to be proved wrong on that front. 

[RWL:   For biochar, I'd say that the interaction is pretty good.  I 
see dozens of commercial biochar companies (almost all with websites) 
referencing scientific research.  But could always be improved.

More responding to Andrew below.

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 23:48, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:
> Various commentators have criticised the lack of diversity in geoengineering. 
> Is anyone collecting metrics on this, especially compared to other 
> disciplines?
[RWL1:  Not sure if you are referencing both CDR and SRM - but can you 
cite some "diversity-commentators" examples for each side?   
The following is in response to your next:
> 
> I'm keen to see a bit of discussion of the subject on the list, so I've added 
> some personal thoughts and observations on the matter below. 
> 
> CE seems to benefit from diversity. It's a global subject that touches 
> everyone, and a lack of diversity risks missing crucial perspectives. Even 
> hard-sci work tends to be laden with implicit assumptions and values (eg 
> placement of BECCS in model experiments). Furthermore, it's difficult to 
> market the discipline's output to the world, if it looks like a bunch of rich 
> white men with a neo-colonial project (whether or not that's true may be less 
> important than the optics). This is arguably less important in other fields - 
> eg the Higgs boson doesn't have to be discovered by a diverse group, for 
> knowledge of its mass to be globally beneficial. 
[RWL2:   Definitely agree diversity has benefits - and believe biochar 
analysis does now already benefit from diversity.  
Re "model experiments", biochar would welcome greater inclusion on 
computer models.  But that is probably too difficult to include realistically  
- being a much more complicated modeling topic than BECCS (biochar has enormous 
out-year effects that differ by soil, species, climate, etc).
Re "rich, white, men" -  pretty much lacking in the biochar world
> 
> CE diversity appears to be a nested problem, and I'll try to break it out, 
> below. I've ordered this sections broadly by order of geographic scale, not 
> the degree or importance of resulting bias (but, coincidentally, the largest 
> scale is potentially also the largest bias). 
[RWL3:  Thanks for suggesting the following ordering.
> 
> Developed world bias: There's a strong geoengineering cluster in the US & 
> Western EU, and lesser clusters in Asia (especially China) - but these don't 
> interact too much, and the other 60pc-ish of the world's population has 
> little or no representation. Populous countries lacking obvious 
> representation in CE academia include Pakistan and Indonesia - plus virtually 
> the whole African continent. MENA, Central Asia and S. America are also 
> severely under-represented. 
[RWL4:   Biochar does have such a bias - but I am also amazed at the 
breadth of global work - especially in Asia and even more so in China.  Nigeria 
had their fourth annual biochar conference this past week 
(https://biochar-international.org/event/biochar-2018-biochar-initiative-of-nigeria-bin/).
  China seems to have several biochar conferences every year and the IBI 
headquarters are there now;  China is way ahead of everybody else on anything 
related to biochar.
There are now (11 years after the name biochar" first became official) 
about 50 regional groups (including ones in both Pakistan and Indonesia) - see 
https://biochar-international.org/regional/)
Definitely an unfortunate shortage in most of Africa and South America 
- but both have a long history of charcoal use in soils (see especially the 
many publications on "Terra Preta" historical use in the Amazon).
> 
> Pro-Christian bias: most research community members are in 
> traditionally-Christian countries. While religion isn't an obvious direct 
> influence in western academia, it affects perspectives and societal 
> structures on everything from family types, through legal systems and ethics 
> frameworks. EG polygamous and cousin-marriage social systems (not commonly 
> found in most modern Christian cultures) are widespread in a huge belt of 
> land from the Sahara to SE Asia - and I can't recall any representation from 
> this culture in the CE community at all. There's likely a lot of other 
> important life ways that don't touch CE adequately: large families, 
> subsistence farmers, 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Ronal W. Larson]

Alan:

I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not taking this 
personally - and am glad you responded below.

I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great value 
from that annual expenditure for Science.  I also this year found a sweet deal 
for two subcategories of Nature.   And I receive a dozen other magazines - a 
few where I am a life member, and a surprising number that are free.  I don't 
subscribe to AMS and AGU because too little there that fits my background.

But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading 
four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different journals - maybe 
only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re biochar.  No way anyone working in 
biochar can cover all that (the IBI website has started showing the 10-20% of 
unlocked papers every month - which I find helpful - and tend to read).

Re "Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "   I make a 
point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when someone has 
found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - and I presume readers 
find that useful as well.  Finding a long version in a thesis always pleases me 
- and they are mostly free.

Re "Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific papers?" 
 - I agree with everything you say about the need for someone to pay.   In many 
cases, that should be the group that paid for the research to be performed.  
That leaves many who can't - in particular in this case the University of 
Alberta.  So delighted they have a library.

I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and presume 
the paper will also demonstrate that.  I repeat that I agree with all you wrote 
below.

Ron



> On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Alan Robock  wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
> 
> Don't take this personally, but your email was a tipping point for me, and I 
> have to respond.  Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?"  Who do 
> you expect to pay for the publication of scientific papers?  The American 
> Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and American Association 
> for the Advancement of Science are non-profits.  Part of the cost of 
> publication is paid by authors, and reviewers and most editors work for free. 
>  If you want them to give you the papers for free, the authors will have to 
> pay even more.  If you want the papers, join the AMS, AGU, and AAAS, and 
> support our science.  Pay for subscriptions to the journals.  I have been a 
> member of all three for my entire career.
> Alan
> 
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock 
> <http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock>
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA 
> ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock <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 
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54>
> On 8/4/2018 1:24 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>> Andrew and list:
>> 
>>  Thanks for the lead.  
>> 
>>  Believing that arctic ice loss is our best global indicator of how fast 
>> we are heading to ever more serious climate problems, I've tried to follow 
>> Arctic melting for the last 10-12 years (I just learned that 2018 is lagging 
>> other years overall, but is in first place for the central Arctic basin - 
>> the most important).  So, disappointed that this paper is behind a pay wall, 
>> I found by Googling that the paper is probably the result of this 2016 
>> Master's thesis (his second Master's), downloadable at
>>   
>> https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1
>>  
>> <https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1>
>> 
>>  Possibly more here than in the paper.  I have only skimmed the thesis, 
>> but believe Mr. Mueller has described a new useful methodology.  He 
>> has pulled a lot of new information out of some pretty sketchy actual data 
>> and huge amounts of modeled data.
>> 
>>   So, I hope that climate modelers will pay attention to this thesis as 
>> a way to improve their models.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Lockley &

Re: [geo] Attribution of Arctic sea ice decline from 1953 to 2012 to influences from natural, greenhouse-gas and anthropogenic aerosol forcing

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew and list:

Thanks for the lead.  

Believing that arctic ice loss is our best global indicator of how fast 
we are heading to ever more serious climate problems, I've tried to follow 
Arctic melting for the last 10-12 years (I just learned that 2018 is lagging 
other years overall, but is in first place for the central Arctic basin - the 
most important).  So, disappointed that this paper is behind a pay wall, I 
found by Googling that the paper is probably the result of this 2016 Master's 
thesis (his second Master's), downloadable at
 
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1
 


Possibly more here than in the paper.  I have only skimmed the thesis, 
but believe Mr. Mueller has described a new useful methodology.  He has pulled 
a lot of new information out of some pretty sketchy actual data and huge 
amounts of modeled data.

 So, I hope that climate modelers will pay attention to this thesis as 
a way to improve their models.

Ron


> On Aug 4, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note: relevant, as a case exists to replace the 1/4 warming offset, 
> currently obtained from aerosols, should the atmosphere get cleaned up.
> 
> https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0552.1 
> 
> 
> Menu 
> 
> Share 
> |
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Attribution of Arctic sea ice decline from 1953 to 2012 to influences from 
> natural, greenhouse-gas and anthropogenic aerosol forcing
> 
> B. L. Mueller*
> School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British 
> Columbia, Canada.
> 
> N. P. Gillett
> Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, University of Victoria, 
> Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
> 
> A. H. Monahan
> School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British 
> Columbia, Canada.
> 
> F. W. Zwiers
> Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, British 
> Columbia, Canada.
> 
> *Corresponding author address: B. L. Mueller, School of Earth and Ocean 
> Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. E-mail: 
> benn...@uvic.ca 
> Journal of Climate 
> Vol. preprint: , Issue. 2018 
> , :
> 
> https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0552.1 
> 
> Abstract
> The paper presents results from a climate change detection and attribution 
> study on the decline of Arctic sea ice extent in September for the 1953 to 
> 2012 period. For this period three independently-derived observational 
> datasets and simulations from multiple climate models are available to 
> attribute observed changes in the sea ice extent to known climate forcings. 
> Here we direct our attention to the combined cooling effect from other 
> anthropogenic forcing agents (mainly aerosols) that has potentially masked a 
> fraction of greenhouse-gas induced Arctic sea ice decline. The presented 
> detection and attribution framework consists of a regression model, namely, 
> regularised optimal fingerprinting, where observations are regressed onto 
> model simulated climate response patterns (i.e. fingerprints). We show that 
> fingerprints from greenhouse-gas, natural and other anthropogenic forcings 
> are detected in the three observed records of Arctic sea ice extent. Beyond 
> that, our findings indicate that for the 1953 to 2012 period roughly 23% of 
> the greenhouse-gas induced negative sea ice trend has been offset by a weak 
> positive sea ice trend attributable to other anthropogenic forcing. We show 
> that our detection and attribution results remain robust in the presence of 
> emerging non-stationary internal climate variability acting upon sea ice 
> using a perfect model experiment and data from two large ensembles of climate 
> simulations
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 

Re: [geo] annual per capita cost of geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew:  cc list

For biochar, add the concepts of internal rate of return (IRR) and 
recommended analysis time period (30 years?  100 years?) (as a few of the 
needed extra parameters, for given types of soil, climate, species, etc).  
First cost is not the right parameter.

Ron


> On Feb 4, 2018, at 5:28 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I'm designing a survey on attitudes to CE, and I'm trying to simplify the 
> costs estimates by making it per person per year. I've put $1 for SRM and 
> $100 for CDR - but it occurs to me that this is really very complicated. Has 
> anyone done any proper research on this? I can't find anything... 
> 
> Typically, SRM is costed on a program basis (bn/yr globally) but CDR is 
> costed per tonne (and volumes are highly variable).
> 
> Issues to roll into this calculation are
> * population growth
> * future emissions (CDR gets a lot more expensive, if you're still emitting)
> * whether temperature stabilises or reduces - and how fast
> * experience/cost curve for each approach
> * how much heterogeneity to expect (it's likely impractical to expect only a 
> single CDR to do everything)
> 
> There are probably other factors. This strikes me as something that's 
> sufficiently useful to be worked up into a paper.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> -- 
> 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] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Ronal W. Larson]

Professor Marshall:  cc list

This is to pick up on one of your sentences below on CO2 removal (CDR). 
 I understand that this thread and the Gunderson et al article have 
intentionally (up to now) only discussed the SRM half of Geo.  But perhaps 
getting your reaction to the biochar form of CDR will help clarify our recent 
extensive SRM-related discussions.

You asked (below):  “If we also need CO2 removal then will that 
suddenly be self-supporting too?”

I believe that the mere existence of Amazonian Dark Earth (ADE, mostly 
known as Terra Preta) easily answers your question.   This anthropogenic soil 
is certainly “self-supporting”.  Wiki does a good enough job on ADE/Terra 
Preta, but there are hundreds of cites.

Of course, your “suddenly” doesn’t qualify with ADE.  But can I ask for 
your thoughts on a recent similar “self-supporting” story.  I choose Australia 
for obvious reasons- perhaps near enough for you to visit,  The brief report is 
at:  
http://www.biochar-international.org/profile_Potatoes_in_Australia 
.  
(I place Australia as one the top three countries for understanding biochar,  
but perhaps losing out now to China)

To further justify this jaunt into “self-supporting”, I also recommend 
a (non-fee) 2018 paper with more of a science flavor, on biochar results in 
Nepal:
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718300226 
 . 
This has citations for even larger increases of NPP.  For instance a search for 
“pumpkins” in that list of references - will lead to 400% NPP in a 2015 paper.  
Clearly highly “self-supporting” - without even considering additional out-year 
economic benefits (we generally hear of 1000 year biochar lifetime).

I am NOT claiming anything like this for the average biochar program - 
but I hope this is intriguing enough to have a little attention on this list to 
this specific SRM “CDR-cousin”.

Ron


> On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Marshall  > wrote:
> 
> 
> If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water 
> droplets in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no 
> unintended effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I 
> personally do not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem 
> with them in principle.
> 
> But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so 
> that all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to 
> remove CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,
> 
> I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
> self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
> secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then 
> I imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
> removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?
> 
> Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing 
> the goal posts considerably
> 
> The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation 
> of our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in 
> my opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do 
> moderate those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.
> 
> jon
> 
> From: Stephen Salter >
> Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
> To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
> Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
> Technological Rationality in Social Context
> 
> Hi Renaud
> 
> Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
> attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
> geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing 
> it is zero.
> 
> I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values 
> without the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local 
> wind should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.
> 
> 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 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> I am interested by the article you propose.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Renaud de Richter, 

[geo] CEC 2017 Conerence

[Ronal W . Larson]

Dr. Scheffran and “geo” list:..  (new thread title;  previously:  Re: [geo] 
collaboration - Security of Solar Radiation Management geoengineering

Thanks for bringing the CEC 2017 conference back up. I find videos 
helpful, as I can stop and look more carefully at PPts.  To save others’ time, 
here are some first notes on videos.  My emphasis is on biochar - so those are 
in bold.

I have so far only seen one Ppt -is there a repository of presentations?

I.   Opening Plenary Video   1:26 hr:min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKpLIgVpm3E 
   Most had interesting Ppt slides.
  
0-9:00  Intro

9:20 - 31:  Naomi Vaughn   CDR
  11:45  Balancing Souces and Sinks  Article 2 of ?
  19:30  Biochar to be “small player” (.7Gt c/yr)
  26:40  slide on 6 sessions on CDR  -  hers on Institutions

31-48  Ben Kravitz  
49-56  David Keith  SRM
56-59  MacMartin,  Gordon Conferences
59 - 1:03   Janos  Pasztor,  G2C2   (CDR briefly)

1:03 - 1:10  Linda Schneider(Green Party affiliate  -  Heinrich Boll (with 
ETC)- against biochar)  Mentioned BFW;  a map
1:10 - 1:15  Andreas  Oschlies  Geomar  oceans  + more   Paper updating Royal 
society  (got less optimistic - ref Oschlies and Klepper 2017)
1:15  -1:20   Phil Williamson,  UK GGR Program   (Pete Smith leading biochar)
1:20 - 1:26   Andy Parker   SRM Governance  16 workshops   (40 from Developing 
countries)  Program new -  DECIMALS -sp?


II  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KOFq5vRBqM 
 Press Conference (26 minutes)
   0Mark: Ref game from Pablo Sanchez
   8:45  David Keith;  
  13:  Lili Fuhr   Heinrich Böll Foundation (Anti-Geo message;  allied with ETC 
and BFW;   also against biochar)
 * 19  Pablo Suarez   (Red Cross) - anti SRM;  Murphy’s Law

III.   Full list of participants at 
http://www.ce-conference.org/system/files/documents/tnliste_druckstand_171009.pdf
 


IV   At Heinrich Boll:   https://www.boell.de/en/geoengineering 

  
https://www.boell.de/en/2017/12/01/big-bad-fix-case-against-geoengineering?dimension1=ds_geoengineering
 

  
http://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_geoeng_briefing_usletter_sept2017_v2.pdf
 

map   https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/ 

   need to return.

V.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWfdIS4j7FM 
   (Prof.  Michael Taylor from 
maybe Jamaica).   Has good policy pro-action graphics..   


With apologies for rough nature of these notes;  it’s late.  I will expand on 
these for a biochar audience - and hope to hear from other technologies.

Ron


> On Jan 1, 2018, at 4:42 AM, Juergen Scheffran 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> 

> As the issue is attracting more interest I am doing some work on this. For 
> instance, we have co-organized a session at CEC2017: 
> http://www.ce-conference.org/session/parallel-session-110-security-risk-pathways-climate-engineering-counter-geoengineering
>  
> 
> 
> Happy New Year,
> Jürgen 




-- 
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: Re: [geo] [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

[Ronal W . Larson]

List,  Peter and David:

Nice discussion!  I hope we can continue for a bit longer.

1.   I recommend the patent site suggested by Peter:  
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-eisenberger 
.A major portion of 
the first of many DAC patents there is at:
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20170321656 


2.  I hope Peter will consider adding biomass (and especially biochar) 
to the carbon neutral solar and wind resources critical to his CDR 
methodologies.  Biochar approaches can supply the electricity needed but also 
the needed thermal energy. I guess such a bio approach will be of lower cost.
3.  David Keith’s below recommended “Technology Review,” a 15 minute 
video, is well done.  

I hope there can be some more discussion on these initial observations
a)  at 12:40: that CDR is “inherently expensive”.  Virtually 
all of us on the CDR side of “Geo” disagree - and obviously Peter disagrees.
b)  at 13:40:  shows an interesting chart with CDR started only 
well after (full scale) SRM is underway.  I would hope to see a similar one 
from David - with CDR started as many years in advance of SRM as shown here 
afterwards.  The CDR rationale being the same as much of Peter’s discussion - 
on cost reductions to be expected via the experience/learning curve.  (The 
solar experience curve has had a 40-year slope of about 0.8;  that for wind of 
about 0.9;  what is expected for DAC?  I have no idea what it might be for 
biochar.)
c)  I don’t think David, in this video, had any discussion of 
ocean acidification -  or 
d)  the impact of sudden termination of a SRM approach

4.  David’s final URL link below that starts off “www.ure…..3376…. 
works when “.ure” is replaced by “.nature”.  Unfortunately behind a pay-wall, 
but the abstract probably gives the article’s main features.  Of key importance 
to today’s discussion was the final abstract sentence:  “In the extreme, if 
solar geoengineering were used to hold radiative forcing constant under RCP8.5, 
the carbon burden may be reduced by ∼100 GTC, equivalent to 12–26% of 
twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO2.”RCP 8.5 
seems a questionable scenario and hope we can hear more with lower scenarios.

Ron


> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Peter Eisenberger  
> wrote:
> 
> David ,
> First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you a 
> leader generally and specifically in the issue of  SRM  and CDR  issues.  No 
> one 
> has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is for 
> that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to SRM , which 
> whether intended or not is a statement itself 
> given the leadership position you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my opinion 
> but also of your DAC colleagues that intentional or not you convey , 
> consistent with your email response , that you are pessimistic about the 
> potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in this is that from my 
> perspective the impact of that perception on  DAC today is what the APS did 
> ten years ago to you- making assertions that DAC is costly with no real 
> scientific basis . You seem willing to put enormous effort into SRM  yet have 
> not made the effort to find out for yourself whether my claims are plausible 
> or not. In fact to be candid as a physicist I believe you can easily 
> determine for your self by reading our published patents why GT represents a 
> cost breakthrough in DAC technology. I invite you to visit me at a time of 
> your convenience or I believe we can go quite far over the phone. I hope that 
> you will not say in the future that you have not seen the evidence but make 
> the more accurate statement that you have not yet sought to get the evidence 
> with anywhere the same vigor that you have pursued SRM . As I said I do not 
> understand why you switched your focus before doing so.   
> 
> In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from the 
> air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost potential. 
> In one case they observed us for over five years and operated our plants. The 
> person leading  that effort for one of the companies  quit his job  to join 
> us . He is scientist of high reputation but also arose to a high management  
> level in his company . I believe you know him and I know he would be glad to 
> talk with you and tell you as he did  others at meeting at ASU and the Virgin 
> Earth Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2  for under $50 /tonne. 
> He looked at all DAC technologies as did all the other companies and all have 
> expressed a desire to work with GT. 
> 
> In addition I think there is a difference between emissions reductions  of 
> the CCS kind 

Re: [geo] Allam cycle gas power plant producing pure CO2 & electricity at cost of regular gas power plants

[Ronal W . Larson]

Paul:

1.  This Science article from May might answer your question from 
below: 
   
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power
 

  From my short googling,  I guess they are close to operating, but have not 
yet done so.

2.  Perhaps like you,  I find this new [still unproven] Allam cycle to 
be quite fascinating.   I learned a bit more from these two sites:
   https://www.netpower.com/news/ 
   
http://webcast.ovationevents.com/ovationcloud/event/2014/ceraweek/03042014Interview8/video/interview.mp4
 


3.  As now being built, this plant can be carbon neutral (mostly via 
CCS), but not yet carbon negative (this list’s interest).  Probably for some 
time it will even be carbon positive (but less so than coal).  But we can 
imagine replacing their present use of natural gas with biomass.   There is 
then potential to use pyrolysis, as the pyrolysis gases are predominantly CO 
and H2. Separating these two gases could make economic sense so that only CO is 
fed into their combustor.  Then they would have no need to separate out any 
water - as when they combust CH4.  And the solid charcoal resulting from 
pyrolysis can of course be valuable as biochar.

4.  If the H2 is (seemingly unwanted and) waiting, then the exiting CO2 
might “readily" be converted back into a biofuel - more so than with natural 
gas as the feedstock.   Or not?  (I am far from the needed ChE and ME 
expertise.  I am NOT claiming there is no waste;  but there should be 
appreciably less output CO2 .)  Of course they still need to work with O2 and 
not air as they oxidize the CO.

Thanks for bringing this back up.

Ron



> On Nov 10, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Paul Beckwith  wrote:
> 
> Are there any updates on this technology?  Is it working as advertised?
> Sincerely, Paul
>  
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>  
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> ] On Behalf Of Matthias Honegger
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:15 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Allam cycle gas power plant producing pure CO2 & electricity 
> at cost of regular gas power plants
>  
> Dear colleagues
> 
>  
> I wonder what people here think of the Allam cycle gas power plant (see the 
> Forbes article below). Would it make engineering and economic sense to use it 
> on the basis of biogas and to store the CO2 so that it constitutes a negative 
> emissions technology – how could it fare compared to BECCS based on 
> conventional thermal power plant design?
>  
> Best, Matthias
> 
> 
> Revolutionary Power Plant Captures All Its Carbon Emissions, At No Extra Cost
> Green Gas: the Allam Cycle technology promises a future of emissions-free 
> fossil fuels. 
> Christopher Helman – Tthis story appears in the February Special 2017 issue 
> of Forbes 
> 
>  
> GROWING UP IN ENGLAND after World War II, "all the youngsters like me were 
> obsessed with aircraft," says Rodney Allam. "I had a picture on my wall of 
> Chuck Yeager when he broke the sound barrier in the Bell X-1, the earliest 
> turbine-driven aircraft." Those high-powered machines were inspirational. 
> Allam became a chemical engineer and went to work at the U.K. division of Air 
> Products & Chemicals, based in Allentown, Pennsylvania. There in the 1970s, 
> he became obsessed with an idea: how to capture the carbon-dioxide emissions 
> from the U.K's giant coal-burning power plants? He already knew where to put 
> the CO2. BP and Royal Dutch Shell would jump at the chance to inject it into 
> their vast oilfields in the North Sea. Injecting the gas (which acts as a 
> solvent to free up stubborn crude oil) has long been a common practice in 
> West Texas fields, where oil companies tap naturally occurring reservoirs of 
> CO2 But there were none of those in England.
> Allam explored various bolt-on methods to grab the CO2 from a giant 
> 2,400-megawatt coal plant in Scotland. But none came close to viability. For 
> a simple reason: They were too expensive. He became obsessed with making 
> carbon capture affordable: first for the technical challenge and then out of 
> an impetus to slow CO2 induced global warming. "I tried like hell," he says, 
> "but I gave it up in the early 1990s--couldn't make it work."
> But now he has. In December, Allam, 76, flew from his home in the U.K. to 
> meet Forbes at a construction site in Texas near the Houston Ship Channel, 
> the heart of the nation's largest 

Re: [geo] ?Micro-climate engineering? green roofs in cities

[Ronal W. Larson]

Alan et al:

Last Tuesday, voters in Denver approved a “Green Roof” ballot measure - 
despite opposition by many listed in this post-election interview:  
http://www.westword.com/news/green-roof-initiative-leader-discusses-big-win-over-denver-developers-9679900
 

 .

I live in the next county over - but am sure I would voted with the 
winning side - for reasons given by the initiative leader in the above 
interview.

Ron


> On Nov 12, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Alan Robock  wrote:
> 
> Certainly white roofs and green roofs are not free, and the green ones 
> require maintenance.
> 
> I have 100% of my roof covered with solar panels, and they require no 
> maintenance.
> 
> My point was, for the same roof area, are white roofs, green roofs, or a roof 
> with solar panels the best economic or environmental solution, making 
> assumptions about the cost of electricity, the source of energy to heat or 
> cool the home, SRECS, time of year, and climate of the installation?
> 
> 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
> 
> On 11/12/2017 12:24 PM, hakb...@encs.concordia.ca wrote:
>> 
>> Solar panels produce electricity at a cost.
>> 
>> Most cool roofs save you energy and money at no cost.
>> 
>> It is an economic comparison.
>> 
>> Not all the roofs will be covered 100% with solar panels.
>> 
>> Hashem
>> 
>> Quoting Alan Robock :
>> 
>>> Wouldn't solar panels on your roof be preferable?  Obviously they would
>>> create energy for you. But they would also shade the roof in the
>>> summer, preventing almost all sunlight from reaching it.  One would
>>> then have to figure out the additional downward longwave from them to
>>> the roof, estimating the temperature of the bottom of them and their
>>> emissivity.  Does anyone know of such a calculation?  In the winter,
>>> the longwave would be good, as it would make up for the missing Sun.
>>> 
>>> Ignoring the initial cost of the solar panels, would this be
>>> cost-effective in terms of cooling and heating a house?  And if the
>>> cost were distributed over time, and accounting for the electricity you
>>> would generate, how long would they take to pay for themselves? In NJ
>>> we get SRECS of about $0.20 per kWh in addition to the electricity, but
>>> that changes with the market.  And currently the Federal tax credit
>>> pays for 1/3 of the initial cost.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> On 11/11/2017 6:27 PM, John Harte wrote:
 I assigned that problem as a homework assignment in a course I teach.
 
 
 2.  Consider a house in a relatively hot, sunny location such as Southern 
 California.
 
 a. To keep the house cool without air conditioning, and thereby  reduce 
 energy demand, its inhabitants decide to do one of two things:
 
   i.  They can paint the roof white, increasing its albedo from 0.1 to 
 0.8, or
 
   ii.  They can grow a green roof, using a productive species of grass 
 that will increase the albedo of the roof from 0.1 to 0.2 and that, if 
 watered and fertilized adequately, will cool the house by transpiration.  
 The rate of transpiration can be estimated from the following: for every 
 kg of grass produced, 300 kg of water are transpired, and the grass grows 
 with an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 1%.
 
 a. Ignoring the issue of water supply, which of these strategies (i. or 
 ii.) will result in a cooler house?  (20 pts.)
 
 Solution: 2. a.  First, let?s examine the effect of painting the roof 
 white. We?ll assume an average solar flux on the roof of 250 watts/m^2 (if 
 you assumed anything between 170 and 300 we will accept it.).  By changing 
 the albedo from 0.1 to 0.8, the home is avoiding the absorption of 0.7 
 (250) = *175 watts/m^2 *, *which is the benefit of plan 

Re: [geo] New research on soil carbon sinks

[Ronal W. Larson]

Eric and list:

Thanks for this CDR-type lead.  

Your link (a PR piece from Washington State University) gives this added 
information:

Marc G. Kramer, Kate Lajtha, Anthony Audfenkampe. Depth trends of soil organic 
matter C:N and 15N natural abundance controlled by association with minerals. 
Biogeochemistry, 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s10533-017-0378-x 

Robert B. Jackson, Kate Lajtha, Susan E. Crow, Gustaf Hugelius, Marc G. Kramer, 
Gervasio Piñeiro. The Ecology of Soil Carbon: Pools, Vulnerabilities, and 
Biotic and Abiotic Controls. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and 
Systematics, 2017; 48 (1): 419 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234 


The second is non-fee (the first is not, but is on Research Gate); I 
found both quite helpful on soil carbon content.  There is no mention of CDR in 
either, but I think the huge soil losses that they report show that there is 
great potential in soil-based CDR methods, such as biochar.

Example sentences from the second:  . "Globally, native soils lost on 
average 43.1 ± 1.1% of their original topsoil carbon after conversion to 
agriculture.”……….”The global SOC stock in the upper 2 m of soil is 2,273 Pg C, 
with the boreal forest biome containing 623 Pg, or 27% of the global total.   
(See the whole text before drawing conclusions;  this just to show the type of 
data provided.)

Ron


> On Nov 8, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Eric Durbrow  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary is here (and includes links to abstracts): 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171108092406.htm 
> 
> 
> The gist: We probably have underestimated how much carbon can be stored in 
> agricultural soil minerals (found in the first 3 feet or so) and changes in 
> agricultural practices can significantly store more CO2.
> 
> -- 
> 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] revised_code_of_conduct_for_geoengineering_research_2017.pdf

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dr. Hubert:

See inserts below.


> On Oct 15, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Anna-Maria Hubert 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear Dr. Larson,
> 
> Thank you for your message. It’s great to hear that you like the new draft - 
> our team put in significant work over the past two years to get the text to 
> this stage and your feedback is much appreciated.
[RWL:  I do recognize that you have put a lot of effort into this 
topic.  The report is well organized - and I got as much out of the second half 
as the first.
  I think many on this list agree that SRM is more serious and urgent 
technology - but I agree with your conclusion that GGR needs inclusion as well.

I meant to make two small editorial suggestions:  
 a).   Introduce the words “CDR” and "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 
somewhere.  I like GGR = Greenhouse Gas Removal, but a footnote with “CDR” will 
ensure that Google is better picking your work up.   Probably the same 
rationale for NET and NETs = Negative Emission Technologies

b)  I believe similarly that listing all the technologies by name will 
also ensure a much wider audience.  A footnote is fine.  I want to have biochar 
folk find your URL.

> 
> Regarding your first question, you raise an interesting point about how the 
> biochar research community could work towards implementing the Code from the 
> 'bottom-up'. One of the issues that this raises is the limits of 
> self-governance with respect to legitimacy. There is also a question about 
> how the procedural aspects of the Code would operate without an institutional 
> home. These are questions that we've been studying over the past two years as 
> a part of the Geoengineering Research Governance Project (GRGP), but have not 
> yet had time as a project to properly discuss and map-out the different 
> options. We plan to work on this over the coming months. However, I would be 
> interested to hear about potential pathways to achieve this with your (and 
> other) areas of the field of geoengineering. 

[RWL:  I was/am not recommending self-governance (which has occurred to 
some extent already).   I believe you and your advisory team are a logical 
first group.  I am sure I can get qualified expert biochar volunteers at 
whatever number you think appropriate.  I think it best to have something like 
a jury with your team as judges with a group opposed - or at least skeptical to 
biochar.   Probably need at least two or three sessions - not a single one.  I 
say this from a few years background in Technology Assessment.
> 
> Also with regard to your first question, you make an interesting statement 
> that you don't believe that any of the current field 
> experiments/implementations of biochar methods would be found to be 
> 'inappropriate' under the Code. It would be an interesting exercise to run 
> one of these experiments through the Code and to test for gaps in the 
> framework. Much of the content is procedural and so going through the motions 
> would be useful for us to see whether the current version of the Code is 
> fit-for-purpose. 

[RWL:  I of course read through your material with words like 
“inappropriate” in mind.   So I like your above response very much and hope 
that biochar can be your first guinea pig.  Biochar seems appropriate since I 
doubt any other GGR approach is already being so widely tested and used today - 
with a doubling time that seems less than 2 years.
Let me know if you want my reasons for thinking that today’s biochar 
implementations would not be deemed inappropriate should we go through a 
process of your design.  My guess is that about half of today’s biochar 
implementations are research (by soil scientists) and about half are done for 
economic reasons alone.  Almost none for GGR reasons.   I am NOT suggesting 
that should be a reason for non-governance.
> 
> Regarding your second question, we presented the revised text at a session at 
> CEC '17. A key question that arose during this session related to the 
> relationship between early regulation/governance and its impact on research 
> in the area. The question of how the Code might be implemented did arise, but 
> only in a cursory way. Others who attended our session may want to jump in 
> here to fill in the gaps.

[RWL:  I am not too worried about a “regulation….. impact on research”. 
 I am taking the position that an early approval by yours (and similar) 
governance discussions will advance, not hinder, biochar deployment.

I differ with Michael Hayes, who has also corresponded on this topic.  
Especially with his (and my) interest in using ocean biomass as the feedstock 
for biochar application on land.  This could be one of the most helpful parts 
of an early test case for your draft code.

Ron 
> 
> Thank you and best wishes,
> 
> Anna-Maria
> 
> Anna-Maria Hubert
> Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
> 

Re: [geo] revised_code_of_conduct_for_geoengineering_research_2017.pdf

[Ronal W . Larson]

List and Prof. Hubert, cc Andrew

1.   In addition to the cite given below, here is another entry point 
to this topic:

http://www.ce-conference.org/system/files/documents/revised_code_of_conduct_for_geoengineering_research_2017.pdf
 
.

I applaud the effort by Professor Hubert.  This is to ask her (and any 
other list Member) how biochar, a technology I try to represent on this list, 
can establish an “official” conduct position in its geoengineering efforts.  
This is important to the biochar community as there already are thousands of 
(in the field) implementations and experiments now on-going.  Personally,  I do 
not believe any of these would be judged inappropriate according to Professor 
Hubert’s draft. But it would nice to have an official Geo body agree.

2.   The short “.org” version of the above URL is important as last 
week’s “ce-conference” apparently had explicit consideration of both the 
general “code” topic and this 26 page draft code.   Can anyone summarize any 
aspect of the conference that might help the biochar community to be approved 
per this (or any) code for its increasing in-field activities?  

Ron


> On Oct 11, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> This is still informally open for comments.
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> -- 
> 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] New Rhode Island law to create geoengineering study commission

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dr.  Pasztor:  cc list and Dr. Robock

The Colorado legislature in January unanimously passed SJR 17-002 
entitled "CONCERNING THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUED 
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND APPLICATION OF BIOCHAR FROM OUR FORESTS.”  
[ 
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/2017a_sjr002_signed.pdf
 

 ] 

Only a 3 page resolution (generated by fire mitigation concerns) - not 
a law.

Ron


> On Oct 5, 2017, at 5:50 AM, Janos Pasztor  wrote:
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about any other geo-related legislation (pending or 
> completed) elsewhere in our outside of the USA?
> 
>  Janos
> 
> 
> ===
> Janos Pasztor
> Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 
> Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative 
> (C2G2)
> 2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
> Mobile: +41-79-739-5503
> jpasz...@c2g2.net  | Tw: @jpasztor  |  Skype: 
> jpasztor
> www.c2g2.net 
> 
>> On 27 Sep 2017, at 03:30, Alan Robock > > wrote:
>> 
>> Geoengineering H6011 
>> :
>>  Theories abound about chemical engineering of the atmosphere and the cloudy 
>> spray from aircraft, called chemtrails. The legislation makes Rhode Island 
>> one of the first states to study the issue. A five-member committee will 
>> make recommendations for licensing geoengineering technologies — real or not 
>> — such as solar radiation management, ocean fertilization, and cloud cover 
>> protection and cloud whitening. The House commission is tasked to report its 
>> findings by April 2, 2018.
>> 
>> (from https://www.ecori.org/government/2017/9/25/rhode-island 
>>  )
>> 
>> Direct link to bill is:  
>> http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText17/HouseText17/H6011A.pdf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> H 6011 SUBSTITUTE A
>> 
>> RESOLVED, That a special legislative commission be and the same is hereby 
>> created consisting of five (5) members: five (5) of whom shall be members of 
>> the House of Representatives, not more than three (3) from the same 
>> political party, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House. 
>> 
>> The purpose of said commission shall be to study and provide recommendations 
>> for state regulation and licensure of all geoengineering technologies 
>> including, but not limited to: 
>> 
>> • Solar Radiation Management (SRM); 
>> • Geoengineering ground-based and/or atmosphere-based deployments; 
>> • Cloud cover protection and cloud whitening; 
>> • Space sunshades, sunshields, solar shields or atmospheric sunscreens, 
>> e.g., reflective particulates; 
>> • Artificial ionosphere; 
>> • Ocean fertilization;
>> • Aircraft geoengineering activities. 
>> 
>> Forthwith upon passage of this resolution, the members of the commission 
>> shall meet at the call of the Speaker of the House and organize and shall 
>> select, from among the legislators, a chairperson. Vacancies in said 
>> commission shall be filed in like manner as the original  appointment. 
>> 
>> Vacancies in said commission shall be filled in like manner as the original 
>> appointment. 
>> 
>> The membership of said commission shall receive no compensation for their 
>> services. 
>> 
>> All departments and agencies of the state shall furnish such advice and 
>> information, documentary and otherwise, to said commission and its agents as 
>> is deemed necessary or desirable by the commission to facilitate the 
>> purposes of this resolution. 
>> 
>> The Speaker of the House is hereby authorized and directed to provide 
>> suitable quarters for said commission; and be it further
>> 
>> RESOLVED, That the commission shall report its findings and recommendations 
>> to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House Committee on 
>> Environment and Natural Resources no later than April 2, 2018, and said 
>> commission shall expire on June 2, 2018.
>> -- 
>> 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 
>> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 

Re: [geo] nuclear powered DAC

[Ronal W. Larson]

David:  cc List

I agree that DAC is not likely a good choice for a few years - but 
there are hundreds of companies producing biochar today with a good bit of hot 
CO2 release.  Most has to be thought of as essentially free.  And the gas is 
carbon neutral - with hopes of increasing the overall carbon negativity of the 
process. Check the IBI website for some of the companies involved.  

On Oct 8-10 you could attend a meeting in Stockholm discussing that 
city’s biochar production (and maybe CO2 release).   I think this is running 
without subsidy.

Ron



> On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:34 AM, David Sevier  
> wrote:
> 
> In light of the thermal energy burden, I am wondering if you could combine a 
> small nuclear pile such as a small modular swimming pool reactor (once 
> described as the only nuclear power plant design that anyone ever made profit 
> from) as a heat source without generating electricity with DAC. A number of 
> DAC processes need heat either at or below 1000C. A small nuclear reactor 
> should be able to supply this. If the requirement to raise steam and generate 
> electricity are removed, the cost of the plant and the cost per KWH of heat 
> should be significantly lower. Such an operation would not make sense in the 
> early years of DAC but later when scale up becomes much larger and the world 
> gets serious about DAC, then this could make sense. Look forward to comments 
> and discussion. Swimming pool reactors had a good safety record (as far as I 
> am aware), were not that expensive to build and were not terrible to 
> decommission. 
>  
>  
> David Sevier
> Carbon Cycle Limited
> 248 Sutton Common Road
> Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW
> England
> Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128
> Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129
>  
> This email is private and confidential 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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

[Ronal W. Larson]

Robert   and list,  cc Eric

1.  I like your enthusiasm - but suggest that your projected time 
trajectory is a tad fast.  The year 2030 is only 13 years away.  I can support 
half of your 20 Gt C/yr eventually in total - maybe by 2040 or 2050.   We 
should be very happy if we can ever take out as fast as we are now putting in 
(which is about 10 Gt C/yr).  Obviously an industry as large as today’s coal, 
oil, and gas industries combined.

2.  I don’t understand the ratio of 2.5 (50 Gt CO2/20 Gt C) in the 
second line.  Why not the usual ratio of 44/12 = 3.67 ?

3.  I suggest that the soil carbon stock can also exceed by itself the 
relatively light goal they have established for CDR (I’ve seen 10 Gt C/yr for 
just biochar alone, and think that has some possibility.)  Much better chance 
of success in soil if much of the carbon comes from your algae and other ocean 
sources)

Ron



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:37 PM, '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
> 
> 
> 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=Homepage=story-heading=opinion-c-col-right-region=opinion-c-col-right-region=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 
> .

-- 
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] GMDD - The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and experimental design

[Ronal W. Larson]

List  and cc Andrew:

Thanks again to Andrew for bringing these articles to our attention.  
In addition to Andrew’s cite below,  the full (free) article is at: 

https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf 


To summarize the article from a biochar perspective:  the word 
“biochar” appears once as a possible natural technology and in the title of one 
reference.  However, like BECCS, biochar is not one of the CDR approaches to be 
considered in this CDR-MIP.   The COP 21 and 22 emphases on soil carbon and the 
CDR opinions of agronomists and soil scientists will not be explored in this 
study.   Afforestation/reforestation is included as one of the three approaches 
for detail - so a part of biochar and BECCS will be there, but soil carbon 
content won’t change much in the models.

The final pages have some potentially useful graphs.  I look forward to 
reading some new general CDR cites.

Ron


> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/ 
> 
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale 
> and experimental design
> David P. Keller1, Andrew Lenton2,3, Vivian Scott4, Naomi E. Vaughan5, Nico 
> Bauer6, Duoying Ji7, Chris D. Jones8, Ben Kravitz9, Helene Muri10, and 
> Kirsten Zickfeld11
> 1GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany
> 2CSIRO Oceans and Atmospheres, Hobart, Australia
> 3Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, 
> Australia
> 4School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
> 5Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental 
> Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
> 6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain Sustainable 
> Solutions, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
> 7College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal 
> University, Beijing, China
> 8Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
> 9Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National 
> Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
> 10Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
> 11Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, Canada
> Received: 11 Jul 2017 – Accepted for review: 16 Aug 2017 – Discussion 
> started: 17 Aug 2017
> Abstract. The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic 
> greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate threatening "severe, 
> pervasive and irreversible" impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction to 
> mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention on what is called 
> Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, or Climate Intervention – deliberate 
> interventions to counter climate change that seek to either modify the 
> Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 from the 
> atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is called 
> Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The majority of future emission scenarios that 
> stay well below 2 °C, and nearly all emission scenarios that do not exceed 
> 1.5 °C warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At present, there 
> is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of the different types of 
> proposed CDR. To address this need the Carbon Dioxide Removal Model 
> Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) was initiated. This project brings 
> together models of the Earth system in a common framework to explore the 
> potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe the first set of 
> CDR-MIP experiments that are designed to address questions concerning 
> CDR-induced climate "reversibility", the response of the Earth system to 
> direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and storage), and the CDR 
> potential and impacts of afforestation/reforestation, as well as ocean 
> alkalinization.
> 
> 
> Citation: Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer, N., 
> Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The Carbon 
> Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and 
> experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 
> https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168 , 
> in review, 2017
> 
> -- 
> 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 

Re: [geo] Ensuring That We Hear the Voices of the Vulnerable: Toward a Human Rights-Based Approach to Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage – Wil Burns | FCEA

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew, cc List and adding Dr. Burns

At the “ceassessment.org” website given below there is an opportunity 
to leave comments.  Mine was the first - agreeing with the short paper’s quite 
negative conclusions on BECCS.  And hoping that Dr.  Burns would similarly 
write about biochar - which is too often seen as similar to BECCS.

Ron


> On Aug 2, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> http://ceassessment.org/ensuring-that-we-hear-the-voices-of-the-vulnerable-toward-a-human-rights-based-approach-to-bioenergy-and-carbon-capture-and-storage-wil-burns/
>  
> 
> 
> Ensuring That We Hear the Voices of the Vulnerable: Toward a Human 
> Rights-Based Approach to Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage – Wil Burns
> August 2, 2017 /  dcgpeoconsortium 
>    /  0 Comments 
> 
>   /  BECCS , Carbon Dioxide Removal 
> , CDR vs SRM 
> , Human Rights 
> 


-- 
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] SDG#13 , #14, #15

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg,  cc list:

This starts a new thread - continuing one you started called “[geo] 
Ocean pastures, clouds, and salmon”.   This has none of the details of the 
previous thread, but was generated by reading the Russ George blog you cited on 
1 July.  

What I have below is way too long, but it hopefully adds a bit to the 
Russ George argument that the Sustainable Development Goal #14 (SDG14) is 
woefully too weak.  His and the following argument is made by comparing to the 
land-based SDG15.   That is where I start with a much-modified version that 
emphasizes the verbs.  I hope the list can indicate whether it agrees with Mr. 
George re the oceans and CDR/NET/GGR,

The full list of 17 SDGs can be viewed at:  
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ 
.   
The one of most importance to this list is #13.   The Russ George comments on 
this topic are at:  
http://russgeorge.net/2017/06/06/un-ocean-conference-denies-oceans-what-it-offers-lands/
 



A.   SDG #15  Actual for Land (8 action verbs [bold and underlined], 5 
subcategories [italics})
Protect, 
restore and 
promote 
   sustainable 
use of terrestrial ecosystems, 
sustainably 
manage forests, 
combat desertification, and 
halt and 
reverse land degradation and 
halt biodiversity loss. 


B.   SDG #14a hypothetical rewritten Ocean version using #15 language
Protect, 
restore and 
promote 
   sustainable 
use of ocean, sea, and marine ecosystems, 
   sustainably 
manage mangrove forests, 
combat ocean desertification, and 
halt and 
reverse ocean degradation and 
halt ocean biodiversity loss. 


C.   SDG #14  Actual for Oceans  (2 action verbs, 1 receiving category)
Conserve and 
   sustainably 
use 
   the oceans, seas and marine resources 
for sustainable development.

This is missing 6 action verbs (restore, promote, manage, combat, halt, 
and reverse)  [three emphasized with a CDR/NET/GGR flavor and 4 subcategories 
(assuming “conserve” equals “protect”)

D.   If #15 followed the #14 format, it hypothetically  would read:
Conserve and 
   sustainably 
use 
  land resources 
for sustainable development

[which leaves out all the CDR/NET/GGR concepts that are identified in 
“C”]

E.  Other Comments

The actual ocean version C has “use” as an active verb.  The actual 
land version A has “use of”  as a noun.  In version A, these two words could be 
omitted with little change in meaning.  This noun-verb difference doesn’t seem 
to be important from a CDR/NET/GGR perspective, but it does complicate this 
comparison a little.

F.   Since this note is all about CDR, here is #13.   The style is  like #14, 
rather than the detail of #15  
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts



Ron

-- 
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] Ocean pastures, clouds, and salmon

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg, cc list:

1.   Thanks for alerting us on 1 July to the cloudiness-CDR-related 
message found at the Russ George website  
(http://russgeorge.net/2017/07/01/greatest-uncertainty-in-climate-change-models-is-diminishing-cloudiness/
 

  ).   I hope others can chime in on the validity of the strong relationship 
George asserts between phytoplankton and clouds.  Is this as important as the 
much discussed SRM option involving ships spraying salt particles to help form 
clouds?

2.  Your brief cite from Russ George refers to “a new paper” - which 
(free and 9 pages) can be found at 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000601/epdf 
, entitled:  
   “Could geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest questions in 
climate science?”
with first author Robert Wood.  The “biggest question” is of course 
related to cloud formation as stated in your quote below from Russ George.  

3.  I was amazed at the many messages at the George site that relate to 
geoengineering and this cloud topic  (and NOT to Russ George’s fame with  OIF = 
Ocean Iron Fertilization).   Examples of cites that I found relating to this 
cloud-plankton topic:

a.   
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/geoengineering/Wood_Ackerman_CLIMATICCHANGE_2013.pdf
 

   (A predecessor to the above “biggest question” paper.

b.   
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034/Microalgae-The-Potential-for-Carbon-Capture
 

   A 2010 article by Sayre (recommended by Russ George):  

c.  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/clouds-plankton 
  a short 
free 2014 more non-technical contribution on the sulfur aspects.

d.James Lovelock in a later book ‘The Revenge of Gaia’ in 2006, refers to 
his Anti-CLAW Hypothesis.  CLAW comes from four last names - with L for 
Lovelock. This shows that this is not a new topic.  I hope some on the list 
with a real background (I have none) can give other opinions on how seriously 
we should take Mr.  George’s views on plankton-clouds-climate (as opposed to 
plankton and increased salmon production).

4.  I suspect there could be a biochar side to this cloud aspect of 
ocean biomass - and possibly even to phytoplankton.  I suspect you have 
probably given us this cite to agree with Ross George that the geo aspect 
deserves study.  I am not expecting you or anyone on this list to agree that 
this should promote biochar.  In fact, his emphasis on missing dust would say 
that biochar’s emphasis on increased “green-ness” is evidence that biochar 
should make less dust most likely.   But I can also argue that biochar from 
ocean biomass (placed on land, not in the ocean) could/might more than offset 
the “dust-free” negative aspect of land-based biochar.   Of course it opens the 
possibility of a much larger supply than available from the 28 % of the earth’s 
surface NOT ocean.

5.   I also found the George message comparing the Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs)  #14 (oceans) and #15 (land) to be particularly 
disturbing from a combined CDR/SRM perspective.  Mr.  George is particularly 
upset about the UN system doing too little with #14 (oceans).   I believe you 
agree - and could be (?)  the reason for your message below.   This concern 
about SDG #14 (brand new to me) is on much more than this relationship between 
plankton and clouds - and could be worth considerable discussion by this list - 
as CDR might look more possible with a bigger supply. So this is a very 
separate reason for thanking you for your 1 July message below. I’ll send more 
on only this in the AM.

Ron


> On Jul 1, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Greatest Uncertainty In Climate Change Models Is Diminishing Cloudiness - 
> Russ George 
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest Uncertainty In Climate Change Models Is Diminishing Cloudiness - R...
> Restoring ocean pastures and their cooling clouds in 10% of the area 
> available would offset the warming from a d...
>  
> 
> 
> 
> "Climate scientists propose in a new paper published 
>  in the widely 
> read open source science journal Earth’s Future that by restoring cloudiness 
> to selected areas of distant oceans a planetary cooling effect 

Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list:

Apologies.  My academic career contained almost no chemistry.   I now 
understand your point - which was not part of the paper.  It still seems a nice 
piece of sleuthing to figure out why the Romans could do something we only now 
may have a chance of duplicating.   I presume there are sea walls that will 
want to use this approach - which we (most everyone on this list) are trying to 
eliminate the need for.

See also inserts re CDR below.


> On Jul 4, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Ron.  I see neither of us have been distracted by 4th of July 
> festivities, and neither has global warming.
> 
> Anyway, to quote the paper:
> "Roman marine concrete structures, composed of a volcanic ash-hydrated lime 
> mortar that binds conglomeratic tuff or carbonate rock aggregate (caementa), 
> have remained intact and coherent for 2000 yr, either fully immersed in 
> seawater or partially immersed in shoreline environments (Brandon et al. 2014 
> <http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435#ref-9>)."
> 
> Hydrated lime means: CaO +H2O ---> Ca(OH)2, the CaO coming from CaCO3+ high 
> heat ---> CaO + CO2 and where wood + O2 + combustion ---> high heat + CO2. 
> Admittedly the Roman’s use of wood for heat would make this in theory less 
> CO2 emissions intensive than our fossil fuel + O2 + combustion ---> high heat 
> + CO2 used in modern cement production, but we now have to save our forests 
> for BECCS or biochar  ;-)  . 

[RWL:  Thanks for the “biochar :-)”.   I’m working on a few “out-year” 
charts to show why BECCS will not be the preferred approach.

> In fact, how about a serious CDR plus CO2 emissions reduction effort to 
> prevent the globe from warming and to keep sea level from rising so we don’t 
> have to employ energy-intensive Roman concrete to save the few coastal cities 
> that could afford it?  

[RWL:   My answer to “how about…?” is to thank you again for keeping up 
the pressure for CDR.  Also to note that Russ George is working on “ocean 
pastures” that fit well with biochar - and that I owe you/iist more on ocean 
biology.

Ron
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering 
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 3:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers
> 
> Greg and List:
> 
>   The Washington Post is reporting on a July (Non-fee) paper at 
> http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435 
> <http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435>.  First author Marie 
> Jackson at the University of Utah.  Title:  “Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite 
> mineral cements produced through low-temperature water-rock reactions in 
> Roman marine concrete”
> 
> 
>   It appears (I’ve only skimmed the paper) that CO2 was not being 
> produced in this ancient (and not previously understood) form of cement.  The 
> particles being cemented together were apparently carbonates - but no CDR 
> action possible there.   This ancient “lost” Roman cement itself is a 
> complicated silicate that grows after casting the concrete.   Apparently some 
> considerable exothermic heat involved.  
> 
>   I have read about cements that are carbon-negative.   But I am 
> sympathetic with your assertion that we don’t want to build sea-walls with 
> ordinary cement.  The importance of this paper presumably is in having an 
> approach that avoids some of your (and my) CO2-producing concern.  This 
> cement is strong enough to not need iron re-bars - and so can be long-lived. 
> However, there are sure to be unacceptable costs even with this “non-CO2” 
> approach.  Better to have a CDR/NET/GGR approach that can (slowly) get sea 
> level rise to reverse and not require trillions of dollars for sea walls.
> 
>   I have a response in process on your 1 July note re Russ George - which 
> note I took to be supportive of CDR/NET/GGR (and I agree).  Thanks for that 
> alert.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net 
>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/04/ancient-romans-made-worlds-most-durable-concrete-we-might-use-it-to-stop-rising-seas/?utm_term=.4bfb83d2fed2=nl_most-draw14=1
>>  
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/04/ancient-romans-made-worlds-most-durable-concrete-we-might-use-it-to-stop-rising-seas/?utm_term=.4bfb83d2fed2=nl_most-draw14=1>
>> 
>> GR - Use high CO2 emissions concrete to build sea walls to counter 

Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and List:

The Washington Post is reporting on a July (Non-fee) paper at 
http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435 
.  First author Marie 
Jackson at the University of Utah.  Title:  “Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite 
mineral cements produced through low-temperature water-rock reactions in Roman 
marine concrete”


It appears (I’ve only skimmed the paper) that CO2 was not being 
produced in this ancient (and not previously understood) form of cement.  The 
particles being cemented together were apparently carbonates - but no CDR 
action possible there.   This ancient “lost” Roman cement itself is a 
complicated silicate that grows after casting the concrete.   Apparently some 
considerable exothermic heat involved.  

I have read about cements that are carbon-negative.   But I am 
sympathetic with your assertion that we don’t want to build sea-walls with 
ordinary cement.  The importance of this paper presumably is in having an 
approach that avoids some of your (and my) CO2-producing concern.  This cement 
is strong enough to not need iron re-bars - and so can be long-lived. However, 
there are sure to be unacceptable costs even with this “non-CO2” approach.  
Better to have a CDR/NET/GGR approach that can (slowly) get sea level rise to 
reverse and not require trillions of dollars for sea walls.

I have a response in process on your 1 July note re Russ George - which 
note I took to be supportive of CDR/NET/GGR (and I agree).  Thanks for that 
alert.

Ron


> On Jul 4, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/04/ancient-romans-made-worlds-most-durable-concrete-we-might-use-it-to-stop-rising-seas/?utm_term=.4bfb83d2fed2=nl_most-draw14=1
> 
> GR - Use high CO2 emissions concrete to build sea walls to counter sea level 
> rise caused by high CO2 emissions? But just think of the jobs creation. The 
> gift that keeps on giving.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> -- 
> 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] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew and list:

Thanks for this announcement.   I will try to attend - in part to visit 
a new, successful NET program in Stockholm.  It happens to be featured tomorrow 
in a webinar (cost $40 for non-members);  signup at 
https://ttcorp.regfox.com/ibi-webinar-stockholm-biochar-project 
.  

Ron


> On Jun 27, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> http://negativeco2emissions2018.com/ 
> 
> Submission of documents to:
> negative...@chalmers.se 
> Abstract (one page):
> December 1,  2017
> 
> Please use the template provided here 
> .
> 
> Notification of Acceptance:
> January 15,  2018
> 
> Full Paper:
> April 1,  2018
> 
> Early bird registration:
> before February 1, 2018
> 
> Online registration closes:
> May 10,  2018
> 
> 
> 
> General Information
> 
> The objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 
> 2ºC, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5ºC. The 
> IPCC Fifth Assessment Report quantified the global “carbon budget”, that is 
> the amount of carbon dioxide that we can emit while still having a likely 
> chance of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above 
> pre-industrial levels.
> 
> The exact size of the carbon budget cannot be specified with high confidence 
> since it depends on many uncertain factors, including emission pathways for 
> non-CO2 climate forcers. This said, the remaining budgets for the 1.5ºC and 
> 2ºC targets have been estimated at about 200 and 800 Gt of CO2 . With 
> unchanged present emissions at about 40 Gt CO2/year these budgets would be 
> exhausted in as few as 5 and 20 years, respectively. Consequently, most of 
> the IPCC emission scenarios able to meet the global two-degree target require 
> overshooting the carbon budget at first and then remove the excess carbon 
> with large negative emissions, typically on the order of 400‑800 Gt CO2 up to 
> 2100.
> 
> At the same time as negative emissions appear to be indispensable to meet 
> climate targets decided, the large future negative emissions assumed in 
> climate models have been questioned and warnings have been raised about 
> relying on very large and uncertain negative emissions in the future. With 
> the future climate at stake, a deeper and fuller understanding of the various 
> aspects of negative emissions is needed.
> 
> The purpose of the conference is to bring together a wide range of 
> scientists, experts and stakeholders, in order to engage in various aspects 
> of research relating to negative CO2emissions. This will include various 
> negative emission technologies, climate modelling, climate policies and 
> incentives
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for climate engineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:

This is a followup.  

Yesterday,  a third paper based on Dr. Boysen’s thesis was released - 
to be found (no-fee) at  
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000469/full 
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000469/full>.  The full title 
and author list is:   Citation: Boysen, L. R., W. Lucht, D. Gerten, V. Heck, T. 
M. Lenton, and H. J. Schellnhuber (2017), The limits to global-warming 
mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal, Earth’s Future, 5, 
dos:10.1002/2016EF000469.

I like this paper.   The final sentence of the Summary states:  
“Although we find that this strategy of sequestering carbon is not a viable 
alternative to aggressive emission reductions, it could still support 
mitigation efforts if sustainably managed.” I think there has been too 
little credit given to the added out-year benefits of biochar, so I put this 
paper into a pro-CDR category - and hope for more modeling efforts of this high 
caliber.

Ron



> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> List:   cc Andrew
> 
>   The cite given below by Andrew is for a 20 MB full thesis - which my 
> server couldn’t handle.  I’d greatly appreciate anyone able to suggest a 
> work-around so we can all view the full document.
> 
>   The author,  (now Dr.) Lena Boysen alerted me to this non-fee initial 
> (out of 3) part of the thesis: 
>   “Impacts devalue the potential of large-scale terrestrial CO2 removal 
> through biomass plantations”
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095010/meta;jsessionid=325AACE0FC1BCA551F5ABFF7BC15679E.ip-10-40-2-108
>  
> <http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095010/meta;jsessionid=325AACE0FC1BCA551F5ABFF7BC15679E.ip-10-40-2-108>
> 
>   I still need to re-read it, but I am impressed by the depth and breadth 
> of what I have read so far.  A little on biochar (fortunately “a little”, as 
> I think biochar doesn’t suffer from the concerns she raises [see final 
> sentence in the abstract below]) - but mostly this seems more related to 
> BECCS (as in AR5).  Much larger land areas and annual sequestration 
> possibilities discussed than normal.
> 
>   Dr.  Boysen has given us much to discuss - from the point of view of 
> land-use modeling - mostly for RCP4.5.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:04 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Boysen
>> Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for 
>> #climate engineering
>> 
>> https://t.co/knfig3fTn9 <https://t.co/knfig3fTn9>
>> 
>> Abstract
>> For hundreds of years, humans have engineered the planet to fulfil their 
>> need for incre-
>> asing energy consumption and production. Since the industrial revolution, 
>> one conse-
>> quence are rising global mean temperatures which could change by 2◦C to 
>> 4.5◦C until
>> 2100 if mitigation enforcement of CO2 emissions fails.To counteract this 
>> projected glo-
>> bal warming, climate engineering techniques aim at intendedly cooling 
>> Earth’s climate
>> for example through terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) which is 
>> commonly per-
>> ceived as environmentally friendly. Here, tCDR refers to the establishment 
>> of large-scale
>> biomass plantations (BPs) in combination with the production of long-lasting 
>> carbon
>> products such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or biochar.
>> This thesis examines the potentials and possible consequences of tCDR by ana-
>> lysing land-use scenarios with different spatial and temporal scales of BPs 
>> using an
>> advanced biosphere model forced by varying climate projections. These 
>> scenario simu-
>> lations were evaluated with focus on their carbon sequestration potentials, 
>> trade-offs
>> with food production and impacts on natural ecosystems and climate itself.
>> Synthesised, the potential of tCDR to permanently extract CO2 out of the 
>> atmos-
>> phere is found to be small, regardless of the emission scenario, the point 
>> of onset or the
>> spatial extent. On the contrary, the aforementioned trade-offs and impacts 
>> are shown
>> to be unfavourable in most cases. In a high emission scenario with a late 
>> onset of BPs
>> (i.e. around 2050), even unlimited area availability for tCDR could not 
>> reverse past
>> emissions sufficiently, e.g. BPs covering 25% of all agricultural or natural 
>> land could
>> delay 2100’s carbon budget by no more than two or three decades (equivalent 
&g

Re: [geo] Webinar Tomorrow: A briefing and discussion on solar geoengineering: science, ethics and governance

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg,  cc list:

Thanks for the reminder of this webinar, which I thought was well done. 
 A little surprise at the 2.5 hour duration and having 7 good sets of slides.  
These slides are at: 
https://handouts-live.s3.amazonaws.com/592c8d1596ab4e688df5eb4b46b63e89?sessionId=2946407871142874116
 
.
   The (likely much more valuable) audio is not yet out, but perhaps the 
following brief summary and “directory” will be helpful to some.

Intros,  slides 1-5
Group A. first 75 minutes,  Mostly Technical issues;  moderator was Simon 
Nicholson , from Forum 
for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA)
   1.  Douglas MacMartin  slides 6-14(models, precipitation emphasis)
   2.  Tom Ackerman  slides 15-24  (models, emphasis on needing 
considerable time)
   3.  Pablo Suarez  slides 24-37 (humanitarian view on vulnerable)
(About 1/2 hour of questions - posed by Dr.  Nicholson;  end close to the 75 
minute mark

Group B.About 80 minutes,  Mostly non-technical, minimum modeling;  
moderator was Janos Pasztor 
 (Senior Fellow and 
Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative 
(C2G2) )
4.   Holly Jean Buck  slides 38-48   (Surveys)
5.   David Morrow   slides 49-55   (Ethics)
6.  Arunhaba Ghosh   slides 56-72   (Governance)
7.  Ted Parson  slides 73-78   (Legal)
(About twenty minutes of questions, posed by Dr. Pasztor)

In closing there was brief mention of a possible similar webinar on CDR.  That 
is much needed; this looks like a good format and potential producing 
organizations and moderators.

Ron


> On May 15, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Please join the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative and the 
> Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment for a May 16 webinar and discussion 
> on solar geoengineering science, ethics and governance.
> View this email in your browser 
> 
> 
>  
> In response to stakeholder requests, the Forum on Climate Engineering 
> Assessment 
> 
>  (FCEA) and the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative 
> 
>  (C2G2) are pleased to jointly convene a webinar titled “A briefing and 
> discussion on solar geoengineering: science, ethics and governance” to be 
> held on 16 May 2017 at 12:00 UTC/GMT (8:00 EDT New York, 13:00 BST London, 
> 14:00 CEST Geneva, 17:30 IST New Delhi). Register for the webinar here 
> .
> 
> This webinar will present an overview of the current state of research and 
> understanding around key issues pertaining to proposed solar geoengineering 
> technologies, in the context of global climate policy. The goal is to enable 
> increased engagement by stakeholders from all interested sectors in the 
> rapidly evolving global conversation about if, and how, to conduct research 
> and consider possible deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.
> 
> The briefing will be organized as follows:
> 
> Introduction (10 minutes)
> Janos Pasztor, Executive Director, C2G2
> Simon Nicholson, Co-Executive Director, FCEA
> Solar Geoengineering Science (35 minutes presentation + 30 minutes Q)
> 
> This section of the webinar, convened and facilitated by FCEA, will include 
> an overview of physical science research and current state of understanding, 
> an outline of socio-economic, ecological and human impacts and risks to be 
> considered, and a discussion of the potential role of proposed solar 
> geoengineering technologies in managing global climate risks.
> 
> Presenters:
> Douglas MacMartin, Research Professor, Computing & Mathematical Sciences, 
> Cornell University
> Thomas Ackerman, Director, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere 
> and Ocean, University of Washington
> Pablo Suarez, Associate Director for Research and Innovation, Red Cross Red 
> Crescent Climate Centre
> Governance of Solar Geoengineering (40 minutes presentation + 30 minutes Q)
> 
> This section of the webinar, convened and facilitated by C2G2, will include 
> discussion of major ethical and social considerations surrounding solar 
> geoengineering research, experimentation and potential deployment, as well as 
> likely governance challenges and potential pathways, in the international 
> context.
> 
> Presenters:
> Holly Jean Buck, Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
> David 

Re: [geo] Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon Removal Potentials and Costs

[Ronal W. Larson]

xx


> On May 4, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610 
> 
> 
> Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon
> Removal Potentials and Costs
> Johnson, Katelyn; Martin, Derek; Zhang, Xilin...  [more] 
> 
> 2017
> Abstract: In  2015, nearly190 countries   cametogether
> in  the historicParis   agreement totakeaction  in
>   minimizing  the impacts of  climate change. However,
> evenwiththe consensus   to  cut carbon  emissions,  the   
>   continued   trajectory  of  global  emissions   will push   
> global  temperatures2°C pastpre-industrial  temperatures.   
> Implementation  of carbon   dioxide removal (CDR)   options is  a 
>   way to  meetthe target. Through an extensiveliterature  
> review, ten CDR/storage options wereexamined to gaina 
>   better understandingof  the current state   of  
> researchregarding   the CDR potential   of  each 
> option and their   relevantcosts, as   wellas the 
> feasibility  of  their   implementation. As  we have concluded
>thatall options require significant further research,   a 
> second major objectivewas to  highlight   where   major   
> gapsin  research exist  in  order   to  helpguide further 
>   inquiry in  CDR options.Every   option  was examined 
> extensively andpresented   in an   individual  chapter.   
>  Each chapterpresentsour findings regarding  the 
> CDR/storage potential   and economiccosts   collected   for 
> eachoption. In  addition,   eachchapter includesa 
>   discussion  of  the technical   or  natural 
> process,geographic  restrictions, policyimplications,   
> benefitsand risks   associated  withthe 
> implementation, as  wellas recommendations  for further 
> research.   The biggest takeaways   fromthe literature 
> review   is  thatthisset of  CDR options offer   
> enough  removal potential   to  warrant equal consideration to
>   other   emissionreduction   measures,   all options 
> facelimitations and uncertainties   so  a   diverse 
> portfolio   of  options should  be  pursued,and 
> implementation should   occur   in  a   staged  manner, in  which 
>   options are implemented as  they become feasible.  [less] 
> 
> Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/136610 
> 
> Other Identifiers: 315
> Subject(s): carbon dioxide removal, negative emissions, climate change, CO2
> Show full item record  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for climate engineering

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:   cc Andrew

The cite given below by Andrew is for a 20 MB full thesis - which my 
server couldn’t handle.  I’d greatly appreciate anyone able to suggest a 
work-around so we can all view the full document.

The author,  (now Dr.) Lena Boysen alerted me to this non-fee initial 
(out of 3) part of the thesis: 
  “Impacts devalue the potential of large-scale terrestrial CO2 removal 
through biomass plantations”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095010/meta;jsessionid=325AACE0FC1BCA551F5ABFF7BC15679E.ip-10-40-2-108
 


I still need to re-read it, but I am impressed by the depth and breadth 
of what I have read so far.  A little on biochar (fortunately “a little”, as I 
think biochar doesn’t suffer from the concerns she raises [see final sentence 
in the abstract below]) - but mostly this seems more related to BECCS (as in 
AR5).  Much larger land areas and annual sequestration possibilities discussed 
than normal.

Dr.  Boysen has given us much to discuss - from the point of view of 
land-use modeling - mostly for RCP4.5.

Ron


> On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:04 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Boysen
> Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for 
> #climate engineering
> 
> https://t.co/knfig3fTn9 
> 
> Abstract
> For hundreds of years, humans have engineered the planet to fulfil their need 
> for incre-
> asing energy consumption and production. Since the industrial revolution, one 
> conse-
> quence are rising global mean temperatures which could change by 2◦C to 4.5◦C 
> until
> 2100 if mitigation enforcement of CO2 emissions fails.To counteract this 
> projected glo-
> bal warming, climate engineering techniques aim at intendedly cooling Earth’s 
> climate
> for example through terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) which is 
> commonly per-
> ceived as environmentally friendly. Here, tCDR refers to the establishment of 
> large-scale
> biomass plantations (BPs) in combination with the production of long-lasting 
> carbon
> products such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or biochar.
> This thesis examines the potentials and possible consequences of tCDR by ana-
> lysing land-use scenarios with different spatial and temporal scales of BPs 
> using an
> advanced biosphere model forced by varying climate projections. These 
> scenario simu-
> lations were evaluated with focus on their carbon sequestration potentials, 
> trade-offs
> with food production and impacts on natural ecosystems and climate itself.
> Synthesised, the potential of tCDR to permanently extract CO2 out of the 
> atmos-
> phere is found to be small, regardless of the emission scenario, the point of 
> onset or the
> spatial extent. On the contrary, the aforementioned trade-offs and impacts 
> are shown
> to be unfavourable in most cases. In a high emission scenario with a late 
> onset of BPs
> (i.e. around 2050), even unlimited area availability for tCDR could not 
> reverse past
> emissions sufficiently, e.g. BPs covering 25% of all agricultural or natural 
> land could
> delay 2100’s carbon budget by no more than two or three decades (equivalent 
> to ≈550
> or 800 GtC tCDR), respectively. However, simultaneous emission reductions and 
> an ear-
> lier establishment of BPs (i.e. around 2035) could result in strong carbon 
> extractions
> reversing past emissions (e.g. six or eight decades or ≈500 or 800 GtC, 
> respectively).
> In both cases, land transformation for tCDR leads to high “costs” for 
> ecosystems (e.g.
> biodiversity loss) and food production (e.g. reduction of almost 75%). 
> Restricting the
> available land for BPs by these trade-off constraints leaves very small tCDR 
> poten-
> tials (well below 100 GtC) despite a near-future onset (in 2020). Similarly, 
> simulated
> tCDR potentials on dedicated BP areas defined in a commonly used and 
> published low
> emissions scenario stay below the aimed values using current management 
> practices.
> Some potential may lie the reduction of carbon losses from field to 
> end-products, new
> management options and the restoration of degraded soils with BPs.
> This thesis contradicts the assumption that tCDR could be an effective and 
> envi-
> ronmentally friendly way of complementing or substituting strong and rapid 
> mitigation
> efforts.
> 
> -- 
> 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 

Re: [geo] Woody Biomass for Power and Heat Impacts on the Global Climate

[Ronal W . Larson]

Bernard and List,  cc Andrew

1.  Thanks for your complete documentation re this important 
CDR-via-biomass thread.  I have also visited and enjoyed your own website and 
its recent emphasis on this “woody biomass” topic.

2.  Your final bullet indicates a missing document (re the 50 
responding to the 125).   I found this letter at: 
 
http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Scientists-bioenergy-letter-March-15-2017.pdf
 

with this final paragraph (three emphasis added)
"The failure of the EU to act increases the urgency that the UK abandon 
the EU’s profoundly flawed approach to biomass. We accordingly urge the UK 
government to reform carbon accounting for bioenergy to appropriately weight 
current, measurable bioenergy carbon emissions over unsecured and hypothetical 
forest regrowth, and to end subsidies for large-scale wood-fueled bioenergy 
that injures forests and the climate. These bold steps would mark the UK as a 
climate and conservation leader, and save billions in public funds. “

3.  Explaining my three added emphases:
a.  Nowhere in the thread’s dialog on carbon accounting do I 
find anything on improving soil carbon while (without conflict) sequestering 
carbon via biochar.
b.   We presently have slightly too high costs of removing 
excess biomass that presently injures forests and the climate  - forests that 
could instead be improved by making and using biochar.
c.  Biochar has received small commendable R funding for soil 
science but could also save billions in public funds  coming down the road if 
we don’t start funding CDR.

4.   Surprising to me is that almost none of this thread dialog 
(especially this “50-letter”) talks about the strong COP emphasis on soils 
carbon since COP-21.   Most of the negative reactions re biomass in the above 
“50-letter” do not apply to biochar and other forms of carbon sequestration in 
soil.  The above final paragraph states nothing that should obstruct biochar.

5.  I wonder if any of the arguments against the Drax biomass-using 
facility (a main target of this letter) would stand up if that facility was 
converted to one that pyrolyzed rather than combusted its biomass?   After 
using the pyrolysis gases for electrical generation, biochar proponents claim 
that the out-year further benefits in sequestering additional carbon exceed the 
small initial advantage achieved by BECCS (which could also be used at Drax).  
One only sees this biochar advantage with the growing IPCC emphasis on soil 
carbon and a longer time horizon.  

6.   So I can support the letters from both the 125 and the 50 - as 
well as the original Chatham House report - all silent on increasing soil 
carbon for CDR reasons.

Ron


> On Apr 16, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Bernard Mercer  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> Below is a link to a short synthesis report from Chatham House that 
> accompanies their “Woody Biomass for Power and Heat” report, which Andrew 
> referenced below. 
>  
> And some other links to post-publication comment and critique. If nothing 
> else, the report has brought the strong academic disagreements on bioenergy 
> out into the open (125 academics criticising the report, a different group of 
> 50 academics supporting it).
>  
> The synthesis report (“The Environmental Impact of the Use of Biomass for 
> Power and Heat”) is at 
> https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/impacts-demand-woody-biomass-power-and-heat-climate-and-forests
>  
> .
>  
> See a BBC article summarizing the disagreement between the two groups of 
> academics,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39267774 
> .  
>  
> The letter from Piers Forster and 124 other academics (“gives an inaccurate 
> interpretation of the impact of harvesting on forest carbon stock") was 
> issued via IEA Bioenergy Technology Collaboration Programme, the letter and 
> other supporting documents are here, 
> http://www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/iea-bioenergy-response/?utm_source=AEBIOM+AM+ONLY+%28official%29_campaign=41bd2d3162-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_13_medium=email_term=0_00bf999edc-41bd2d3162-245804889
>  
> .
>  
> The author of the report wrote a rebuttal of the IEA Bioenergy letter, 
> seehttps://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/2017-04-05-ResponsetoIEABioenergy.pdf
>  
> 

Re: [geo] ETC : Why SRM experiments are a bad idea

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and List (Greg adding 3 from ETC)

See inserts below.

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Ron.  While I agree that ETC should be endorsing CDR, that's not the 
> message they've sent in the past. E.g., from their Geopiracy screed  
> http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf
>  
> <http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf>
RWL:  Greg, you show below about 20% from the main 1-page biochar 
section in ETC’s 52 page report (cite above).  I don’t think ETC has paid much 
attention to biochar, so I guess they probably would not stand too much behind 
this - which is from 2010.  This section on biochar was written by Biofuel 
Watch (BFW) - a smaller (mostly UK) NGO.   BFW first wrote about biochar in 
2008 - and intermittently (only negatively)  since then.   Both ETC and BFW 
seem now to focus attention on BECCS (which I was amazed to find not included 
at all in “Geopiracy”). 

I would be most interested in hearing how ETC would respond to my 
roughly 20 claims on how biochar should be viewed on the same 20 criteria they 
used for SRM.  Again I applaud ETC for being specific on their criteria - and 
they should feel free to add others more appropriate for biochar if they wish - 
but I would appreciate feedback on all for biochar - as all are relevant 
(though many other criteria should be added).

A huge change in biochar knowledge has occurred since “Geopiracy”.  In 
early 2010, as BFW was writing this one pager for ETC, they and ETC could 
search a IBI technical bibliography (http://biochar-international.org/biblio 
<http://biochar-international.org/biblio>) of 172 new articles from 2009.In 
mid 2016 (the date of the last I recall from ETC/BFW), they would have had to 
look over approximately 10 times as many from 2015 onward.  The cumulative IBI 
bibliography listings will probably exceed 4400 in the next week or two.  (Does 
any other “Geo” technical approach come close to that many cites over the last 
ten years?)

On March 21-23,   FAO held a conference in Rome on just the subject of 
sequestering carbon for climate reasons (ie.  “4p1000”).  Here biochar seems to 
me to be in position to benefit the most (BECCS doesn’t fit into that sphere).  
See  http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/soil-organic-carbon-symposium/en/ 
<http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/soil-organic-carbon-symposium/en/> .  This 
is not an isolated example of rapidly growing global interest in soil carbon  - 
likely to be a major new part of IPCC’s AR6!   Does ETC now plan to oppose that?

In sum,  I look forward to hearing how ETC (or BFW or anyone) would 
rephrase my 20-some biochar clauses given below on ETC’s 20-some SRM-criteria.  
 The criteria are key!  And the criteria obviously should go well beyond 
assumptions about technical readiness.

Thanks to Ken for inviting ETC in on this CDR (not just biochar) topic.

Ron

> 
> "What’s wrong with biochar?
> Even if biochar turns out to sequester carbon long-term,
> hundreds of millions of hectares of land would be required to
> produce the amount of biomass that would need to be burned
> in order to sequester a significant amount of carbon.79 Biochar
> will be unsustainable for the same reason agrofuels are
> unsustainable: there simply is no spare land upon which
> “biochar crops” can be grown without causing harm. In a
> recent article published in Nature Communications, the
> authors, who include the Chair and Vice-Chair of the IBI,
> suggest that 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions could be
> ‘offset’ with biochar, requiring not just vast quantities of
> “residues” but also the conversion of 526 million hectares of
> land to dedicated crops and trees for biochar.80 In addition,
> biochar processing (transportation, burning, ploughing into
> land) would all require significant energy inputs. Depleting
> soils and forests and converting vast areas of land to biochar
> crop plantations will worsen climate change.
> Despite the grandiose claims for biochar, there are significant
> unknowns. A 2008 study by CSIRO (Australia), for example,
> identified a number of research gaps including: how different
> feedstocks affect biochar’s chemical and physical properties; its
> long-term stability in the soil; the presence of toxins from the
> feedstock itself or the combustion process; and social and
> economic constraints and impacts.81"
> 
> So good luck in changing their minds.
> Greg
> From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 
> Cc: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; Geoengineering 
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> S

Re: [geo] ETC : Why SRM experiments are a bad idea

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg,  cc List and Andrew.

The answer to your CDR question below is affirmative (with apologies 
for needing to explain at length why I think so; about half of the following 
are quotes from the ETC original).

I have hopes that ETC is now or will soon be endorsing some forms of 
CDR.  At least I hope they will use criteria similar to the 20-or-so (below) 
they have used in the article cite that Andrew provided.  I commend ETC’s use 
of specific criteria.   Below is my short-hand version to which I hope they 
would comment.  Here I mainly answer for biochar, as I don’t claim to be 
current on any other form of CDR.   I hope others will both critique my  
biochar assertions and provide similar responses for other CDR forms.  I am 
intentionally staying away from the SRM topic.

ETC justifies their rejection of SRM in three parts.  I repeat ONLY 
their criteria with my own CDR-specific amendments.  There are several other 
positive biochar attributes not covered in this editing of their view of SRM 
(for instance, providing carbon neutral energy, reducing/saving water 
consumption,  increasing rural job opportunities,  increasing food supply, etc.)

Part  A.  A dozen specific ETC topic areas (only showing their topical areas):
Unequal negative impacts. (Biochar impacts would be equal and positive in 
virtually ever country.)
Environmental risks.  (Biochar risks would be minimum or nil.)
No turning back. (Biochar impacts would probably be larger in the future 
than immediate.)
Not addressing root causes. (Biochar directly addresses CO2 (and CH4 and 
N2O) root causes.)
Weaponization (Biochar cannot be used as a weapon.)
SRM is the perfect excuse for inaction. (Biochar is today being implemented 
commercially.)
SRM is already under a moratorium   (Biochar has already been tested in 
thousands of locations.)
Lack of a democratic, transparent, multilateral mechanism for governance. 
(Biochar implementation is occurring today with minimum governance.)
SRM could wreck the climate agreements. (Biochar is being encouraged in 
climate agreements.)
Who decides what is an emergency?  (Biochar is being encouraged for soil 
emergency reasons by numerous international organizations.)
Politics and precaution first   (Biochar has had minimum political 
discussion; precaution is already encouraged/practiced - by always starting 
small, with different soils and crops)
Trump administration (Biochar is being pursued most aggressively in 
China, and likely to go faster because of Trump.)


Part B.  A Summary Box labeled  “Geoengineering promoters argue” as biochar 
folks would modify: 

Geoengineering CDR (including biochar) promoters argue:
1. That we will need SRM CDR to address climate change because even if GHG
emissions would be stopped now, the inertial lock-in emissions will continue
warming the planet.
2. While most promoters of geoengineering CDR options recognize that impacts of
SRM will CDR will not likely be bad and unevenly distributed, they claim the 
impacts of
unchecked climate change will also be bad and SRM may CDR will not be the 
lesser of two
evils.
3. Other interests, often oil-industry financed think tanks, do not argue that 
SRM CDR
offers an efficient way to address climate change without having to
transform the fossil-fuel driven economy

All these arguments, in one form or another, distract from the real strategies 
to
confront climate chaos: the need to make drastic and real GHG reductions at the
source; decarbonize the global economy; and the need to research and support
solutions that are sound, fair, decentralized and affordable, including, among 
others,
agroecology, good mass transport and renewable energy systems.
Since no SRM  many CDR proposals are ready for deployment at this time, the 
emphasis now for geoengineering 
CDR advocates is on the need to secure endorsement and public and
private funds to move into a phase of research, hardware development and 
open-air
experiments.  Immediate and large-scale deployment.



Part C.  Five Reasons Why SRM CDR Experiments Are a Bad Good Idea
1. Experiments are NOT political acts
2. Experiments DO NOT create technical and political ‘lock-in’
3. Meaningful SRM CDR safety and efficacy “experiments” are not possible
4. Experiments DO NOT violate the UN CBD moratorium
5. Deviating resources from true solutions CANNOT OCCUR.

[RWL:  I hope we can have a discussion on any of my changes in any of the three 
ETC argument approaches - as well of course on their originals for the SRM part 
of Geo.   This mainly to take up Greg’s challenging CDR question via specifics.

Ron

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> So CDR is OK?
> 
> 
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> http://www.etcgroup.org/content/why-srm-experiments-are-bad-idea 
>> 

Re: [geo] Heavily attended webinar marks early IFRC engagement with issue of geoengineering

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:  with ccs

1.  To add to the report below from Andrew and Dr. Hawkins “Red Cross” 
response - see recent non-fee AGU article (“Geoengineering: A humanitarian 
concern”) by the identified webinar discussant (first author) Dr. Pablo Suarez: 
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000464/full 


The IFRC involvement in the “Geo” area is captured in this sentence 
from that article: 
 “To our knowledge, the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre has been the sole 
humanitarian actor consistently playing a role in these discussions. “ 
The term “these discussions” seems to be limited to SRM.
  

2.   This additional non-fee article from 2013 and an allied web site 
contains rather similar arguments:
https://geoengineeringourclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/suarez-et-al-2013-ge-and-the-humanitarian-challenge-click-for-download.pdf
 

It seems entirely reasonable that the world’s main respondent on local 
disasters would put effort into this difficult ethical topic.  Good for them to 
be thinking ahead.

   
3.  So there is a considerable history of IFRC involvement in 
Geoengineering - hopefully including some on CDR.  I hope Dr. Suarez (cc’d) can 
tell us what this IFRC Centre has also done or should be done on the CDR side 
of Geo. I haven’t found anything at:   http://www.climatecentre.org/ 
 . 

Ron



> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:
> 
> Red Cross
> 
> Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector.
> 
> 
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Alan Robock  > wrote:
> 
>> What is IFRC?
>> 
>> Alan Robock
>> 
>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>> Department of Environmental Sciences
>> Rutgers University
>> 14 College Farm Road
>> New Brunswick, NJ  08901
>> 
>> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
>> http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock 
>> http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 
>> ☮ Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Andrew Lockley > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Video at https://youtu.be/2oVnasx6hAo 
>>> http://www.climatecentre.org/news/836/heavily-attended-webinar-marks-early-ifrc-engagement-with-issue-of-geoengineering
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Heavily attended webinar marks early IFRC engagement with issue of 
>>> geoengineering
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 21/02/2017 - by the Climate Centre
>>> 
>>> The IFRC Friday convened a webinar on geoengineering 
>>>  and the implications for the 
>>> humanitarian sector attended by some 600 people online as part of its 
>>> ‘Solferino Academy’ initiative designed to anticipate and adapt to global 
>>> change.
>>> 
>>> Among the ‘Climate Futures’ series, it was the IFRC’s first major public 
>>> engagement on the subject of geoengineering – the large-scale intervention 
>>> in the Earth’s climate in an effort to limit adverse effects of climate 
>>> change.
>>> 
>>> It featured Dr David Keith, a professor of applied physics at Harvard 
>>> University’s School of Engineering, and Dr Pablo Suarez, Climate Centre 
>>> Associate Director of Research and Innovation.
>>> 
>>> The discussions encompassed ideas presented in a new paper entitled 
>>> Geoengineering: A humanitarian concern 
>>> , by Dr 

[geo] Fwd: Soil Organic Carbon Conference start

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:

Should contain a good bit on CDR over next few days.

Ron


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> Subject: Soil Organic Carbon Conference start
> Date: March 21, 2017 at 3:13:21 AM MDT
> To: Biochar <bioc...@yahoogroups.com>
> 
> List:
> 
>   This conference is just starting its webcast (10:00 AM in Rome) at
> 
>   http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/4315/icode/ 
> <http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/4315/icode/>
> 
>   More technical content in a few more hours.
> 
> Ron

-- 
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] New Geoeng Disaster film

[Ronal W. Larson]

Eric and list:

Seems they had trouble with this film  

(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jerry-bruckheimer-boards-geostorm-as-866329
 
)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostorm 


Oct.  20 release.  

I’ll probably have to go -same reason as this reviewer/panner:  
http://www.slashfilm.com/geostorm-trailer/ 


Ron


> On Mar 8, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Eric Durbrow  wrote:
> 
> A movie that takes on geo-engineering (by satellite). Bjork singing in the 
> background, I think. 
> 
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/disaster-thriller-geostorm-will-have-the-most-terrifyin-1793079770
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - not values of)

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dave  et al

I hope you are right that there is an opportunity for an SCC law suit.  
I’m expecting that the SCC topic will just be ignored by all the Federal 
agencies.  

Re the CPP - I saw recently that a September date was likely at the 
Supreme Court.  With everything on hold, that would seem to be an easy thing 
for the new Administration to just ignore until then - with an expectation that 
their new ninth member is all that is needed 

Might any existing UN agency take up the SCC for Geo purposes - 
“exactly" as the Obama White House developed it?

Ron


> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:
> 
> We expect the Trump Administration to try to abandon or radically weaken the 
> CPP and likely the SCC too.  Both these actions will be challenged in the 
> courts.  The legal issues will center on whether the administration has 
> developed a sufficient rationale to justify its repeal/revisions as lawful.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:34 PM, Ronal W.Larson  > wrote:
> 
>> Mike with ccs
>> 
>> Thanks for supplying the link to the CPP docket.  Yours seems to be the only 
>> one of about 80 similar legal declarations that covered the Social Cost of 
>> Carbon (SCC) - the subject of the House hearing.   
>> 
>> I assume both the CPP and SCC are as much lost causes with a full Supreme 
>> Court as with the US Congress.   Any good news on SCC - especially as 
>> relates to this list?
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Michael MacCracken >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On the Chairman's statement about likely effects, these are the claims of 
>>> those suing EPA and are based on impacts in 2050 of a regulation that does 
>>> not would not come into full effect until 2030, so these were arguably the 
>>> impacts after only 20 years (so not equilibrium). I prepared a legal 
>>> declaration for the environmental groups that intervened in the legal case 
>>> on behalf of EPA (see 
>>> https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/leg_15120902a.pdf 
>>> , starting on 
>>> page B440). I'd note that, in addition, the changes were with respect, as I 
>>> recall to a relatively low emission scenario. With respect to sea level, if 
>>> one calculated the sea level sensitivity from paleoclimate studies (so, 
>>> say, 120 meters for 6 C temperature change), it is something like 500 times 
>>> as large as the sensitivity the states claimed and Smith referred to. 
>>> Similarly, on the emissions reductions it carries out over time--so 
>>> choosing 2050, is just very misleading.
>>> Mike MacCracken
>>> 
>>> On 2/28/17 2:27 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
 Thanks, Robot.
 
 Missed the hearing, but found the website:
 https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-environment-and-subcommittee-oversight-hearing-what-cost-examining
  
 
 
 Interesting opening statement by Chair L. Smith:
 "Rushing to use unreliable calculations, such as the social cost of 
 carbon, to justify a regulation is irresponsible and misleading.
 For instance, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would cost billions of dollars 
 every year in return for a minimal benefit on the environment. In fact, 
 the regulation would reduce global temperatures by only 0.03 degrees 
 Celsius and limit sea level rise by only the width of three sheets of 
 paper."
 
 So he's admitting that CO2 does cause GW and SLR, and implies that we need 
 to spend way more than "billions" to have a significant mitigating effect. 
 - it's a start ;-)
 
 Greg
 
 
 
 
 
 From: "ro...@ultimax.com"   
 
 To: geoengineering  
  
 Cc: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 
 Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:21 AM
 Subject: [geo] Re: Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology 
 - not values of)
 
 over the transom from my fellow AAAS Fellows [Fellows Energy Climate 
 digest] (which is also a Google Group) -- there's a hearing today in the 
 House Science Committee about this subject:
 
 Social Cost of CO2 hearing  
 
  
 *Tuesday, February 28*
  
  
  
 *Social Cost of Carbon*
  
 *House Science, Space and Technology — Subcommittee on Oversight*
  
 Subcommittee Hearing
  
 *Add to my calendar* 

Re: Re: [geo] Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - not values of)

[Ronal W . Larson]

Mike with ccs

Thanks for supplying the link to the CPP docket.  Yours seems to be the 
only one of about 80 similar legal declarations that covered the Social Cost of 
Carbon (SCC) - the subject of the House hearing.   

I assume both the CPP and SCC are as much lost causes with a full 
Supreme Court as with the US Congress.   Any good news on SCC - especially as 
relates to this list?

Ron


> On Mar 4, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Michael MacCracken  wrote:
> 
> On the Chairman's statement about likely effects, these are the claims of 
> those suing EPA and are based on impacts in 2050 of a regulation that does 
> not would not come into full effect until 2030, so these were arguably the 
> impacts after only 20 years (so not equilibrium). I prepared a legal 
> declaration for the environmental groups that intervened in the legal case on 
> behalf of EPA (see https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/leg_15120902a.pdf 
> , starting on 
> page B440). I'd note that, in addition, the changes were with respect, as I 
> recall to a relatively low emission scenario. With respect to sea level, if 
> one calculated the sea level sensitivity from paleoclimate studies (so, say, 
> 120 meters for 6 C temperature change), it is something like 500 times as 
> large as the sensitivity the states claimed and Smith referred to. Similarly, 
> on the emissions reductions it carries out over time--so choosing 2050, is 
> just very misleading.
> Mike MacCracken
> 
> On 2/28/17 2:27 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
>> Thanks, Robot.
>> 
>> Missed the hearing, but found the website:
>> https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-environment-and-subcommittee-oversight-hearing-what-cost-examining
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Interesting opening statement by Chair L. Smith:
>> "Rushing to use unreliable calculations, such as the social cost of carbon, 
>> to justify a regulation is irresponsible and misleading.
>> For instance, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would cost billions of dollars 
>> every year in return for a minimal benefit on the environment. In fact, the 
>> regulation would reduce global temperatures by only 0.03 degrees Celsius and 
>> limit sea level rise by only the width of three sheets of paper."
>> 
>> So he's admitting that CO2 does cause GW and SLR, and implies that we need 
>> to spend way more than "billions" to have a significant mitigating effect. - 
>> it's a start ;-)
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "ro...@ultimax.com"   
>> 
>> To: geoengineering  
>>  
>> Cc: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:21 AM
>> Subject: [geo] Re: Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - 
>> not values of)
>> 
>> over the transom from my fellow AAAS Fellows [Fellows Energy Climate digest] 
>> (which is also a Google Group) -- there's a hearing today in the House 
>> Science Committee about this subject:
>> 
>> Social Cost of CO2 hearing  
>> 
>>  
>> *Tuesday, February 28*
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> *Social Cost of Carbon*
>>  
>> *House Science, Space and Technology — Subcommittee on Oversight*
>>  
>> Subcommittee Hearing
>>  
>> *Add to my calendar* > >
>>  
>> Environment Subcommittee and Oversight Subcommittee holds a joint hearing
>> on "At What Cost? Examining the Social Cost of Carbon."
>> --
>>  
>> *Date*
>>  
>> *Tuesday, Feb. 28, 10 a.m.*
>>  
>> *Place*
>>  
>> 2318 Rayburn Bldg.
>>  
>> *Witnesses*
>>  
>> Ted Gayer, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings
>> Institution
>>  
>> Kevin Dayaratna, senior statistician and research programmer in the
>> Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis
>>  
>> Michael Greenstone, professor in economics in the Harris School of Public
>> Policy, director of the Interdisciplinary Energy Policy Institute and
>> director of Energy and Environment Lab in the University of Chicago's Urban
>> Labs
>>  
>> Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of
>> Science
>> 
>> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:09:04 PM UTC-5, ro...@ultimax.com 
>>  wrote:
>> Actually, they did project a range of values on the screen, strongly 
>> dependent on discount rate.
>> They did "thousands of runs" to develop three asymmetric bell curves of SCC 
>> values per tonne, one for each discount rate, colored RGB.
>> Each of those curves had a peak way to the left, and a long 

Re: [geo] Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - not values of)

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg, cc Robert and list

This to add a bit more (mostly discouraging), after viewing/listening 
to the full Subcommittee hearing on the 28th (site below). 

 I should have said when I started this thread that the Social Cost of 
Capital (SCC) is a vitally important part of at least biochar, and probably all 
of the CDR part of Geo.  The magnitude of an accepted SCC will probably be the 
main driver of how much CDR/NETs we see.  Unfortunately, this hearing was not 
helpful in advancing a larger SCC in the USA.   

A good summary of the hearing is at 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/28/members-of-congress-met-to-discuss-the-costs-of-climate-change-they-ended-up-debating-its-existence/?utm_term=.78840dd15570
 

 .  The reporter,  Chelsea Harvey, said: 

First paragraph: “A hearing held Tuesday by several House 
subcommittees was meant to be an examination of the methods used to calculate 
an oft-contested metric known as the social cost of carbon, a way of 
quantifying the costs — environmental, health-related or otherwise — of 
emitting on additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yet by its 
close, the conversation had disintegrated into yet another debate about the 
extent to which man-made climate change exists. " 

Last paragraph:   “Up to this point, experts have been skeptical about 
the Trump administration’s ability to eliminate the social cost of carbon 
altogether, or even significantly reduce its value, without being struck down 
in court. But with members of both the Trump administration and Congress 
increasingly questioning its very purpose — to help account for the dangers of 
climate change — its future is looking ever more uncertain.”

For list members in other countries, and in some US states, who now 
will be fighting both the US Congress and President on the SCC,  I recommend 
the testimony of Dr.  Greenstone,  the  former Chief Economist for the Council 
of Economic Advisors, who led this effort, and is now Professor at the 
University of Chicago:   
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY18-WState-MGreenstone-20170228.pdf
 


The three anti-SCC witnesses did not convince me.  One was not a 
denier;  he (Dr. Ted Gayer of Brookings) objected to basing the SCC on 
international, vs US-only, data. I felt Dr.  Greenstone argued convincingly for 
the larger view, but this is a major problem in defending the SCC, probably as 
important as the optimum discount rate to be used (3% justified by Dr.  
Greenstone).

Thoughts on SCC’s relationship to Geo?
.
Ron


> On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Robot.
> 
> Missed the hearing, but found the website:
> https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-environment-and-subcommittee-oversight-hearing-what-cost-examining
>  
> 
> 
> Interesting opening statement by Chair L. Smith:
> "Rushing to use unreliable calculations, such as the social cost of carbon, 
> to justify a regulation is irresponsible and misleading.
> For instance, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would cost billions of dollars every 
> year in return for a minimal benefit on the environment. In fact, the 
> regulation would reduce global temperatures by only 0.03 degrees Celsius and 
> limit sea level rise by only the width of three sheets of paper."
> 
> So he's admitting that CO2 does cause GW and SLR, and implies that we need to 
> spend way more than "billions" to have a significant mitigating effect. - 
> it's a start ;-)
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> From: "ro...@ultimax.com" 
> To: geoengineering  
> Cc: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:21 AM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - 
> not values of)
> 
> over the transom from my fellow AAAS Fellows [Fellows Energy Climate digest] 
> (which is also a Google Group) -- there's a hearing today in the House 
> Science Committee about this subject:
> 
> Social Cost of CO2 hearing  
> 
>  
> *Tuesday, February 28*
>  
>  
>  
> *Social Cost of Carbon*
>  
> *House Science, Space and Technology — Subcommittee on Oversight*
>  
> Subcommittee Hearing
>  
> *Add to my calendar*  >

Re: [geo] Debunking 3 Soil Carbon Myths

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew and list:

This article seems to have completely missed the concept of biochar - 
which seems to me to be the main approach that combines this list, CDR/NETs and 
soils.  I have just left a note at the CCR site, hoping the author will return 
re biochar. 

 I have looked up all ten of the cites, and sent the them (with a few 
notes) to the “biochar” list.  I can send them to anyone interested on this 
list.  All the cites are good on soil carbon;  none on biochar, not much on 
CDR/NETs).

Two of the Myths are supportive of biochar.  The first is valid as well 
to discourage soil carbon efforts, but biochar solves some of the problems 
there.

Ron


> On Feb 18, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog-posts/2017/2/16/debunking-3-soil-carbon-myths
>  
> 
> 
> February 16, 2017 
> 
> Debunking 3 Soil Carbon Myths 
> 
> Rory Jacobson 
> 
> 2016 can certainly be recognized as a year of progress for U.S. soil 
> conservation and restoration. In May, Congressional Representative Jared 
> Huffman (CA 2nd District) 
> 
> 


-- 
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] News Article – Center for Security Studies | ETH Zurich

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dr.  Fischer:  cc “Geo” List,  Hans-Peter

Thanks for writing on CDR - about which we hear too little on the Geo 
list.
This is to hope you will investigate additionally the potential of 
biochar, which you did not mention, as a promising CDR mechanism.  Especially 
in your country, Switzerland, which you mention 16 times and which is a global 
leader in biochar.  
Switzerland was the first European country, in 2013,  to officially 
recognize biochar as a valuable soil and CDR additive  (see 
http://www.biochar-international.org/node/4130 
).  
Switzerland is the home of the only biochar journal (Editor: Hans-Peter 
Schmidt - of Valais;  also active as Ithaka Institute; see 
https://www.biochar-journal.org/en/home 
).  
Switzerland is considered a leader in all European biochar activity 
(which itself is substantial;  see 
http://cost.european-biochar.org/en/ct/82-Switzerland%3A-The-first-European-country-to-officially-approve-Biochar-
 
).
   
Biochar is on a growth path much faster than any of the CDR approaches 
you have mentioned.  I estimate a doubling every two years - with China 
outstripping the rest of the world - but Switzerland is one country from whom 
China is learning.

Ron


> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/d5a7a813-f0fe-47f0-861c-129471897690
>  
> 
> 
> Extract 
> 
> Negative Emissions and Climate Engineering
> The abovementioned limitations in achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal 
> through conventional instruments show the need for a debate on the use of 
> new, hitherto untested technologies. Already today, the most important of the 
> IPCC’s scenarios take into account negative emissions, which can be created 
> by technologies that not only limit the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere 
> but additionally extract CO2 from it. Here, the IPCC favors the use of 
> “Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage” (BECCS). Through targeted 
> forestation, the natural soaking up of carbon in biomass, its combustion, and 
> subsequent geological storage of emissions, CO2 concentration in the 
> atmosphere can be reduced. Depending on the scale of use, this could lead to 
> a comparatively rapid reduction of atmospheric emissions. In the IPCC’s Fifth 
> Assessment Report, the use of this technology is already foreseen from 2025 
> onwards. Its large-scale application is anticipated for the second half of 
> this century in the models that calculate ways of accomplishing the 
> two-degree target. This is the only way to bring emissions down to zero in 
> the medium term, as anticipated in the Paris Agreement’s Article 4. In 
> practice, however, only a single pilot project in the US exists so far.
> 
> -- 
> 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] Jim Hansen (briefly) on CDR

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:

1.   A quote appearing today that might be of interest to some on this 
list.   Jim Hansen has an Earth Institute blog entry today 
(http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/01/11/rolling-stones/ 
)  that briefly 
mentions CDR (the bolded part below)
"Is it possible to store 150 GtC in the biosphere and soil?  Say, even 
if we make all plausible efforts to employ biochar where it has other benefits 
and apply rock dust in conjunction with reforestation and agricultural 
processes where it has other benefits?  We will discuss that in a later 
message.  Here I only want to note that the 8-year delay has made the task much 
more difficult, increasing the magnitude of carbon extraction from 100 GtC to 
150 GtC.”
   [RWL1:   I hope all will alert us to the appearance of this “later message”, 
which must also relate to “Geo”.


2.   This above message follows a quite lengthy December interview in 
“Rolling Stone”,  again with my added emphasis:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/will-we-miss-our-last-chance-to-survive-climate-change-w456917
 


Jeff Goodall:  “In Paris, negotiators settled in an “aspirational” target of 
1.5C.”

Jim Hansen  “Yes. But that would require a six-percent-a-year reduction in 
emissions, which may be implausible without a large amount of negative 
emissions – that is, developing some technology to suck CO2 out of the 
atmosphere.”

Ron


-- 
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] (mustread) A planet with brains, Grinspoon NPR

[Ronal W . Larson]

Andrew and list  (adding author)

1.  Because your “best” (below) among Anthropocene articles was such a 
strong statement,  I investigated Dr. Grinspoon’s relationship to “Geo” as 
well.  His new book out just this month - entitled:  Earth in Human Hands: 
Shaping Our Planet’s Future -  was/is identified at the end of the (heavily 
snipped) NPR article you sent.  This is to comment on the “Geo” part of this 
book, which I bought in Kindle ebook format - and am glad I did.   I am not an 
expert on the Anthropocene - but can attest this book is very thorough on that. 
 Even more so on its many “astro” parts.

2.  Chapter 4 of the book (on intentional anthro changes) is 
essentially the only place in the book that “Geo”,  SRM, and CDR appear.  SRM 
is disparaged.  CDR is not - but there is an amazingly small amount on the CDR 
topic (the words “BECCS” and “biochar” do not appear).  Although CDR was 
encouraged, I gained no sense of urgency for that approach.  However, I do 
think there is a strong preference stated for CDR approaches with a  “bio” 
flavor (bio as in his line of work “astrobiology”).

3.   Dr.  Grinspoon is an excellent writer.  I gained much new 
knowledge about the historical figures in his field - such as Carl Sagan and 
James Locklock.  The latter has been a major supporter of CDR (or at least 
biochar).  

4.  I include Dr. Grinspoon in this response, hoping to better 
understand why the “bio” sides of CDR were left untouched - and whether he sees 
any reasons to now go slow -especially with an approach having millennia of 
“terra-forming” background as the Amazon’s “Terra Preta” (which is unmentioned).

To repeat:  I am recommending this book - but not for GEO understanding 
or promotional reasons.  SRM proponents will presumably find considerable fault 
with the SRM aspects of the book.  CDR advocates will presumably feel his 
support is present - but just too weak.

Ron



> On Dec 19, 2016, at 11:00 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note - this is, by far, the best article on the Anthropocene I've 
> ever read - and the only one that puts it into a proper context 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/18/506036420/a-planet-with-brains-the-peril-and-potential-of-self-aware-geological-change?utm_campaign=storyshare_source=twitter.com_medium=social
>  
> 
> 
> A Planet With Brains? The Peril And Potential Of Self-Aware Geological Change
> December 18, 20165:35 AM ET
> Commentary
> DAVID GRINSPOON
> 
> Eric Hanson/Getty Images
> Recent years have seen a vigorous debate over whether or not we have entered 
> a new epoch of geologic time, the "Anthropocene," characterized by humanity 
> as a new geologic force. 
> 


> The story of our species is one of overcoming existential risk through new 
> forms of cooperation and innovation. Our current dilemmas require these same 
> skills applied on new temporal and spatial scales. Although right now we are 
> initiating a mass extinction, in the long run, by preventing future 
> extinctions and prolonging the life of the biosphere, we could be the best 
> thing that ever happened to planet Earth.
> 
> David Grinspoon  is a senior 
> scientist at the Planetary Science Institute. His latest book, Earth in Human 
> Hands: Shaping Our Planet's Future, was published in December 2016

-- 
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] “Negative Emissions”: The Next Challenge for Climate Policy

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg:  cc Dr.  Geden and list

Thanks for the alert.   The article is apparently based on a longer 
report at 
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/negative-emissions-a-challenge-for-climate-policy/
 

 ,  but I can’t get that site to open.  Perhaps Dr. Geden can attach it (and/or 
add anything new).

Ron


> On Dec 20, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Thoughtful review of the CDR policy vacuum: 
> 
> http://www.theenergycollective.com/energy-post/2395195/negative-emissions-the-next-challenge-for-climate-policy
>  
> 
> 
> 
> "If the Paris climate objectives are upheld, policymakers will soon be facing 
> calls to set emission-reduction targets of much more than 100 percent, write 
> Oliver Geden of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs 
> (SWP) in Berlin and Stefan Schäfer of the Institute for Advanced 
> Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam. But the debate about how to achieve 
> “negative emissions” – and who will have to achieve them – has not even 
> begun, they note."….
> 
> 
> "Since there is no political debate on negative emissions yet, potential 
> conflicts of interests or public acceptance problems can only be guessed at. 
> The possible social and ecological consequences of such a far-reaching use of 
> technologies for CO2 removal have barely been examined. The biggest problem, 
> however, is that almost all the technological options currently being 
> favoured are still in the early stages of development, making their potential 
> for successful deployment extremely uncertain."...
> "If climate policy pioneers like the EU and Germany do not want to 
> prematurely abandon the temperature targets decided in Paris, they will have 
> to start developing strategies for CO2 removal soon. As we have indicated, 
> global emissions budgets for 1.5 °C and 2 °C will be consumed within five to 
> 20 years. This means that the EU’s and Germany’s reduction corridor of 80 to 
> 95 percent by 2050, can only be an adequate contribution to meeting global 
> temperature targets if emissions in the second half of the century are pushed 
> substantially below the zero line. To date, neither the EU nor Germany has 
> declared itself ready to aim for long-term reduction targets of more than 100 
> percent. And even if they did, it remains unclear whether such a policy would 
> be technologically and economically feasible, and if it would find sufficient 
> socio-political support."...
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dr. Williamson, list, et al

1.  You say below that you had a “small part” - but you seem to have 
been the primary author for almost all of “Report 84”  (cite given below).   
I’ve only so far read the CDR part of most interest to me, but I will try to at 
least skim the rest.  I thought it the best summary overview of all I have seen 
for “my” CDR approach.  Of course I would have changed a few words and phrases, 
but overall, you captured my area very well.  Of most help is finding more than 
a dozen new 2016 citations, of which I was unaware.  Amazing turn-around speed 
on a difficult topic..

2.  I didn’t feel the same about the “Key Messages” summary paragraph.  
Did another person/group write that?

3.  I now better understand the phrase “moratorium” - which you focus 
on below.   Am I correct that you disagree with the ETC group on moratorium 
issues/actions at this COP (and whose perception I have retained below)?

4.  New topic:   In googling, I found your recent short article in 
Nature at: 
http://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106
 
.
  Thanks for your efforts in fighting the climate misinformation coming from 
the Breitbart and similar groups.  Please keep us informed on how that turns 
out.  And of further ways that we can help you and each other.

Ron

> On Dec 17, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Phillip Williamson (ENV) 
>  wrote:
> 
> A useful and informative discussion.  Here's one further input from me:
> 
> Having had a small part in formulating CBD text on this issue (but not 
> currently at Cancun), I can offer the insight that some ambiguity in 
> interpretation of CBD Decision text may be politically expedient - and could 
> either actually be intentional by the drafters.  Or else evolves 
> happen-chance, as extra words are added and taken away, and compromises 
> reached.  At the end of the process, no-one is quite sure what exactly is 
> meant, but they are prepared to sign-off for the sake of reaching consensus.
> 
> Note that CBD parties have yet to agree on a single definition of 
> geoengineering, but that doesn't seem to be a problem - since there isn't any 
> binding regulation to enforce.  Parties can therefore take account of CBD 
> guidance/decisions as they wish to do so, and appropriate to their interests.
> 
> In my opinion, the new paragraph discussed in these exchanges should be 
> considered a significant development -  clarifying that the claimed, but 
> never explicitly agreed, "moratorium on geoengineering research" would be an 
> over-interpretation of previous decisions.   The spectrum of what is/isn't 
> geoengineering research is anyway far too broad to be considered as a single 
> activity.
> 
> Interestingly, online coverage of CBD Technical Series 84 
> (https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf 
> ) rapidly polarised 
> into two headlines - "UN body bans geoengineering and "UN body approves 
> geoengineering".  Actually it did neither: that report pre-dated COP 13 by ~ 
> 6 weeks, and was developed as a scientific information paper.  As such it was 
> policy neutral (as far as possible)
> 
> Regards
> Phil
> p.william...@uea.ac.uk 



>  
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>  
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> ] On Behalf Of jim Thomas
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 8:44 AM
> To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl 
> Cc: geoengineering  >
> Subject: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"
>  
> Hi Jesse
>  
> As Anna-Maria and Maggie affirm, it would be perverse to read that paragraph 
> as some sort of endorsement of geoengineering ‘research’ in which the term 
> ‘research’ is being treated as a synonym for experimentation. It is also a 
> bit misleading to present the COP decision of 2010 as just ‘a statement of 
> caution’ as you do below. In fact it was a global de facto moratorium on 
> outside experimentation (beyond a “controlled setting”) - so it went beyond 
> mere caution to common agreement on limits. X/33 (w) asked parties to  
> “Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 
>  C, on ocean fertilization and 
> biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, 
> transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for 
> geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and 
> Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering 
> activities <>76 
> that may 
> affect 

Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

[Ronal W . Larson]

Fred and list and ccs

See more below.

> On Dec 16, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Tens of thousands is a lot.  Sounds like a perfect time to create a global 
> database. 

[RWL1:  Agreed.

> 
>  Maybe we can get the US Department of Energy to fund it! Just kidding.

[RWL2:  Not kidding -how about CBD?  But biochar is mentioned by almost 
all the UN groups.  As far as I know, no one has started any such data base.  
The USDA is much more likely than DoE or EPA for US data.   The logical biochar 
interest group (IBI @ www.biochar-international.org) is mostly broke, but have 
done some surveying - showing about a hundred suppliers.  I think there are at 
least two commercial services supposedly giving numbers like this, but they are 
out of my budget range, and I would be suspect behind the actual count.

> 
> But seriously, I've worked with global data sets for decades.  Creating a 
> novel global database can be powerful in number of ways, both in terms of 
> furthering a research agenda and in terms of creating a sense of cohesion and 
> community.  

RWL3:I of course agree.  But I see lots of excellent papers with 
dozens of authors already doing what you suggest.  I received this notice only 
today:  “Biochars in soils: towards the required level of scientific 
understanding”   non-fee at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/16486897.2016.1239582 
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/16486897.2016.1239582>.  About 20% 
is on the climate character of this list - but I count that low count as a 
blessing from the CBD perspective of this thread.

Fortunately, although ignored by the climate community,  most of the 
Soil and Ag professional society publications are full of useful material.  For 
2015,  the  IBI bibliography (http://www.biochar-international.org/biblio 
<http://www.biochar-international.org/biblio>) shows 1551 technical articles.  
Averaging 4 or 5 authors per article and guessing as many “projects” per 
article and then guessing that only a fraction of the biochar projects gets to 
a published paper is one way I came up with this guesstimate.  But I also ask 
all the biochar practitioners (I am barely in that category) that I can, 
whenever I can.   They are suggesting growth rates of a doubling every two 
years, so if not yet tens of thousands of projects, it soon will be.   I 
repeat:  these are profitable, for the most part.

The biggest unknown in the guess is that half the biochar projects are 
probably in China.  They have the biggest soil and pollution problems, have set 
some of the best CO2 goals, have more R money and talented researchers than 
most, and we know of their success in capturing the solar and wind industries.  
It shouldn’t be a surprise that they would also lead in biochar.  The large 
number of Chinese papers (in English) on the IBI bibliography may seriously 
underestimate their true scientific effort.  The Chinese government has also 
recently volunteered to take over much of the IBI operation burden.

But the exact number of projects/companies/tonnes was not intended to 
be the issue.  I am hoping to learn whether the CBD takes this potentially 
“illegal” or “immoral” Geo activity seriously and if so why.

> Who could fund this?

RWL4:  I see little interest at the CBD, so I would vote for FAO.  
Biochar is going to increase the biomass output that FAO is already monitoring 
globally.   Of course, they have to rely on countries - but if they asked for 
biochar data, that would be a big help.  
  The global footprint organization (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/ 
<http://www.footprintnetwork.org/> in Oakland, CA) is also already reporting Ag 
and carbon data - and they should have the climate motivation to see a 
reduction in the number of earths we are presently at.  I failed a few years 
ago in getting their attention.

Fred:  Thanks for your interest.

Ron

> ᐧ
> 
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> Doug, Jim, Jesse, list:
> 
>   I’d like to ask anyone at this last CBD meeting whether they heard any 
> discussion of the tens of thousands of biochar projects going on now.  
> Certainly mostly small, but some are getting into thousands of 
> acres/hectares.  Some have scientific intent - most do not.  Most are making 
> money.  Most are certain they are helping biodiversity.  A few are doing this 
> for the purpose of “manipulating the climate”.  Probably well over one 
> hundred countries involved; a few with government support.  
> 
>   And not all biochar is going into the ground; other purposes are being 
> found economical, but still CDR.
> 
>   What CBD message should 

[geo] New US government document focusing on soil carbon

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:

1.  Reminder:The White House produced a climate document, released 
on 5 November, for the recent Marrakech COP22 meeting.  That was announced to 
this list on about that date.  Its title contained the words “Deep 
Decarbonization”.  It can be found at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/mid_century_strategy_report-final.pdf
 
.
  One of its three thrusts (Section 5) was on soil carbon as a CDR measure.   
This was a first such inclusion I believe - and welcomed by some of us, I am 
sure, for strictly climate reasons.  


2.   Yesterday (5 December) the same OSTP group released another series 
of documents - all related to (only) soil carbon.  There are only a few 
scattered references to the climate (CDR/NET) side of increasing soil carbon.  
These are not intended for a climate audience.

a.   There is a 2-page summary at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/05/obama-administration-announces-new-steps-maintain-and-create-healthy-soils
 


 b.   The full 52 page report is at:  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ssiwg_framework_december_2016.pdf
 


 c.   They included an extended list of new and ongoing US soil 
activities, from numerous US Federal agencies:   
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/05/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-new-steps-advance-soil
 


d.Probably of lesser interest is this proof that this was not a 
brand new idea:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/01/call-action-save-one-americas-most-important-natural-resources
 



3.  They are asking for comments here: 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-29187.pdf 

Deadline is 10 January.


4.  I haven’t yet done more than scan the above.  However, I believe it 
important that this Office’s outgoing staff be able to pass on to the next 
Administration comments from Geo list members who see this topic as being 
either a positive or negative part of CDR/NET.   No need I know of that this 
response should only come from Americans.  I will be writing to the next, 
rather than the present, administration myself, with emphasis on combined, 
non-competing benefits of much increased soil carbon.

Ron

-- 
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] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg, Dr. van Hemert, and list

1.   Rather than immediately respond to Greg on this thread’s paper, 
which we learned about a week ago (and which I thank both Mark and another for 
supplying), I want to recommend another document that I believe must have 
influenced Dr. van Hemert - and has now influenced me.  It is the only other 
cite we have from Greg’s comments below - a book with a lot on geoengineering 
by historians Drs. Bonneuil and Fressoz.   “The Shock of the Anthropocene: The 
Earth, History and Us”.   The 2013 French version in French is now available as 
a 2016, 320-page English translation.  It can be purchased at several places, 
mine was $9.99 in e-book form at 
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WCY4ZCG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8=1
 
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WCY4ZCG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8=1>

2.  This is to ask Dr. van Hemert on how this book (and her own 
experiences in France) might have influenced her own piece.   At the 1/3 point 
in the book, I have not yet seen anything like her own (I think quite unique) 
analysis, which is partially summarized this way:

“Scientists may wish whatever they like, but they should present wishes 
as wishes, instead of claiming that in the future some device is going to work 
as they wish.”  

Obviously, those of us (probably mostly technoscientists) working on a 
CDR option need be as cautious as anyone of violating this admonition.  I 
learned a lot more about technoscience at 
http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/philosophie___goto/text_1/Primer_Science-Technoscience.pdf
 
<http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/philosophie___goto/text_1/Primer_Science-Technoscience.pdf>
  .   I hope we can discuss the “technoscience” topic further - but this note 
is mainly to encourage more discussion about the Bonneuil-Fressoz historical 
view of SRM  (and CDR/NET if possible).

3. One more explanation.   I am mostly delaying further comment until I 
can finish the Bonneuil-Fressoz book, with hope of finding something there that 
relates to the CDR/NET side of Geo.  So far nothing.   This lengthy treatise on 
the Anthropocene from a historical (and social science) perspective should be 
as intimately connected to policy decisions on CDR/NET as it clearly (Chapter 
4) is on SRM.

Anyone already having read this book able to add anything of a CDR/NET 
flavor?

Ron


> On Nov 30, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Mark Bateau…



> Then there is this rather opaque conclusion:
> "How much does our knowledge of the Earth protect us against its 
> [human-induced climate?] volatility, apparently [?!] partly provoked by 
> humans speeding up earthly metabolisms? Such musings may put us back on our 
> feet and inspire a politics of anticipation which does away with grandiose 
> wishes and engages in discussing and altering ‘what is happening’, given that 
> we are historically situated, vulnerable but not politically powerless humans 
> (cf. Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2013).” 



> Regards,
> Greg Rau 
> 
> 
> On 11/30/2016 1:03 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Greg: cc list, Andrew (and adding the paper’s author)
> 
>   1.  Note that Elsevier has (below) left a final “t” off of the author’s 
> name



> 
> 
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 12:27 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net 
> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
> 
> The article is paywalled, but I have comments on the available quotes below:
> "Speculative promise contributes to driving climate engineering research.”

> 
>> From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
>> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> 
>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:29 AM
>> Subject: [geo] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering 
>> research
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328716301082 
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328716301082>
>> Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research: The case of 
>> Paul Crutzen’s back-of-the-envelope calculation on solar dimming with 
>> sulfate aerosols
>> Mieke Van Hemer
>> Highlights


-- 
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] interesting data set pertinent to recent papers on soil carbon

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list:

This is to suggest one change in your comments below (my emphasis 
added), where you said: 

 “Guess we’ll be eating less food, especially meat.”   I would reframe that as:

“Guess more food can be available, as we cut back on meat for enteric methane 
release reasons.”

Since too many Americans are over-eating,  I didn’t want to discourage 
eating less food for many of us.  But mainly I want to get in the fact that 
plenty of land for soil carbon sequestration should open up if we tax (or 
otherwise discourage) beef consumption because of beef’s serious enteric 
release problem.  Less meat consumption also opens both grazing land and ag 
land now being used for growing cattle feed.  FAO, the USDA, EPA and many 
others have expressed concern over this strong negative connection between our 
climate, methane, and cattle.  This is NOT a question of feed lots vs. open 
grazing.

There is no reason to be pessimistic about the ability to increase food 
availability as we strive to increase soil carbon..

I of course agree on the possibility of increased soil carbon starting 
off with ocean-based photosynthesis.  But we can get the needed added soil 
carbon from both oceans and land - while improving, not degrading, both (and we 
will have mitigation and adaptation benefits to boot).

Ron

ps:  I am near finished responding to your recent two-part message on 
technoscience - a much more difficult topic than this White House report for 
COP22 [2]



> On Dec 4, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ron. The White House report (3) is enlightening:
> 
> "BOX E1: THE ROLE OF CO2 REMOVAL
> TECHNOLOGIES
> In addition to the land carbon sink, CO2 removal technologies can
> capture atmospheric CO2 and either sequester it permanently in
> geologic formations or convert it for use in products. There are
> many potential methods, including pairing carbon-beneficial
> forms of bioenergy plus carbon capture and storage (BECCS),
> direct air capture, and accelerated rock weathering (Clarke et
> al. 2014). There is currently no large-scale deployment of these
> net carbon-negative technologies, and many questions remain
> regarding their potential costs, adverse side effects, and cobenefits.
> However, most IPCC scenarios rely on CO2 removal
> technologies to stay below 2 °C of warming (IPCC 2014).
> BECCS is the most mature and well-understood CO2 removal
> technology to date, making it a useful representation of CO2
> removal technologies in the MCS analysis; other options may
> ultimately prove to be less expensive or more scalable. Many
> CO2 removal technologies are still nascent and may require
> substantial RD before they would be ready for mass
> deployment. Investments in RD today can help to identify
> key negative emissions opportunities and provide an “insurance
> policy” in the event that emissions reductions are needed more
> rapidly than envisioned or if alternative mitigation strategies
> are difficult to achieve.
> The development of CO2 removal technologies is not a
> justification to continue emitting freely. They represent a suite of
> strategies that complement rather than substitute for emissions
> reductions. Even with extensive RD, we expect to have many
> years of cheaper emissions reduction opportunities to exploit in
> the energy and land sectors before needing to mobilize these
> technologies at scale."
> 
> GR - Good that they acknowledge that BECCS is a "representation" of possible 
> NETs, not necessarily the saviour of the planet.  I'd say the assumption that 
> we will have "many years of cheaper emissions reduction opportunities to 
> exploit in the energy and land sectors before needing to mobilize these 
> [NETs] technologies at scale" is dangerous, wishful thinking, esp in light of 
> the new revelation that soil carbon leakage will be increasing (2).  In this 
> regard the WH report places great emphasis right now on growing forests for 
> negative emissions, replying on increasing forest land by 11% by 2050 at the 
> expense of a reduction in grassland by 18%, all while cropland acreage is 
> unchanged and land for biomass energy production increases to be >1/3 of that 
> for "settlement" (fig E5)  - more wishful thinking. Guess we'll be eating 
> less food, especially meat. And there seems to be no questioning of the 
> security of biomass/forests in the face of increasing fire and pest threat.  
> The authors have such confidence in land based energy sources and C sinks 
> that the ocean, with far larger energy generation and C storage potential, 
> isn't even mentioned, e.g Fig E1. Do we really have the luxury of ignoring 
> 70% of the Earth's surface in addressing a global problem?
> 
> 
> Fr

[geo] interesting data set pertinent to recent papers on soil carbon

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:

I just found and am impressed by historic carbon (especially soil 
carbon) data found on slide #10 at [1].   This site has considerable other good 
climate data.

 Also note the projected further projected loss in another important 
soil carbon paper from this week [2].  

And how this fits in with last week’s announcement on soil carbon by 
the US White House [3, 4, 5].

Anyone have any reason to doubt any of the soil carbon data given at 
any of these three sites?

[1]  http://envisionation.co.uk/biomass/#p=10 

[2]  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html 

[3]  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/mid_century_strategy_report-final.pdf
 

[4]  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/01/call-action-save-one-americas-most-important-natural-resources
 

[5]  
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/climate-change-now-know-us-plan/#comment-32805
 



Ron

-- 
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] New excellent soil carbon degradation paper

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:

I strongly recommend a Nature ”letter” that is officially being 
released tomorrow:  “Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to 
global warming”
to warming
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html 
, 
authored by T.W. Crowther and almost 50 other soil carbon experts.  

 There is a fee at this above site, but a different non-fee site has 
worked twice for me for a preview version:  
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature20150.epdf?referrer_access_token=c_TU5oJTY-QSC_qRsd9wF9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mik0TTmks8PdSiUZYeb2RTXh0fcXCzT3docMWWowBCsKV6juC9Hf2gYdZiGQr-MlvCF_VJiTQhapXle9pFboTnp8Eo98Q7_rIaTDTqsBzgwiyqwoQIA2PpwwMv_9BMYP7Z5cHq48YQ4WCRZ6cwpj7_DCJYUPm2OqqJozP6z4q1w%3D%3D_referrer=www.bbc.com
 


In case the freebie doesn’t work, all the figures and a lot more are in 
52 dense pages of the (probably no-cost) supplemental at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/extref/nature20150-s1.pdf 


I found no CDR/NET reference in the above, but I consider this another 
prime support article for CDR’s biochar;  there is much soil carbon data (and 
model data) from all over the world.   Biochar would seem able at low or no 
cost to reverse their serious projected carbon loss.

Ron

-- 
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] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg: cc list, Andrew (and adding the paper’s author)

1.  Note that Elsevier has (below) left a final “t” off of the author’s 
name

2.  I think I have found a library where I can obtain “Futures” - but I 
have not yet read the full article.  If anyone can send me a copy, I’d much 
appreciate it (and am sure Greg would appreciate one also).  I find no fault in 
any of Greg’s comments - but think there is a lot more here to talk about re: 
“reception of this idea by fellow climate scientists.”

3.  Because I think we hear on this list too little from Social 
Scientists,  I have tried to find more from Dr. van Hemert.  I found this 
pertinent 2011 non-fee paper:  “Engineering the Planet: the issue of 
biodiversity in the framework of climate manipulation and climate governance” 
by Chungli Kwa and Mieke van Hemert(https://quaderni.revues.org/145?lang=en 
).  A good bit there on the Oxford 
Principles - which we haven’t talked about much recently.  This one (only too) 
briefly mentions CDR/NETs.

4.  I hope Dr. van Hemert will join the discussion.  My impression is 
that she has given this topic some deep thought, not found in many Social 
Science places.

Ron


> On Nov 29, 2016, at 12:27 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> The article is paywalled, but I have comments on the available quotes below:
> "Speculative promise contributes to driving climate engineering research."
> 
> GR -  "Speculative promise" is what has driven all human innovation - fire, 
> arrowheads, the wheel, etc.  For that matter, the "speculative promise" of 
> gene mutations seems to have driven evolution. Under the circumstances, is it 
> best to stop speculating about potentially promising solutions to a rather 
> dire planetary problem?
> 
> "Speculation thus continues to be an important driver of the research."
> 
> GR -  Indeed, "speculation" (stating a hypothesis) is an important driver of 
> all scientific research.
> 
> "The future is anticipated by way of idealized calculations and models."
> 
> GR - True.  When it comes to predicting the future, calculations and models 
> are all we've got (unless you are a psychic). Thankfully, science and 
> experimentation allows us to test the veracity of idealized calculations and 
> models (and psychics) to see which (if any) solutions they suggest might be 
> useful and desirable.
> 
> "Calculations and models assume volcanic eruptions can be mimicked by humans."
> 
> GR - Calculations and models predict that artificial aerosols might be useful 
> in countering AGW. We can "assume" that these predictions are or aren't 
> correct, but it would seem safer to find out for sure in the event that the 
> "assumption" that more conventional interventions will save the day doesn't 
> pan out.
> 
> 
> From: Andrew Lockley 
> To: geoengineering  
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:29 AM
> Subject: [geo] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328716301082 
> 
> Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research: The case of 
> Paul Crutzen’s back-of-the-envelope calculation on solar dimming with sulfate 
> aerosols
> Mieke Van Hemer
> Highlights
> •
> Speculative promise contributes to driving climate engineering research.
> •
> The future is anticipated by way of idealized calculations and models.
> •
> Calculations and models assume volcanic eruptions can be mimicked by humans.
> Abstract
> In this paper, I study the generative role of speculative promise in climate 
> engineering research. My analysis operationalizes Alfred Nordmann’s call for 
> a ‘forensics of wishing’, a variety of technology assessment which 
> scrutinizes the politics of anticipation in technoscience. Using scientific 
> articles and reports as primary sources I trace the uptake and contestation 
> of bold claims made by atmospheric scientist Paul Crutzen a decade ago. In 
> 2006, Crutzen called for dedicated research on stratospheric albedo 
> enhancement as a method to cool the planet. A back-of-the-envelope 
> calculation invoking the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano as a case to 
> be mimicked served to illustrate the method. In the paper, I concentrate on 
> the reception of this idea by fellow climate scientists. Besides fundamental 
> objections being made to Crutzen’s climate paradigm, less idealized models 
> appeared to produce much less promising calculations. The initial claims 
> however kept re-appearing as well and continue to exert influence as 
> idealized models take the idea further. Speculation thus continues to be an 
> important driver of the research. In the conclusion, I discuss aspects of the 
> worldview underlying the proposal, drawing on environmental humanities 
> 

Re: [geo] Re: Interdisciplinary collaboration in geoengineering research

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:  cc Robert and Peter

This is mainly to come to Robert’s defense - from the perspective of a 
non-social scientist (active primarily in the biochar side of “Geo”).

Robert and I have had several off-list discussions on biochar (and 
continuing).   I have found them all to be valuable and Robert to be 
knowledgeable.  

I have recently purchased the ebook version of his doctoral thesis - 
and will report later on that topic.  So far favorable.

My main beef with most social scientists working on “Geo” topics is 
their failure to look at biochar at all.  Rather - social scientists 
concentrate on SRM and BECCS (and especially the risks of these.)   The many 
positive non-climate (especially out-year) societal aspects of biochar (which 
are in zero conflict with CDR/NET benefits) deserve attention of social 
scientists - especially because biochar is growing rapidly.  Governance issues 
re credits are there to be discussed; there is no telling how much the absence 
of credits is slowing down biochar today.  Any potential negative consequence 
of the application of biochar seems to be of concern only to the immediate user 
- and many more users are seeing only economic benefits every year.  

What other social scientists besides Holly Buck have looked at biochar 
at all?   This is not to assert that Robert or Holly are biochar boosters - but 
they need more company in the analysis process.  I hope to hear of others.

In sum, the biochar part of Geo deserves the attention of more social 
scientists like Robert, whose interest in biochar (from the perspective he 
repeats below) I have found commendable.

Ron



> On Nov 24, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
> 
> Peter
> 
> Collaboration between the disciplines is clearly not new, and as you point 
> out, there are some good examples of it.  The concern I was trying to convey 
> was simply that time is short for effective action and that that 
> collaboration needs to become the norm.  My sense is that at present, the 
> general run of things is that the scientists and engineers generate ideas 
> that are then subjected to scrutiny by social science.  This serial process 
> simply consumes time we don't have and it would seem to me that a way needs 
> to be found to bring social science into play very much earlier in order to 
> shorten the lead time to action.
> 
> I appreciate that this characterisation of the current position is simplistic 
> and that in reality there will be examples of early collaborations between 
> the disciplines, and that the serial processes are often iterative.  But 
> those examples don't alter the central point that we need to innovate not 
> just in the technology but also in academic and political processes in order 
> to accelerate effective action.
> 
> Robert  
> 
> On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 19:25:41 UTC, peter.healey wrote:
> In seconding my colleague Steve Rayner's support for more collaboration 
> between scientists and social scientists in the sociotechnical assessment of 
> geoengineering approaches, I would not like Robert Chris' comments to be read 
> to imply that such collaboration would be a new thing.  Three parallel UK 
> research council projects - IAGP, SPICE and CGG - with broadly science, 
> engineering and governance perspectives on approaches to geoengineering, 
> closely collaborated between 2011- 2014.   In addition to many individual 
> linkages, of which Jack Stilgoe's contribution to SPICE stands out, we 
> organised a joint workshop to encourage a deeper understanding of each 
> other's work, and jointly disseminated our work at a final conference at the 
> Royal Society in November 2014 (available on YouTube as Geoengineering 
> Research: Where Next? ). The essential nature of the social science 
> contributions (plus those from the humanities and law) to research on 
> geoengineering was widely acknowledged as a general conclusion of these three 
> studies, and was one prompt for the further interdisciplinary approach in the 
> NERC call to which Robert refers.
> 
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Healey
> Research Associate
> Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS)
> University of Oxford
> 64 Banbury Road
> Oxford
> OX2 6PN
> 
> T: (office) +44 (0) 1865 288486
> T: (mobile) +44 (0) 7776 144 789
> E: peter@insis.ox.ac.uk 
> W: http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/ 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 

Re: [geo] Bioengineering CDR

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg:  cc list

1.   Yesterday, you started a new thread, related to an article in 
Science, that appeared a few days ago.  You gave this enigmatic comment at the 
end (the original is below):   “GR - More arrows, lifer preservers and/or 
hazards?” I write in hope of more dialog on two threads,  two articles,  
and the comment you have twice used.

It took me awhile to realize that you were referring to the still 
ongoing “Geo” thread you also initiated (on the 11th) called 
“ [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life 
Preserver, and/or Moral Hazard?"

This earlier thread related to a Science letter, 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/714.1 

in which you were a co-signer, calling for continued emphasis on CDR.  The 
“arrows” and “life preservers” were in the Lackner/your text

The response by Anderson and Peters (at 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/714.2 
) continued to defend 
their original opinion.  A key sentence is:  “We stand by our claim that 
postulating large-scale negative emissions in the future leads to much less 
mitigation today.”  This seems equivalent to saying that NETs are a “moral 
hazard”.   This may be true for some NET/CDR approaches, but I don’t see it 
being true for biochar  (and so hope we can have a discussion/argument on this 
topic).


2.  Subsequently the thread has veered from this above exchange - but I 
think we still need further discussion on the Moral Hazard aspects of CDR/NET.  
Being a proponent of NETS,  I am with your group, but now trying to get 
attention as well on your calling attention today to a totally different 
Science article, "A synthetic pathway for the fixation of carbon dioxide in 
vitro”   (authors Schwander….Erb)  - which is found at 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/900.full 
 .  There is a longer 
and important supplemental at:   
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2016/11/16/354.6314.900.DC1/Schwander.SM.pdf
 


As a biochar supporter, I have tried to understand photosynthesis.  I 
will not try further on this one;  the article is way over my head.   But this 
is not to disparage the article.  It looks like wonderful fundamental science - 
maybe even of Nobel Prize caliber.   Because this is obviously very basic 
science, I doubt that we will see a practical CDR/NET application for a decade 
at least (and hope I am overly pessimistic).  I write mainly to seek help from 
others on what they think this article could mean in a CDR/NET sense.  

I am also hoping we can discuss whether we should consider taking this 
article very seriously to be a moral hazard?  There is no doubt the article is 
potentially both an arrow and a life preserver.  (I emphasize the term 
“potentially”.)   If it is also a moral hazard (which Greg is asking) - how do 
we minimize that problem?

 Greg introduced the topic to this list via a three-part question;   I 
guess Drs.  Anderson and Peters might say  “yes” to all three of his questions. 
 How about others?


3.  Note that this most recent issue of Science has the word “Crops” on 
the cover; there are several other potentially interesting CDR/NET articles 
here.  There is a helpful introduction to the Schwander….Erb article by Drs. 
Gong and Li  found at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/830.full 
.  I have communicated 
to the Science editors an error (via “eletters”) in their second sentence, 
which conflicts with the first sentence of Schwander … Erb.  Most on this list 
will catch the error, but it could hurt in policy circles.

But more importantly, near the end of their explanatory introduction 
Gong-Li say:  ‘Nevertheless, the in vitro demonstration of a functional CETCH 
cycle is a breakthrough, showing that it is possible to use natural elements to 
construct a more efficient synthetic pathway.”

This last “breakthrough” conclusion seems worthy of further discussion 
on this list - perhaps especially if we can also agree that the article should 
not generate controversy over GMO issues.

Ron


> On Nov 19, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113416546/enzyme-carbon-capture-111816/ 
> 
> 
> "By replacing the natural enzyme plants use to convert carbon dioxide into 
> organic compounds such as sugar, a team of biochemists have reportedly found 
> a way to allow plants to remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere far 
> more efficiently, according to a new study.
> 
> In a 

[geo] Re: US Strategic Plan for Deep Decarbonization by 2050

[Ronal W. Larson]

Mike and list ,  cc others (from yesterday on different thread name - which 
related to choosing CDR/NET paths;  I received an automated reply note that Dr. 
 Mengis is on an extended trip - but still hope we might hear from her)

1.  Thanks for the early alert.   Possibly we will hear President Obama 
himself talking about this document in Marrakech within a few days.  I think 
the new White House “SPDD” (Strategic Plan for Deep Decarbonization - my 
acronym;  cite for it given below by Mike) is one of the best written climate 
documents I have ever read.  Imperfect for sure, but still full of plenty of 
useful and much well-presented data new to me. John Holdren must have put 
hundreds of hours on it - along with hundreds of hours from hundreds of other 
Departmental staffers from all over the Administration.  This could not have 
been a hasty affair. 

2.  So far I have only read the 20 page Executive Summary, but have 
skimmed the rest  (especially Chapter 5).  There is plenty of new backup 
material in the concluding 90 pages.  I like the rationale, the writing, the 
figures, and new ideas.  I feel today’s Chris Mooney piece on the SPDD in the 
Post 
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/16/this-is-where-obamas-hugely-ambitious-climate-policies-were-headed-before-trump/?utm_campaign=7adb9d24c5-cb_daily_medium=email_source=Daily%20Carbon%20Briefing_term=.b5ec9c47d311
 
)
 missed the key feature - a new US emphasis on soil carbon; I now view the SPDD 
as mostly precluding, not encouraging, BECCS (and welcome a contrary view).

3.   The layout of the report - and its citation counts seem important. 
 Chapter 5 (covering the new soil emphasis I am emphasizing) has more than half 
the cites.

Chapters 0-3 Exec summary, 1. Intro,  2.  Data,  3.  Vision ;  All four of 
these early chapters (totaling about 35 pp and 60 cites) were probably mostly 
written by the White House.  
Chapter 4.  Decarbonizing; (27 pp,  40 cites);  Seems to be DoE and EPA
Chapter 5.  Soils  (18 pp,130 cites),  seems to be mostly USDA
Chapter 6.  Non-CO2 (5 pp, 12 cites);  EPA?
Chapter 7.  International (5 pp,  7 cites);   White House?  Little State 
Department?

Confession:   I make these attribution assumptions above, from having 
been involved with two major documents almost 4 decades ago as Carter handed 
off to Reagan.  It was not pretty.  A lot of Carter-endorsed RE documents got 
printed in the very last days of his administration - thankfully.  Look for 
more good stuff to appear.

4.  I of course would have wished to have seen the word “biochar” more 
than “BECCS” - whereas “biochar” can barely be seen at all, except in a few 
citation titles.  But that is OK, as this new endorsement of sequestration in 
soils (Chapter 5) has zero relationship to BECCS.  The biochar community 
couldn’t have been happier with the COP21’s late introduction of “4p1000” by 
France - and will welcome the CDR thrust of Chapter 5.   Similarly the third 
main thrust identified by Mike (“sharp cuts in emissions of non-CO2 GHGs”) is a 
major research topic within the biochar community;  BECCS will be exacerbating, 
not solving, that (CH4, N2O) problem (by virtue of needing much more 
fertilizer).  

Biochar also has several advantages over BECCS in the first thrust:  
”move to a low-carbon energy system”.  BECCS only is associated with electrical 
generation, while biochar fits in also with transportation and thermal energy 
uses.  On the energy efficiency front, biochar (working with smaller systems) 
has a potential with total energy (combined heat and power) in the higher 
efficiency game of utilizing waste heat.

5.  I have not yet tried to tie all the White House policy decisions 
behind SPDD into Dr. Oschlies’ paper, but can note that three White House 
principles are on pp38-39. 
"Implement market-based policies that reward outcomes
Act as quickly as possible
Support Americans vulnerable to a low-GHG transition”(Mention here 
of helping coal miners)

My (not the SPDD’s) single sentence summary:   Use the free market 
system - because it is the fastest way to help the vulnerable.  I think Mr. 
Trump could be convinced this fits his agenda.

There are another set of five principles on p 71, and another set of 
six “accounting” principles on p 75 -  both in Chapter 5.  Page 97 also uses 
the term “principles” in introducing the Canadian and Mexican similar papers.
 Are these all captured in Dr. Oschlie’s paper?   The concept of principles 
deserves more discussion on this list.

6.  I send this off as a partial - so others have a chance to read the 
SPDD before it 

Re: [geo] Indicators and Metrics for the Assessment of Climate Engineering

[Ronal W . Larson]

Andrew,  cc list and two more new ccs

   1.  Thanks again for finding and alerting the Geo list to so many pertinent 
papers - and especially this one from yesterday.   I write to thank the authors 
(2 being cc’d) and hope that we can have more dialog on this Geo-Assessment 
topic.  (I like CE replacing Geo, but not on this list, until the list changes 
its name)

   2.  Dr.  Oschlies’ inclusion as first author is obvious,  but I add Dr. 
Mengis based on her thesis title:  
Mengis, N.,  (2016), Towards a comprehensive, comparative assessment of 
climate engineering schemes, metrics, indicators and uncertainties. PhD thesis, 
 Kiel University, 151pp.   
- which I have requested.  

   3.  The paper asks for other thoughts on assessing (ranking) Geo topics - so 
here are a few from a biochar (unmentioned in this paper, but identified in one 
cite) perspective, that go beyond the standard ones involving costs, risks, 
etc. (which they cover well).  I don’t believe these three proposed criteria 
are now in the below cited paper.

a.   GEO (in my case, CDR) technologies that support non-climate global 
priorities should somehow receive extra credit.  I am thinking of the new 
17-part framework found at  
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld 
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworl=>
 .  Obviously food (and quite a few other of the 17) fits for biochar (and 
receive minimum credit in the well-known CDR comparisons).

b.   Technologies that are experiencing growth (in installations, 
papers, conference attention, etc) rather than stagnation should receive higher 
rankings.  (Also fail to see this [commercialization status] cited)

c.   Technologies that have out-year, as well as first-year climate 
benefits (are investments rather than expenses) deserve higher credit.  (Nor 
this one - stopping the analysis of biochar when it is put in the ground misses 
half the excitement.)


  4.  I also found one sentence in the paper about afforestation that needs 
discussion from a CDR perspective.  It reads:  “Would the accounting of carbon 
sequestered via afforestation be viewed differently when radiative forcing of 
afforestation was found to lead to a net warming?"

My answer is “yes” (to “differently”, not necessarily negatively) as 
this is a valid question, based on reduced albedo for forests over pastures.  
But it is complicated by land use changes and biogeophysical effects - 
especially for all of the bio type of CDR options.  This topic is covered many 
places - such as in these five articles (the last two on biochar - which say no 
warming [that biochar is different from afforestation]):

a.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114014 
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114014%22>
b.  
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18069/JoC2014.pdf?sequence3D1
 
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18069/J=>

c.   http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/3687/2011/bg-8-3687-2011.pdf 
http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/3687/2011/bg-8-3687-2011.pdf%22>

d.  (Albedo Impact on the Suitability of Biochar Systems To Mitigate 
Global Warming”   
(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es302302g 
)  
 (with fee), or for some, this is no-fee
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno_Glaser2/publication/233403518_Albedo_Impact_on_the_Suitability_of_Biochar_Systems_To_Mitigate_Global_Warming/links/55dc9f8f08aed6a199adfe9d.pdf
 


e.  Mimicking biochar-albedo feedback in complex Mediterranean 
agricultural landscapes
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084014 
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084014%22>
I recognize that the authors clearly asked a question about afforestation - not 
the bio branch of CDR,  but some may inappropriately make an inaccurate 
connection.  So, if anyone feels that biochar fails on this score, I hope we 
can have some discussion on the albedo topic.  Afforestation differs in 
providing neither energy nor long-lived, out-year increased CDR services.

Ron


On Nov 15, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Andrew Lockley =  wrote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
Indicators and Metrics for the Assessment of Climate Engineering 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
A. Oschlies, et al
14 November 2016
DOI:10.1002/2016EF000449 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
Selecting = appropriate indicators is essential to aggregate the information 
provided 

Re: [geo] Report of Negative Emissions seminar

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg and list:

Again I agree mostly with all you have below.   But I suggest a few 
more additions for this list to ponder:

1.   You provide below the middle two of four summary statements.  The first 
reads:

-   “Urgent need to reduce emissions. To limit warming to below 
1.5° or 2°C temperature rise we must stay within tight carbon budgets. There is 
roughly 200 GtCO2 left in the carbon budget for 1.5°C, meaning this is the 
maximum amount we can emit to the atmosphere and stay below a temperature rise 
of 1.5°C. For 2°C the remaining carbon budget is approx. 800 GtCO2. This means 
GHG emissions must be reduced to zero as fast as possible. Even a reduction of 
ten per cent of GHG emissions per year in energy sectors in developed countries 
would give us only a 33 per cent chance to stay below 2 degrees. This scale of 
ambition is not foreseen in any published mitigation scenarios, and highlights 
the EU target of 40 per cent emission reduction by 2030 as grossly inadequate. 
NGOs must re-assess what they are calling for in terms of emission reduction 
targets that could realistically achieve the 1.5° to 2°C limits.”

[RWL:  This strikes me as a strong rationale for the CDR/NET activities 
they otherwise disparage.  In other words, they are making no sense in the 
remainder of their piece.   
In particular, biochar and a few others are clearly mitigation, as they 
are carbon negative (more than arguably carbon neutral) energy providers.

2.  The fourth and final summary statement says:

-   “Redefine ‘negative emissions’. The term negative emissions is 
unclear and misleading, making it hard to distinguish between carbon removals 
from the atmosphere that restore land carbon stocks (such as ecosystem 
restoration) and geo-engineering technologies that remove carbon from the 
atmosphere and sequester it geologically, such as BECCs, enhanced weathering, 
direct air capture etc. The Paris Agreement refers to ‘removals by sinks’, 
which could be interpreted as sequestration and storage of carbon in plants, 
trees and soils, rather than geoengineering technologies, such as BECCS, which 
rely on geological storage.”

[RWL:  This failure to include biochar here (anywhere in their piece) 
is unfathomable.  I m sure that a majority of the five panelists knows the word 
“biochar”, which belies everything in this final summary paragraph.  Why (in 
the final sentence) they think that biochar (and other soil-oriented “NETs” 
should not be considered as “Geo” is beyond me.  On the other hand, I should 
probably be glad they didn’t use the term; no telling what they would have 
said.  I hope any of them reading this will explain their failure to talk about 
“biochar” - which I believe is both the largest and fastest-growing CDR/NeT 
approach today.

a few more inserts below.



> On Nov 14, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Report bullet points:
> "Urgent need to increase carbon sequestration in land and forests. With only 
> 200
> GtCO2 left until the global carbon budget for 1.5°C is blown, it is highly 
> likely that there
> will be a need to increase removals of CO2 from the atmosphere to limit 
> warming
> to 1.5°C or even 2°C. This could be done through halting deforestation and 
> forest
> degradation, restoring degraded forests, and reforesting previously 
> deforested land.
> These actions would go some way to restoring historically depleted land 
> carbon stocks."
> 
> GR Why isn't there also an urgent need to increase marine carbon 
> sequestration, which = 70% of the Earth's surface, half the annual C cycle, 
> and the vast majority of C stored on the Earth surface. Ocean C = 16 X land 
> biomass + soil C!? How do we manage atmospheric C by ignoring the ocean? 
[RWL:  And the five experts apparently also fail to understand that 
biomass produced in the ocean can be sequestered on land - which they are 
focussed on.
> 
> "Forests and land do not offset fossil fuel emissions. Plants, trees and 
> soils remove
> CO2 from the atmosphere, but this does not offset the release of CO2 when 
> fossil fuels
> are burnt. Increasing carbon sequestration in plants, trees and soils repays 
> the land
> carbon debt accumulated from historical land use change, but does not 
> compensate
> on-going emissions. To mitigate climate change we must reduce emissions from 
> the
> fossil fuel and the land sector, not offset one against the other."
> 
> GR - Forests and land do offset about 1/4 - 1/3 of fossil fuel emissions, as 
> does the ocean. Great if we can repay the land C debt (how big relative to 
> excess CO2?)
[RWL:  My answer, hoping that others will also respond, is that the 
“land C debt” is larger “relative to excess CO2”  (and ocean biomass can be a 
big part of the repayment)
> AND satisfy growing land based food, fiber and fuel production. Feasibility?
[RWL:   Absolutely.
> Otherwise how/why can 

Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

[Ronal W . Larson]

Fred and list, cc Mark

Thanks for the reply.  See few inserts below.

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Ronal -
> 
> I like the idea of starting with the food sector. For one thing, most people 
> have some opinion about climate change, whereas few people outside enviro 
> circles have (IMO) any settled ideas (or any ideas at all) about the possible 
> role of biological CDR. So it’s terra incognito, or terra preta, if you will. 
[RWL1:  And mostly it seems that folks only associate BECCS with your 
term “biological CDR”.   You are correct that “preta” equates to “incognito”.  
BECCS (“cognito”) has nothing to offer on the food side of this thread.

> Also, it fits with psychology that is already primed -- America as the 
> breadbasket to the world is on the same key as Make America Great Again. And 
> finally (and this addresses Mark's point about state legislators) -- policy 
> attitudes will follow the money. If biological CDR proves effective and 
> profitable, it will become popular with states.
[RWL2:   Agreed with all.  The most positive biochar paper I know of is 
non-fee at http://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/3/723 
<http://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/3/723> related to pumpkins and Nepal.   It 
doesn’t talk about it, but CDR is much more there than if there was no added 
food available (in this case, the main Swiss author, with Norwegian funding, 
found 4x).  Not typical, but not far off the present experience in the Amazon 
with the above mentioned “terra preta”.

I of course agree there is potential for states (look to the three blue 
west coast states) - but also countries.  The on-going COP22 process with INDCs 
(Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) needs boosting.  I haven’t yet 
found an official one, but a supportive back-ground INDC paper from Viet Nam is 
at 
http://www.noccop.org.vn/Data/profile/Airvariable_Projects_115693Technical%20report%20INDC.pdf
 
<http://www.noccop.org.vn/Data/profile/Airvariable_Projects_115693Technical%20report%20INDC.pdf>
 .  An American biochar friend with a long history in Viet Nam says this paper 
is “dreadful”.  I found it helpful for our present purpose.  Anyone have 
another INDC example of any form of CDR?  Horribly, the final INDC paper from 
Viet Nam doesn’t even contain the word “biochar”.


> A practical thing that might be within the grasp of members of this list is 
> to try to arrange trade delegation trips focused on biological CDR.
[RWL:  I am in accord, but don’t bet that the most biochar knowledge 
exists in the US.  Could be more now in China.

> 
> Don’t want to go too far astray from the science of geoengineering here, but 
> we do have to think about these aspects, too.
[RWL:  Agreed - and that is why the report from Dr. Barteau with a new 
UM Center focusing on this topic is so important at this post-election time.  
We in the CDR community have not been doing the education that is needed on CDR 
and politics.

Ron

ps  Surprising perhaps that the three of us talking on this topic all have a 
connection to Ann Arbor.

> 
> Fred
> ᐧ
> 
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> Fred et al:
> 
>   I like all your points.  The Forbes article (cite below)  by Joel 
> Kotkin should be helpful to this list as we attempt to keep the climate topic 
> alive.  Here is what Kotkin had to say on climate (under the heading “The 
> Green Trap”  (with two inserts):
> 
>   Clinton’s support for climate change legislation, a lower priority 
> among the electorate than other concerns 
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3876534/Americans-scared-clowns-Obamacare-climate-change-new-polls-show.html>,
>  was seen as necessary to shore up support from greens threatening to attack 
> her 
> <https://www.thenation.com/article/the-climate-movement-has-to-elect-hillary-clinton-and-then-give-her-hell/>
>  from the left. Yet the issue never caught on the heartland, which tends to 
> see climate change mitigation as injurious to them.
>   [RWL:  And we on this list probably mostly or completely believe the 
> opposite - that mitigation is way overdue.  How do we turn this “ heartland” 
> opinion around?  We on this list are partially responsible for this failure 
> of most of his supporters to believe climate change is serious.  It seems 
> likely to me that Trump himself already knows climate change is real, 
> anthropogenic and serious.
> 
>   Skip 6 sentences on manufacturing - which relate to regulation and 
> global trade.  Carbon taxes fit in here.
> 
> 
> ‘Agricultural states, reeling from the decline of commodity prices, not 
> surprisingly, also we

Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

[Ronal W. Larson]

Fred et al:

I like all your points.  The Forbes article (cite below)  by Joel 
Kotkin should be helpful to this list as we attempt to keep the climate topic 
alive.  Here is what Kotkin had to say on climate (under the heading “The Green 
Trap”  (with two inserts):

Clinton’s support for climate change legislation, a lower priority 
among the electorate than other concerns 
,
 was seen as necessary to shore up support from greens threatening to attack 
her 

 from the left. Yet the issue never caught on the heartland, which tends to see 
climate change mitigation as injurious to them.
[RWL:  And we on this list probably mostly or completely believe the 
opposite - that mitigation is way overdue.  How do we turn this “ heartland” 
opinion around?  We on this list are partially responsible for this failure of 
most of his supporters to believe climate change is serious.  It seems likely 
to me that Trump himself already knows climate change is real, anthropogenic 
and serious.

Skip 6 sentences on manufacturing - which relate to regulation and 
global trade.  Carbon taxes fit in here.

‘Agricultural states, reeling from the decline of commodity prices, not 
surprisingly, also went for the New Yorker."
[RWL:Food prices are amazingly low.  Convincing Trump that 
encouraging use of farm land for energy and CDR as a second competing market 
for food should help all farmers and ag states - as well as the climate.

There are probably other “geo” examples in the disaggregated analysis 
that Fred recommends.

Ron


> On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:36 PM, Fred Zimmerman  wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting article that breaks down the state by state results by 
> industry sector in a way that suggests a more granular rethink of climate 
> change policy is needed than I think your article suggests.  Not being 
> negative, just suggesting that success might require rebuilding climate 
> change coalition state by state getting states to buy in bottom up than from 
> national level top down with states seen more as blockers.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#7d88d72f79a8
>  
> 
> ᐧ
> 
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:59 PM, barteau  > wrote:
> I have just published the piece at the link below.
> Mark Barteau
> 
> http://theconversation.com/what-president-trump-means-for-the-future-of-energy-and-climate-68045
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and List

This is partially to support your comment and especially to urge more 
dialogue along these lines.   

I say “partially” because much of US energy policy is state directed.  
Mr. Trump received less than 1 out of 3 votes in your home state of California. 
 I guess that California will now speed up, not slow down, its transition to 
RE.  At a GDP of more than $2.5 trillion (6th largest in the world), California 
can support a lot of  CDR activities (and already is supporting biochar).
 
 My state, Colorado, has fewer resources, and we have a split 
legislature, but we also have a state RE history and (now) activist 
responsibility.  The city of Denver is active in these areas - and neither this 
city nor state has been assuming much Federal help.  But (to repeat) my hope is 
for California and your two northern state neighbors.  Thank goodness for their 
progressive histories.

see bit more below


> On Nov 9, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/trump-win-raises-questions-about-un-climate-deal/2016/11/09/85a38028-a686-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html
>  
> 
> 
> Quoting the article:
> "Trump pledged in May to “cancel” the Paris deal.
> 
> He has called for stripping regulations to allow unfettered production of 
> fossil fuels — a key source of emissions — and rescinding the Clean Power 
> Plan, an Obama administration strategy to fight climate change.
> 
> In May, Trump told an oil and gas conference in North Dakota he would “save 
> the coal industry” and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to global 
> warming programs.
> 
> “Trump will try and slam the brakes on climate action, which means we need to 
> throw all of our weight on the accelerator,” said May Boeve, leader of the 
> 350.org environmental group.
> 
> The pro-fossil fuels American Energy Alliance said Trump’s victory presents a 
> chance to reset “harmful energy policies” in the U.S.
> 
> “He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and 
> workers first,” said the group’s president, Thomas Pyle."
> 
> GR -  I think it’s safe to say that while US emissions have been declining, 
> those days appear to be over. [RWL:  doesn’t have to be - if we can keep 
> proving at a state level that RE is now the least cost option.]  We’re now 
> putting “the needs of American families and workers first”, and future 
> generations and the rest of the planet can fend for themselves.  [RWL:  I am 
> arguing that we have not yet fallen that low - and I guess you don’t believe 
> it either - despite an appalling election result.]   While leadership in 
> reducing global emissions will once again not be coming from the US, we can 
> hope that other countries will quickly and (more) effectively fill the 
> vacuum. [RWL:  agreed.]   Meantime, with emissions reduction having been 
> dealt another major setback, now is the time to seriously solicit and 
> scientifically evaluate alternative GHG/climate management methods in the 
> hope that the planet might have acceptable options beyond inadequate or 
> non-existent emissions reduction.  [RWL:   I whole-heartedly agree with the 
> first part of this last sentence.  But, I am arguing we can have both - as RE 
> has already turned the corner.  Both wind and solar are already now least 
> cost options.]  In some cases, CDR can also be least cost.

Ron
> 
> -- 
> 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] Trump, Energy and Climate

[Ronal W . Larson]

Mark, cc List

Thanks,  Mark,  for starting this thread.  Your short early response article is 
important - as most of us want to continue one or both types of “Geo”.

Three questions:

a.   You said:  “…we may see some moderation, especially on matters 
where the divisions do not rigidly follow ideological fault lines.”
[RWL:  I see both BECCS and biochar in this “not …ideological” category 
- in as much as the Trump victory mostly came from rural and farming regions of 
the country - not urban.   Any special political insights we can exploit?  I 
should add that biochar is making headway for farm economic reasons much more 
than climate reasons.  Billions spent on CCS - but minuscule amounts on biochar 
research ( I think none ever in a budget line item).

b.  You said:   “Development of “Clean Coal” technology, even if it 
does not include sequestering carbon underground, would require more, not less, 
emissions control for power plant operators.”
[RWL:  I view clean coal as always involving underground sequestration. 
 What are you thinking of re the emphasized portion above?

c.  Lastly, you said:  “The bottom line is that, even if President 
Trump figures out what he wants to do about renewable energy, his plan will be 
every bit as contentious as anything that President Obama has done.”
[RWL:   This is good news.  I see biomass in general as in this 
category (you’ve mentioned Senator Grassley).  Can you expand on anything you 
have seen in your position at Michigan (my alma mater) that we can exploit 
today?  Especially re biochar which, to repeat, is not progressing for either 
climate or energy reasons (although valuable for both).

I hope other will seek your guidance as well for their favorite SRM or 
CDR approach.  It would seem to be a big mistake for us to now clam up.

Ron



> On Nov 9, 2016, at 12:59 PM, barteau  wrote:
> 
> I have just published the piece at the link below.
> Mark Barteau
> 
> http://theconversation.com/what-president-trump-means-for-the-future-of-energy-and-climate-68045
> 
> -- 
> 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] Soil C Sink Under Siege

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list, cc two authors   

1.  This is a non-fee paper that can be downloaded at 
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35798 
.  

2.  I have only skimmed the paper (and the supplemental), as a word 
search found none of the words used on this list  (geoengineering,  CDR,  NET, 
biochar, etc).  

3.  The modeling looks well done.  I hope the authors (cc’ing the first 
two, the only ones mentioned in the Exeter publicity piece) will return with a 
study that includes all those CDR approaches that concentrate on soil organic 
carbon.

Ron


> On Nov 6, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_550882_en.html 
> 
> 
> "Experts have forecast that a quarter of the carbon found in soil in France 
> could be lost to the atmosphere during the next 100 years. This could lead to 
> soil becoming a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. At present 
> soil is considered to absorb carbon dioxide and this partially counters the 
> impact of man-made climate change.
> The pace and nature of predicted changes in climate over the next century 
> will make the soil less able to store carbon, while business-as-usual land 
> use change has limited capacity to counteract this trend, experts from the 
> University of Exeter, INRA and CERFACS in France and University of Leuven in 
> Belgium say in the journal Scientific Reports."
> 
> -- 
> 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] Oceans, CO2 and glacials

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg,  cc List

Wanting biochar to receive a similar “ocean” plug, I unsuccessfully 
tried to understand this paper..   

The full (non-fee) paper is at 
http://orca.cf.ac.uk/95508/1/Geology-2016-Lear-G38636.1.pdf 
)  (as well as the 
supplemental).

There is this caption for figure 4 (lines 272-4) in the supplemental 
(emphasis added):  “Predicted  δ13Ccalculated  assumingthe  
   record  is  controlled solely   by  biological effects, 
based   on  (A) the Cd/Ca   record  and (B) the B/Ca
record, comparedwiththe corrected   δ13Crecord  (Site   
607 δ13Cminus   Pacific Site849 δ13C).”

This topic is way out of my background areas of study and I don’t 
presently have the time to understand the cited papers of Broeker, Archer and 
others.  It remains unclear to me how more benthic carbon in the interglacial 
relates to explaining differences between 40,000 and 100,000 year cycles.  The 
results seem to show maximum ocean carbon deposition when atmospheric carbon is 
low, not high. So I hope someone can confirm there is a potential relation in 
this paper to modern CDR of any type.  

I still concur with Greg’s main continuing point -  there is an 
unappreciated oceanic CDR potential.

Ron

Ron



> On Oct 31, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026081537.htm 
> 
> 
> 
> "New research published today in the journal Geology has suggested the oceans 
> may be responsible for this [glacial/interglacial] change, specifically in 
> the way that they suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere.
> By studying the chemical make-up of tiny fossils on the ocean floor, the team 
> discovered that there was more CO2 stored in the deep ocean during the ice 
> age periods at regular intervals every 100,000 years.
> This suggests that extra carbon dioxide was being pulled from the atmosphere 
> and into the oceans at this time, subsequently lowering the temperature on 
> Earth and enabling vast ice sheets to engulf the Northern Hemisphere."
> 
> GR - Hmmm…. any chance we could minutely tweak  this process to help solve 
> our current CO2/hyper-interglacial problem?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] The trouble with negative emissions

[Ronal W. Larson]

Peter and ccs

1.  Thanks for the added input.  Please send me whatever you can along 
these lines.

2.  But it appears that Erin/you did not analyze either BECCS or 
biochar/BEBCS - so I hope she you can comment on the WLL paper, which does.  I 
agree that important differences may occur as one adds liquid biofuels into the 
mix.  A few biochar companies are doing fuels, but the majority are either 
still thinking electricity, thermal or no energy recovery.

3.  I did have a chance yesterday to talk about this with Prof. 
Lehmann.  He concurred that they had not included all the positive benefits 
that may occur after pacing the biochar in the soil.  I  personally believe 
this will push biochar/BEBCS to the top position at all carbon prices.
The WLL paper was much more directed at a cost analysis than a carbon 
analysis - the topic of this list.  I believe the difference in carbon terms 
will be large - based on what happens in out years.  And this seems to happen 
fast - microbe and fungi responses are fast.

Ron


> On Oct 22, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Peter Flynn <peter.fl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> 
> If one views biomass as the resource, it raises the question, what is the 
> best end use of that resource? Seven years back a graduate student (Erin 
> Searcy, now in the US DOE Biomass program, at Idaho National Laboratory) and 
> I looked at corn stover / cereal straw as the resource, and evaluated two end 
> uses (power and transportation fuel (ethanol or diesel), via four processes: 
> power from direct combustion, power from air gasification and combined cycle 
> (BIGCC), ethanol from fermentation, and diesel from oxygen gasification and 
> Fischer Tropsch.
>  
> In essence: if you owned the biomass resource, what would you do with it? If 
> carbon had a fixed price, what process would give you the highest return? If 
> one were in an auction situation (what carbon price do I need to compete), 
> which process would have the lowest bid?
>  
> We developed our economic analysis at different scales for each process, 
> reflecting that the optimum size of a biomass project depends on a tradeoff 
> between transportation cost and capital efficiency (economy of scale), and 
> more capital intense processes such as FT have an optimum size that is 
> larger. To put this another way, the capital savings per unit output from a 
> larger scale process are higher for a process with a higher capital cost, and 
> justify a longer transportation distance for biomass.
>  
> The criteria we used for rating the processes was the minimum subsidy per 
> unit of avoided CO2 equivalent to enable the output achieve a given power or 
> fuel pricing.
>  
> Direct combustion of biomass was more economical (required a lower carbon 
> subsidy) than BIGCC: the higher cost of BIGCC didn’t justify its higher 
> efficiency of power production per unit of biomass. Fermentation of cellulose 
> was more economic than oxygen gasification and Fischer Tropsch.
>  
> Since the two end uses (transportation fuel vs. electrical power) are 
> different, one needed a “map” to identify where power would be the preferred 
> product relative to ethanol. (One can imagine that in a lower power cost 
> environment, ethanol would be the preferred product, and vice versa.) We 
> developed such a map.
>  
> The work is based on very preliminary cost estimates, and much has been 
> learned in the last seven years about the cost of ethanol production from 
> cellulose. Hence it is not the specific numbers we thought would endure, but 
> rather the concept of how to approach “what is the best use of this resource”.
>  
> The paper is attached.
>  
> Peter
>  
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca <mailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca>
> cell: 928 451 4455
>  
>  
>  
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 4:00 PM
> To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>
> Cc: olivermor...@economist.com <mailto:olivermor...@economist.com>; 
> Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; Michael Hayes 
> <voglerl...@gmail.com <mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>>; Johannes Lehmann 
> <cl...@cornell.edu <mailto:cl...@cornell.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions
>  
> Greg, Oliver, Michael and list (adding Johannes Lehmann

Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg, Oliver, Michael and list (adding Johannes Lehmann)

I am attending the third Asia Pacific Biochar Conference (APBC) in 
Chunchon, South Korea - and so can’t get into this discussion fully.  But I 
believe this list will find that a very important (non-fee, Nature 
Communications) paper was released today  (Oct. 21st).  Authors Woolf, Lehmann, 
and Lee (WLL);  topic  - an economic comparison of biomass use for energy, 
BECCS and Biochar (here called BEBCS).  Found at:  
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13160 
 .

The three use-options are each found to be found optimum in different 
carbon cost regimes. The WLL analyses cover many of the points being made below.

Professor Lehmann is at this conference, so I will check further 
shortly, but I think they may have left out an important factor (they have a 
huge number already) that will benefit only biochar/BEBCS.  

More coming soon.

Ron


> On Oct 20, 2016, at 10:55 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Further musings:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/13/were-placing-far-too-much-hope-in-pulling-carbon-dioxide-out-of-the-air-scientists-warn/?utm_term=.1c798d78a14e#comments
>  
> 
> 
> Quoting - "In a new opinion paper, published Thursday in the journal Science, 
> climate experts Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and Glen 
> Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research 
> have argued that relying on the uncertain concept of negative emissions as a 
> fix could lock the world into a severe climate-change pathway.
> 
> “[If] we behave today like we’ve got these get-out-of-jail cards in the 
> future, and then in 20 years we discover we don’t have this technology, then 
> you’re already locked into a higher temperature level,” Peters said. In a new 
> opinion paper, published Thursday in the journal Science, climate experts 
> Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and Glen Peters of the Center 
> for International Climate and Environmental Research have argued that relying 
> on the uncertain concept of negative emissions as a fix could lock the world 
> into a severe climate-change pathway."
> 
> GR - Well, at this late date we may have zero get out of jail cards. If we 
> are not going to or are unable to adequately play the emissions reduction 
> card then how about investigating additional possibilities? As for 
> IPCC-assumed savior BECCS, Dan Kamen states  in the article that it is 
> “nowhere near ready to be considered a component of a viable carbon reduction 
> strategy.”  Fortunately, neither is BECCS the only negative emissions 
> strategy out there, e.g.,:
>  https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Session/15506 
> 
> nor is it obvious why we need to focus exclusively on land-based , 
> biology-based and/or CCS-based systems:
> http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-5784-4_54#page-1
>  
> 
> 
> And more ideas are likely to emerge if encouraged (by policy) to do so.That 
> won't happen if we are instead told to circle the wagons, trust that 
> sufficient emissions reduction will happen in time, and to demonize any 
> thoughts to the contrary.
> 
> In the words of Albert Einstein, “Problems cannot be solved at the same level 
> of awareness that created them.” Given our rather dire circumstances, isn't 
> it time to encourage rather than discourage thinking that does beyond 
> emissions reduction, in the hope that something else might prove useful if 
> not essential? By analogy, while we can plan a global transportation system 
> based on horse and buggy technology, might it also be useful to encourage 
> exploring alternative methods, just in case something better emerges (even 
> considering that human flight is impossible (Lord Kelvin 1895, and many 
> others), and considering the hazard posed to buggy manufacturers)?  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Oliver Morton 
> To: geoengineering  
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions
> 
> Michael 
> 
> You ask: "How can producing enough biofuel to displace FFs to a large 
> degree, or adjusting the pH of wide areas of the oceans, or moving vast 
> amounts of sustainable marine carbon into the terrestrial space via 'Blue 
> Biochar', or producing protein at the most efficient level, or producing 
> globally significant amounts of freshwater (etc.) [be] a moral hazard?
> 
> If you talk about it well enough to allow people, who may be otherwise 

Re: [geo] Engineered Dependency: The Threat of Forced Choice through Plutocratic Influence in Geoengineereing and Climate Change

[Ronal W. Larson]

List, cc Andrew

Too bad that the full van Gool paper is not available.   I look forward 
to Andrew’s “no-governance” paper.  

I write hoping we can have some discussion on the “necessarily” part of 
this phrase from below: 
 “Large-scale implementation of such techniques would necessarily require 
centralized coordination….”
Biochar is by no means “large scale” yet but it is growing rapidly and, it 
appears, totally without “centralized coordination.”  

A no-fee paper on Gewirth is at:  
http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_5/montana_june2009.pdf 
.  And a doctoral 
thesis by the same author.

I see very little interest by “wealthy individuals” so far in biochar, 
so gather that Mr/Ms van Gool would find that preferable; I believe the biochar 
community would welcome more interest by the wealthy (and governments).

Ron


> On Sep 26, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note : in contrast to the arguments presented here, I'm currently 
> working on a paper discussing no-governance models of geoengineering control 
> http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/338853 
> 
> Engineered Dependency: The Threat of Forced Choice through Plutocratic 
> Influence in Geoengineereing and Climate Change
> 
> Gool, V.J. van (2016) Faculty of Humanities Theses
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Anthropogenic climate change is likely to have dire consequences for our 
> environment. As UNFCCC intentions to limit the increase of the global mean 
> temperature to 2°C become increasingly improbable through the mitigation of 
> greenhouse gas emissions alone, geoengineering techniques are gaining in 
> attention. Large-scale implementation of such techniques would necessarily 
> require centralised coordination, thereby risking top-down control over means 
> that affect the environment as a whole. In the absence of clearly defined 
> structures of regulation, the current, largely void, governance of 
> geoengineering could well compound the dependency of individuals unable to 
> exert influence over geoengineering. Alongside other players, wealthy 
> individuals who finance the research and development of various 
> geoengineering technologies, procure an ability to influence the 
> commissioning of these, as well as the discussion surrounding climate change. 
> While their influence over such matters is of a relatively arbitrary nature, 
> it creates a very real dependency for others that, even when the possibility 
> for exercising influence is not acted upon, can curtail the freedom of others 
> to control their behaviours through unforced choice. Combining a republican 
> concern for the possibility of domination with the Gewirthian notion of 
> agency, basic conditions for agency can be found imperil by geoengineering. 
> Therefore, cause is found for individuals to object to it in its current form.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century

[Ronal W. Larson]

List, cc Andrew

I would like to advance an opposite view - that this article is giving 
soil CDR (through biochar) a boost.   Biochar is not the only form of “soil 
CDR”, but it is the only one with claims to recalcitrance (older soil carbon).  
My guess is that of the 157 sites which the authors looked at with age 
distributions, a high percentage of those with older carbon were so blessed 
because of wildfires and charcoal.  

The paper itself seems (to a non-expert) well done - but I found the 
supplemental even more interesting.  I was surprised especially that the CESM 
model (C for Community - the first of five) shows such a small amount of 
existing soil carbon (at least in the main soil carbon category being analyzed) 
- much less than the other four.   I have been in contact with the developers 
of the CESM model - but not yet convinced them of the difference in biochar 
from other means of accomplishing the French goal from COP21:  “4p1000”.   The 
supplemental (probably free) is at: 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2016/09/21/353.6306.1416.DC1 


There are a wonderful set of papers given in the cites.  The one that 
looked most pertinent to this article was supposed (via Google Scholar) to be 
at this site - but wasn’t:  http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pw7g2r2#page-1 
.   It leads instead to a 
non-fee paper with this title: Explicitly representing soil microbial processes 
in Earth system models” .  That is pertinent, but is anyone able to get the 
desired paper in non-fee form?

The Science paper (and all the cites I investigated) ignored biochar.  
It would be most interesting to have these ESM (= Earth System Models) authors 
investigate biochar in a similar age-of-carbon manner.  Starting with the age, 
composition, and high NPP of the Amazon’s extensive Terra Preta soils should be 
worthwhile in answering questions about the validity of biochar as a soil-CDR 
approach.

Ron



> On Sep 22, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note : appears to imply that rather more care needs to be taken with 
> soil, and that soil CDR will be significantly more challenging than is 
> sometimes argued.
> 
> http://science.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aad4273 
> 
> Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st 
> century
> 
> Yujie He1,*, Susan E. Trumbore2, Margaret S. Torn3,Jennifer W. Harden4,5, 
> Lydia J. S. Vaughn3, Steven D. Allison1,6, James T. Randerson1
> 
> Email: yujie...@uci.edu 
> Science  23 Sep 2016:
> Vol. 353, Issue 6306, pp. 1419-1424
> DOI: 10.1126/science.aad4273
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Soil is the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir and may influence the sign 
> and magnitude of carbon cycle–climate feedbacks. Many Earth system models 
> (ESMs) estimate a significant soil carbon sink by 2100, yet the underlying 
> carbon dynamics determining this response have not been systematically tested 
> against observations. We used14C data from 157 globally distributed soil 
> profiles sampled to 1-meter depth to show that ESMs underestimated the mean 
> age of soil carbon by a factor of more than six (430 ± 50 years versus 3100 ± 
> 1800 years). Consequently, ESMs overestimated the carbon sequestration 
> potential of soils by a factor of nearly two (40 ± 27%). These 
> inconsistencies suggest that ESMs must better represent carbon stabilization 
> processes and the turnover time of slow and passive reservoirs when 
> simulating future atmospheric carbon dioxide dynamics
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Jonathan, cc List

On this list, we have pretty much stayed away from CCS - not considered 
to be part of geoengineering - or what Andrew wrote about.  Can you expand on 
your own research to the “Geo” area - perhaps specifically to BECCS?  I’m 
particularly interested in who is lying about CDR?

Ron



> On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Jonathan Marshall <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> 
> wrote:
> 
> For what it is worth I've just had a paper published on CCS in Australia 
> which pretty much agrees with Andrew's argument.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750 
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750>​
> 
> It  basically seemed to allow various governments and the coal industry to 
> defend the status quo. 
> 
> This does not mean that it is its only function at all times, or that it is 
> inherently impossible, but in Australia it has not been of any practical use 
> in fighting greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> jon
> 
> 
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Ronal W. Larson 
> <rongretlar...@comcast.net <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 8:45 AM
> To: Andrew Lockley
> Cc: Coffman, D'Maris; Geoengineering; Michael Hayes
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in 
> geoengineering
>  
> Andrew, list and ccs
> 
> OK - I see where you are coming from.  I agree that the Paris Agreement did 
> not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere 
> as aggressive as is deserved.   But I can’t agree that too much reliance on 
> CDR, and especially biochar, was the cause of the failure to set a goal of 
> 1.5 degrees vs 2 degrees. Rather, I feel the Paris Agreement paid too little 
> attention, not too much, to CDR.  The French 4p1000 didn’t fail for lack of 
> interest in mitigation by CDR enthusiasts.
> It is still not clear to me who you think was prevaricating/lying.
> 
> Ron
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ronal 
>> You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of 
>> prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to 
>> avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is 
>> limited, at best.
>> A
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
>> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>> Andrew, list and ccs
>> 
>> The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within 
>> the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and 
>> entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens 
>> to work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for 
>> other forms of CDR.
>> 
>> I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your first.
>> 
>> It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) who 
>> you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring to 
>> fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you feel 
>> the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or 
>> mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts 
>> mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.
>> 
>> Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, 
>> perhaps you can point us to something in print.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ronal 
>>> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. 
>>> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific 
>>> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our 
>>> fate (2+C), or actually DO something.
>>> A
>>> 
>>> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
>>> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
>>> 
>>> 1.  Two questions:
>>> 
>>> a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitig

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew, list and ccs

OK - I see where you are coming from.  I agree that the Paris Agreement 
did not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere 
as aggressive as is deserved.   But I can’t agree that too much reliance on 
CDR, and especially biochar, was the cause of the failure to set a goal of 1.5 
degrees vs 2 degrees. Rather, I feel the Paris Agreement paid too little 
attention, not too much, to CDR.  The French 4p1000 didn’t fail for lack of 
interest in mitigation by CDR enthusiasts.
It is still not clear to me who you think was prevaricating/lying.

Ron

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ronal
> 
> You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of 
> prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to 
> avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is 
> limited, at best.
> 
> A
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> Andrew, list and ccs
> 
>   The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie 
> within the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and 
> entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens 
> to work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for 
> other forms of CDR.
> 
>   I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your 
> first.
> 
>   It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) 
> who you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring 
> to fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you 
> feel the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or 
> mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts 
> mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.
> 
>   Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, 
> perhaps you can point us to something in print.
> 
> Ron
> 
>  
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ronal
>> 
>> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. 
>> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific 
>> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate 
>> (2+C), or actually DO something.
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
>> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
>> 
>>  1.  Two questions:
>> 
>>  a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation 
>> into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
>> con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
>> option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   
>> The word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, 
>> Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.
>> 
>>  b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
>> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
>> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”, 
>>  but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two 
>> orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not 
>> include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready 
>> (although widely assumed to be needed).
>> 
>>  2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  
>> These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I 
>> believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play 
>> here in the CDR world.  I agree.
>> 
>>  3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true 
>> - especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  
>> Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.
>> 
>>  Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew, list and ccs

The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie 
within the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and 
entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens to 
work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for other 
forms of CDR.

I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your 
first.

It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) 
who you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring to 
fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you feel 
the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or 
mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts 
mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.

Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, 
perhaps you can point us to something in print.

Ron

 

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ronal
> 
> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. 
> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific 
> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate 
> (2+C), or actually DO something.
> 
> A
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
> 
>   1.  Two questions:
> 
>   a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation 
> into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
> con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
> option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   
> The word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, 
> Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.
> 
>   b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”,  
> but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two 
> orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not 
> include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready 
> (although widely assumed to be needed).
> 
>   2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  
> These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I 
> believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play 
> here in the CDR world.  I agree.
> 
>   3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true 
> - especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  
> Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.
> 
>   Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. 
>> This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will, pending CDR, be 
>> allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and 
>> have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far in 
>> vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to 
>> chop down forests and degrade soils.
>> 
>> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral 
>> hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.
>> 
>> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is significant.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Andrew Lockley
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes" <voglerl...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 
>> <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v=forums=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMDk3MTEzODU3MDk0NzQ5MDcwMDYBR1RFMmsyZWtBUUFKATAuMQEBdjI>
>> Abstract: 
>> 
>> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral 
>> hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris 
>> Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol. 
>> 18(3) 194–204) the authors take 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)

1.  Two questions:

a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation 
into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   The 
word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, Michael’s and 
my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.

b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”,  
but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two 
orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not 
include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready 
(although widely assumed to be needed).

2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  
These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I 
believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play 
here in the CDR world.  I agree.

3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true 
- especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  
Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.

Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.

Ron


> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Michael
> 
> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. 
> This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will, pending CDR, be 
> allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and 
> have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far in 
> vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to chop 
> down forests and degrade soils.
> 
> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral 
> hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.
> 
> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is significant.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew Lockley
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes"  > wrote:
> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 
> 
> Abstract: 
> 
> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral 
> hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris 
> Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol. 
> 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is therefore possible 
> that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of geoengineering technologies 
> results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”. This view is further 
> expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening sentence: One of the key 
> issues in geoengineering is the idea that the existence of techniques for 
> climate change engineering represent what we would classify as a morale 
> hazard, namely that they reduce the political will to cut carbon emissions, 
> or that they might make individuals or society less inclined to change 
> behaviours.
> 
> Such an opinion, although it is parroted by many, is simply a misleading red 
> herring as a number of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies, inter alia, 
> Advanced Weathering of Limestone, Biochar, Olivine, and Marine Biomass 
> Production etc. have been largely available for vast scale deployment, or 
> have been deployed, for around 10(+) years. Yet the theoretical, or even 
> actual, existence of such CDR methods have had no discernible effect on the 
> public's opinion of geoengineering or their behavior relative to it, one way 
> or another. As such, this critique will take a close look at:
> 
> a) the scope of currently deployed/deployable CDR methods,
> 
> b) the reasons why the morale/moral hazard argument(s) are simply not 
> applicable to a number of such CDR methods and or combinations of methods,
> 
> c) a few plausible reasons why so many authors, at both the peer reviewed 
> level and media level, often find themselves making the conceptual mistakes 
> reproduced within Mr. Lockley and Prof. Coffman’s work. 
> 
> Also, this critique will not involve itself with the discussion on the 
> difference and/or distinction between the morale and moral hazard concepts, 
> relative to geoengineering, as there are no obviously striking, or even 
> slightly meaningful, difference and/or distinction to be found between the 2 
> hazards...within a number of the currently actionable CDR 

Re: [geo] Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W . Larson]

“Geo” List + Dr.  Schuiling’s list + adding Andrew and his co-author, Prof. 
Coffman

I find this an interesting exchange, based on the Lockley-Coffman 
paper, with my hope for further discussion on “hazards”.

See (different types of) inserts on the three messages below (mostly on 
the last below (first in time)).


> On Sep 17, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)  
> wrote:
> 
> I hope that Michael isn’t implying that olivine weathering needs geological 
> time scales!. There are people who think that the rate of weathering is what 
> is determined in sterile laboratories with distilled water, whereas in fact 
> we know that the weathering of olivine in nature is 1000 to 10.000 times 
> faster than in the abiotic clean laboratory, and we can choose the best 
> environments, and make the olivine grains move in rivers and even better in 
> the surf! Olaf Schuiling
[RWL-S:   I have talked to Michael Hayes for a few years and am pretty 
sure he would be supportive of the “Schuiling” approach.  Most of us on this 
list recognize olivine’s near term potential is because it has had such an 
important historic place in CDR. 

  (more below)

>  
> From: Michael Hayes [mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com 
> ] 
> Sent: zaterdag 17 september 2016 1:03
> To: geoengineering
> Cc: Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Ronal Larson; Greg Rau; Schuiling, R.D. 
> (Olaf); christopher.rodg...@ncl.ac.uk 
> Subject: Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
>  
> Andrew, 
>  
> On first glance, I'm confidant in saying that many of your opining premises 
> are simply wrong or are clearly and simply cherry picking to support your 
> private views. As such, the overall paper has nether scholarly merit nor even 
> common sense. As a prime example, you claim that negative emissions 
> technologies are presumed to be “only decades away". 
[RWL-M1:  Michael - let me urge you to take issue with the paper, not 
the author(s).
>  
> That bit of information would, I'm sure, be somewhat confusing to Drs. Rau 
> and Larson as both of their respective negative emissions technologies are 
> currently being used at the industrial level. The use of olivine, as Dr. 
> Schuiling has tried to explain on many occasions, has geological time scales 
> of use as a natural NET!! Further, marine biomass production by humans dates 
> back roughly 5 millennium, if not further.
[RWL-M2:  I wouldn’t use the term “confusing” - just not up-to-date.  
All of us have this problem in a field changing so rapidly and covering so many 
disciplines.  Your strong support for ocean biomass on this list is highly 
commendable.
>  
> To avoid putting a too sharp of a point on my take away, I will forever hold 
> your paper up as a prime example of how one can, at least attempt to, bring 
> an opponent (i.e. non-SAI concepts) down through 'clarifying' certain words 
> and terms in what supposedly is a peer reviewed journal. 
>  
> The lack of integrity, much less accuracy, in this so called peer reviewed 
> paper should be of concern to all ‘Independent' and/or other species of 
> scholars.
[RWL-M3:  I repeat Item M1 above.

(more below)
>   
> Warmest regards,
>  
> Michael 
> 
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lockley wrote:

[RWL:  Now addressing questions mainly to (list moderator) Andrew and 
Prof.  Coffman (identified as the one to receive comments; I am including her 
as a courtesy):

a)In my background investigations, I found that this paper is the 
first of an (at least) 4-part sequence of papers - for which we can see 3 more 
abstracts at:

https://ucl.academia.edu/DMarisCoffman 

They (abstracts only; no papers) are:

1. Combined SRM and CDR:
 
https://www.academia.edu/25660158/Geoengineering_and_the_blockchain_a_near-complete_solution_to_greenhouse_emissions
 

with help on “blockchain” at   
http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/blockchain-definition/ 


2.  Only CDR apparently
https://www.academia.edu/22943065/Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_and_the_futures_market 


3.  Only SRM I guess:
https://www.academia.edu/24926690/Geoengineering_vs._adaptation_megaprojects_is_it_easier_for_a_rogue_mayor_to_change_the_world_than_build_a_dam
 


(all the abstracts are worth the time of list members - to understand 
this one)

b)   My first question is whether these papers are all already written 
- or whether 

Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative Emissions | Climate Central

[Ronal W . Larson]

John, list  et al:	Your diagram is helpful.  



-- 
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.


Earth system restoration v2.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
	But I hope we can have further discussion on the time relationships between your 3 parts of carbon exchange (positive, neutral and negative).  I can almost believe the 2030 date in column M for 70% reduction in fossil emissions (combination of renewables and efficiency growing by about that much ).  That, assuming we are now emitting about 10 Gt C/yr,  would leave about 3 Gt C/yr emitted and about 1.5 Gt C/yr staying in the atmosphere (the remainder going mostly to the oceans).  The needed separate renewables and efficiency (carbon neutral) portions can be guesstimated now - and I will try to look that up.  Maybe a large carbon fee (don’t use the word  ”tax” in the USA) could pull off your 2030 date - but we certainly aren’t heading that way now.	In columns I and J, you ask for removal “twice as fast as emitted”  in 2030 - or removal of about 2*3 = 6 Gt C/yr.    I will assume you meant twice initial (not final, after including oceans) removal, which would get us down to a needed carbon negativity of 2*1.5 = 3 Gt C/yr.  This to be done via the range of CDR options near the bottom rows - where the present removal is only a relatively small amount via afforestation and perhaps REDD+. For the latter two sinks, maybe 10’s or hundreds of Mt C/yr - but certainly not yet 1 Gt C/yr.   I think biochar is moving faster than any of the other main CDR approaches, but probably not yet even at 1 Mt C/yr.	One beauty of the Oceans approach emphasized by Bhaskar is that the biomass growth can be much faster than on land - and there are enormous areas available.  But one needs to do something with that (temporarily) removed ocean carbon; transferring to land as biochar makes sense.  Afforestry takes much longer, because of lower photosynthesis conversion efficiency.  Biochar could rely mostly on annual or short rotation crops, but it will take considerable time to build up both the conversion complexes and the base of eventual soil depositories.   	All this to urge reconsidering the column I-J entry.  Additionally, I think it would be easier to equate the two directions of carbon movement - rather than your present doubling.  So assuming only equality of positive and negative carbon annual flows, we can remove another factor of two and hope for a carbon negative flow of 1.5 Gt C/yr by 2030.  This I believe might be possible with afforestation - since Dr. Hansen has assumed something even larger (I recollect maybe 4 Gt C/yr?) before Hansen’s annual sequestration plateaus.  At 10 t C/ha-yr in 2030, one would need (1500 Mt C/yr)/(10 t C/ha-yr) = 150 Mha under active new forest management  (and much less if the “Bhaskar-oceans” are contributing in 2030).   This land area is not an outrageous number (although very large - and can grow)	So far, I have modified John’s scenario two ways - so with his scenario,  the land area could be 2 or 4 times larger (I am trying for the smallest possible number in 2030.  Could John explain why he chose the word “double” in 2030?  I think it much easier to visualize that year when the positive and negative annual curves cross.  I am advocating that the choice for 2030 be based (for simplicity) on terms that leave the (huge) ocean influence out of the numerical aspirations.  To repeat - the computations should emphasize (as John’s do) what society does in Gt C/yr, not what is happening in the atmosphere (Gt C or ppm CO2), which is slower (because of ocean capture). 	I started this small exercise thinking only about it having little chance - but have changed my mind based on the afforestation and ocean options John has postulated.  No existing biochar model comes close to doing this much by 2030.  Biochar will be an added “wrinkle” that assures use of the needed biomass also for energy - to be back-up for the aggressive non-dispatchable wind and solar carbon neutral options John is assuming.  Managing above ground biomass should not cause any loss of annual carbon negativity - since that can be balanced by biochar-caused out-year increased NPP.	I wonder if anyone knows of a simple model that could further justify John’s numbers.  I have one in mind, but only know its outputs, not yet its inner workings.   It is important that we interested in both halves of geoengineering fill in more of the time history that John has (helpfully) hinted at above - especially emphasizing his key year 2030.Ronps  -  just received today this site on forestry:  

Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative Emissions | Climate Central

[Ronal W. Larson]

Bhaskar et al

You are mostly correct below, but leaving out the fact that the “8 
Billion tons of Carbon consumption per year”  is nearly balanced by the 
subsequent return of that carbon as the biomass rots or is consumed by 
“critters”.  The net annual change is a small part of that 8 Gt C/yr.

My answer for your last question to John below: he is almost certainly 
talking of a net value - but much larger than 2 Gt C/yr. - close to your value 
of 10 Gt C/yr.

I am about to send in my own analysis of John’s interesting chart.  I 
am saying there, in part, that ocean biomass can be helpful - because growth 
rates are so large - and presumably can be captured in the 2030 time frame that 
is central to John’s scenario.  Of course I see much of that ocean biomass 
ending up in soils - providing the best economic returns (including carbon 
neutral energy values as well) - for centuries/millenia (as with terra preta 
soils).

Ron


> On Aug 30, 2016, at 8:41 PM, Bhaskar M V  wrote:
> 
> John
> 
> The diagram is quite complex, since you have put the problems and solutions 
> in the same diagram.
> These can be separated to help focus on the solutions.
> 
> Diatoms seeding would not be necessary, they are already present in large 
> numbers in all natural waterways.
> You just have to increase the numbers further. 
> 
> I understand that Gross Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions are about 10 Billion 
> tons of Carbon per year and that Agriculture is responsible for about 8 
> Billion tons of Carbon consumption per year.
> So net anthropogenic carbon emissions are 2 Billion tons per year of Carbon.
> 
> You have mentioned 70% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, is this on 
> Gross ( 10 Billion tons ) or on Net ( 2 Billion tons ).
> 
> If the problem is only the net emissions - 2 Billion tons per year, a 10 % 
> increase in Diatom production per year may be adequate to solve the problem, 
> since natural diatom growth is estimated to be about 23 Billion tons of 
> carbon consumed per year. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Bhaskar
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:03 AM, John Nissen  > wrote:
> Hi Bhaskar and everyone,
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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] Recap: US Biochar Initiative - 2016 Conference

[Ronal W. Larson]

List: cc Andrew, Noah

I added a few comments on Noah’s paper at 
https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info 


Ron



> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog-posts/2016/8/25/recap-us-biochar-initiative-conference-2016?utm_content=buffer2767d_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer
>  
> 
> August 25, 2016
> 
> Recap: US Biochar Initiative - 2016 Conference
> 
> Noah Deich 
> 
>  Biochar
> 
> TL;DR Biochar has many enthusiasts and great promise, but the industry has 
> just gotten off the starting blocks in what will be a long race to reaching 
> scale and showing that it is a cost-effective carbon removal solution worthy 
> of significant outside support
> 
> 
> The 2016 US Biochar Initiative Conferencewrapped up yesterday after a 
> jam-packed few days of demonstrations, speeches, and breakout sessions on the 
> campus of Oregon State University in Corvallis, California. Biochar is touted 
> by many as a potential carbon removal solution, and I wanted to learn how 
> close biochar is today to delivering on this promise. Below are my key 
> takeaways from the conference.
> 
> The biochar-as-carbon-removal story is WAY more complex than it might seem on 
> the surface. Biochar, on the surface, seems like a relatively straight 
> forward carbon sequestration story: by taking plant (or other organic) wastes 
> that would release CO2 back into the atmosphere if left to natural processes, 
> and transforming that material into a stable carbon form that lasts for 
> hundreds of years, it is possible to sequester carbon in a safe, stable 
> manner. But how much carbon gets sequestered by a given biochar depends on a 
> number of factors, including: feedstock used, production process, and end use 
> application.  Many biochar companies are targeting agricultural and forestry 
> markets, and the science is still unclear to what impact a biochar will have 
> on any given land-use system in terms of lifecycle GHG emissions (e.g. does 
> biochar trap carbon but encourage microbial activity that releases more N2O 
> emissions?).  This is further complicated by the fact that...
> 
> 
> ...there is no broadly accepted standard or certification for biochar, which 
> creates barriers to adoption by consumers. Producers are very creative about 
> the feedstock and production methods they use for making and refining biochar 
> into eventual end-use applications. But conference attendees frequently 
> bemoaned the fact that there was no clear standard or certification body for 
> biochar, and so consumers have a difficult time trusting producers that their 
> products will deliver the results that are promised. Without a clear standard 
> for biochar materials, it will be difficult to say what carbon sequestration 
> impact a given material will have. And complicating matters yet again...
> 
> Biochar products are available for purchase today, but consumers have no 
> leading certification to rely on. 
> 
> ...biochar companies are pursuing a wide variety of business models. Some 
> attendees have companies focused on high-priced, low-volume applications like 
> specialty crops (strawberries, marijuana, turf grass, etc.) where small yield 
> gains from biochar application can translate into large profits. Other 
> companies are pursuing environmental remediation markets -- these 
> entrepreneurs say that cleaning up after mining operations or other 
> industrial/agricultural pollution offers a much more straight forward value 
> proposition as compared to improving a farmer's bottom line. The fact that 
> there are so many pathways to market for biochar makes it difficult to 
> pin-point what types of policy support would be most valuable today.
> 
> Lots of niche business models are being explored by biochar producers, 
> including SilverFire's disaster-preparedness kit on display at the conference.
> 
> There is also no industry trade group to push for biochar – though there is 
> interest in starting one. Now that many producers are reaching larger 
> production scales, there is growing interest in creating an industry 
> association to help set standards and lobby regulators. The fact that there 
> are so many different business strategies for biochar complicates this 
> effort, and makes coordination challenging. 
> 
> Finally and potentially most tellingly, biochar has not made the case to a 
> broad audience that it is a valuable endeavor (for climate purposes and 
> beyond). The attendance at the US Biochar Initiative conference titled 
> strongly towards academic and small-scale producers. I saw no presence at the 
> conference from Fortune 500 corporations, investors, 

Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative Emissions | Climate Central

[Ronal W. Larson]

John, list,  et al:

Apologies if this comes to you twice.  Am still at the conference hotel 
and have had trouble sending.  This time much shorter.


> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> John, list et al:
> 
>   Re your almost last sentence(emphasis added):
>“BTW, I would also recommend an ambition to restore land and ocean 
> productivity to their levels of a few thousand years ago, before mankind 
> started to denude soils and sea of nutrients.”
>   I am pleased to report that we have just finished the 2016 Biochar 
> conference at Oregon State University  (Corvallis, OR), and that great 
> progress has been made since our last in 2013.   I would guess at least three 
> times more commercial presence and activity than then. Many new reports of 
> cost effectiveness - even as little as one-year payback. 
>   I would amend your sentence to express an ambition not to restore but 
> to double.
> 
> Ron
>   
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 6:25 AM, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Benjamin,
>> 
>> I should have mentioned olivine crushing because it has a huge role to play 
>> in bringing down the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, for example directly by 
>> scattering on the beach or indirectly by promoting diatoms or soil 
>> improvement.
>> 
>> Re emissions reductions, I probably made a mistake in my earlier email, 
>> because I was assuming the maximum rate of emissions reduction, suggested to 
>> be 7% per annum, was an exponential reduction with a halving of emissions 
>> every 10 years and thus never reaching zero.  But the rate will be more 
>> linear than that, making it feasible to obtain an emissions reduction to 30% 
>> in 10 years and to near zero in 15 years.  
>> 
>> As well as this reduction, starting now, I propose immediate aggressive CDR 
>> over the next 10 years (including olivine crushing, biochar and ocean 
>> fertilisation) to obtain an equalisation of drawdown with emissions, thus 
>> achieving a zero net input of CO2 to the atmosphere, aka "carbon 
>> neutrality", by ~2025.  This will be the peak of CO2 level in the 
>> atmosphere.  The CDR will be exactly offsetting 30% the current level of 
>> emissions, assuming that maximum 7% annual reduction is maintained over the 
>> 10 years.
>> 
>> CDR should continue to be ramped up over the following 20 years, to obtain a 
>> halving and then a quartering of the climate forcing due to excess CO2 in 
>> the atmosphere, i.e. taking the level from its peak in ~2025 down to 340 ppm 
>> and then to 310 ppm.  
>> 
>> If IPCC were to accept this as a legitimate "representative concentration 
>> pathway", then there could be the ambition of climate restoration by 2050, 
>> with CO2 and CO2eq back to near pre-industrial levels resulting in a 
>> cessation of global warming well below the <2C target. 
>> 
>> In addition to CDR, there would need to be measures to reduce non-CO2 
>> forcing agents: to reduce fugitive methane: to suppress methane from the 
>> Arctic and from wetlands; to reduce black carbon, especially from tundra 
>> fires; and, most urgently, to save the sea ice, prevent disintegration of 
>> the Greenland Ice Sheet and restore albedo in the Arctic.  The ambition 
>> might be to restore the levels of albedo and greenhouse forcing agents to 
>> their pre-industrial levels by 2050.
>> 
>> BTW, I would also recommend an ambition to restore land and ocean 
>> productivity to their levels of a few thousand years ago, before mankind 
>> started to denude soils and sea of nutrients.
>> 
>> I am looking forward to your response.
>> 
>> Kind regards, John
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl 
>> <mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>> wrote:




-- 
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] Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:  cc Andrew and author Holly Buck  (I think one of the best social 
scientists looking at “Geo” topics)

At first I was disappointed that Ms. Buck’s paper only twice used the 
term ”biochar”.  This because I believe including biochar in this sort of 
social science research would help advance biochar as a NET/CDR approach.  
BECCS was used about 20 times.  One cite each for the biochar and BECCS terms. 

But, upon reflection, this paper is of considerable help in bringing 
biochar more into CDR/NET discussions - since the term “food systems” was one 
of only five terms called out in her list of keywords.  The term “food” appears 
10 times, with 2 cites - mostly as a concern for, not a benefit of, the BECCS 
approach.  Among the usual list of NET/CDR areas, it seems that only biochar 
can have a positive influence for global food supply (although rarely modeled 
in CDR/NET literature).  Indeed, I guess (haven’t counted) that biochar 
literature (several 1000 technical papers) is 4 or 5 to 1 in coverage of food 
over CDR/NET.  (And these soil/food and NET attributes of biochar are not at 
all in conflict;  you try to benefit either and the other comes along.)

So this is to hope that Ms.  Buck will soon have a paper with more on 
the “social barriers and social implications” of all the NETs.

Ron


> On Aug 19, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6?view=classic 
> 
> Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social 
> implications
> 
> Holly Jean Buck 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Negative emissions technologies have garnered increasing attention in the 
> wake of the Paris target to curb global warming to 1.5 °C. However, much of 
> the literature on carbon dioxide removal focuses on technical feasibility, 
> and several significant social barriers to scale-up of these technologies 
> have been glossed over. This paper reviews the existing literature on the 
> social implications of rapidly ramping up carbon dioxide removal. It also 
> explores the applicability of previous empirical social science research on 
> intersecting topics, with examples drawn from research on first- and 
> second-generation biofuels and forest carbon projects. Social science 
> fieldwork and case studies of land use change, agricultural and energy system 
> change, and technology adoption and diffusion can help in both anticipating 
> the social implications of emerging negative emissions technologies and 
> understanding the factors that shape trajectories of technological 
> development. By integrating empirical research on public and producer 
> perceptions, barriers to adoption, conditions driving new technologies, and 
> social impacts, projections about negative emissions technologies can become 
> more realistic and more useful to climate change policymaking.
> 
> Keywords
> 
> Carbon dioxide removal Negative emissions Food systems Direct air capture 
> BECCS
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> 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] carbon brief report for 16 August

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:

I recommend this site from two days ago:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/ipcc-special-report-feasibility-1point5?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing_campaign=367c89f2fe-cb_daily_medium=email_term=0_876aab4fd7-367c89f2fe-303442881
 


The word “geoengineering” and CDR are not there, but heavily implied by 
the emphases on 1.5 vs 2 degrees and the IPCC.

 I left this comment today:   “Congratulations. This was one of your 
best daily lead stories. Graphics ARE critical and your Ms Pearce produced two 
outstanding NEW ones in this 16 August version of your daily report on an IPCC 
document that itself is important - also emphasizing readability - on which you 
do a great job.”

Ron

-- 
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] Review of Stilgoe, Jack. 2015. Experiment Earth

[Ronal W. Larson]

List, cc Greg and Andrew

The full book review is at 
https://experimentearth.org/2016/08/08/review-of-experiment-earth-in-journal-of-responsible-innovation/
 


The full version lifts my initial concern on the use of the word 
“geoengineering“ to be synonymous with SRM, since Mr. Himmelsbach says at one 
point (emphasis added):
“He describes how over the course of several workshops and assessment 
reports, geoengineering researchers have steadily worked towards the 
distinction between technologies of carbon dioxide removal and albedo 
modification, respectively. “

Of course I wish the word “geoengineering” had been replaced throughout 
by “SRM”, as a sentence like this will certainly slow down CDR:
He also advocates for taking things slowly and resisting demands for 
big money for geoengineering as this would inevitably work against reflexivity 
and the friction-laden, yet productive, process of public engagement.

I (following the lead of Dr. Rau) take exception to this funding 
thought, as I am arguing almost daily for “big money for (the CDR part of) 
geoengineering,”

The review also mentions the word “ethics”.  Does the book include 
anything on CDR ethics?  

The phrase:  “in silico” is interesting, as virtually all the CDR 
approaches are lacking in that, which is what SRM is now limited to.

So, in sum,  my interest in the book could be revived if anyone can 
report whether there are parts that will be of interest to those of us active 
in CDR, modeling and ethics topics.  

Ron

ps:  The reference to Godzilla and oxygen destroyers has some CDR 
parallels


> On Aug 18, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Review of “Stilgoe, Jack. 2015. Experiment Earth: 
> Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering. 
> Abingdon: Routledge and Earthscan" 
> Raffael Himmelsbach
> 
> Introduction 
> In the Japanese film Godzilla (1954) nuclear testing resurrects a prehistoric 
> monster from the deep sea to wreak havoc with Tokyo. The film raises the 
> ethical 
> 


-- 
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] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

[Ronal W . Larson]

Professor Sugiyama,  cc List

1.   Thanks for the PNAS Decision Pathway URL you provided below.  
Extensive use of the terms “deliberative” and “values”.  They did look at 
several CDR options - with the respondents favoring (as usual) afforestation.  
Two tutorials used in the deliberative part of the process.

The authors listed 5 steps in thinking through - using  “PrOACT” (42): 
understand the problem context, 
clarify objectives, 
define alternatives, 
identify consequences, and 
highlight key tradeoffs

There are several other useful lists.  I liked this paper.

The Supplemental Information is only two figures, but get across the point that 
incoming values (OT the technologies themselves) predict the polling results.  
See 
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/02/1508896113.DCSupplemental/pnas.201508896SI.pdf
 

  .  
I have recently been reading George Layoff on values, frames, etc.  - and see 
the current US election throughout this PNAS values-oriented paper

There is some hint at how the 800 respondents might have “voted” on 
biochar - but, unfortunately, biochar was not one of the selected alternatives.


2.   In looking further at your Institute’s work I found this also by 
you http://pari.u-tokyo.ac.jp/policy/WP16_23.pdf 
 .  This was also interesting, 
though also limited to SRM, so I won’t go further with that.

3.  Japan has had a world-leading role in biochar (the CDR option I am 
interested in) development.  I saw much of that Japanese leadership in 2011 at 
a biochar conference in Kyoto.  On the last day we visited one of several dozen 
rice-hull carbonization facilities operated by Kansei Electric.  It could be 
interesting in a survey-theory sense to compare the CDR views of Japanese 
farmers (who have been buying char from these facilities for years) with other 
Japanese who might never heard the word “biochar” - all in a 
climate-deliberative (not soil-deliberative) setting.   

4.  Another poll of interest to me would be for your group to compare 
all the bio-oriented CDR options from a Japanese perspective:  afforestation, 
BECCS, biochar, biomass burial, etc.  They are all quite different, but with 
some obvious similarities.

Again, thanks for adding more to this dialog.

Ron




> On Aug 13, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Masa Sugiyama  wrote:
> 
> Dear Andrew, Ron, and all, 
> 
> I totally agree that we should look into the CDR/NET 
> part of the equation. And I also think things like deliberative polling would 
> be really needed. 
> We just think this is only a start. 
> 
> BTW, here's a study using the method called
> a decision pathway survey. 
> http://m.pnas.org/content/113/3/560
> 
> Best, 
> Masa
> 
> -- 
> 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] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dave:  cc list:

Thanks for keeping this topic alive

My comment is based on having worked a lot with the author (Ron Lehr) 
of this pdf:  http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/pdfs/33177_tx.pdf 
<http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/pdfs/33177_tx.pdf>.  Googling 
shows there is much other information on “Deliberative Polling”

I hope that most polls are based on the idea that the polls will help 
decision makers.  I don’t see how this “Asian solar CE” survey could help any 
decision maker.  But I am claiming that there are survey methods, such as 
deliberative polling, that could help decision makers.  It is going to be more 
expensive, but (I claim) worth it.

The British group NERC did something in 2010 somewhat approaching 
Deliberative Polling described here 
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/whatwedo/engage/engagement/geoengineering/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report/
 
<http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/whatwedo/engage/engagement/geoengineering/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report/>
A lot has changed since 2010;  I hope NERC can return to this topic.  I 
can’t think of any other similar survey.

I once worked at the now defunct OTA = Office of Technology Assessment. 
 From those days, I concluded that TA using something akin to our legal system 
(two opposing teams of experts) is apt to get the best assessment.  
Deliberative polling approaches that.

Ron


> On Aug 12, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Hawkins, Dave <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote:
> 
> Ron,
> Re your point 2: if one wants to get a picture of what current public 
> awareness implies regarding geo of either form, one needs to survey the 
> public as we find them; not as primed with information most of the public 
> lacks.  One can do a study of the impact of such priming by surveying primed 
> and unprimed subgroups.  That could indicate the value of education.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net 
> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>> Andrew and list (that hopefully will get eventually to persons conducting 
>> these surveys):
>> 
>> 1.   I understand that the intent was only to study the “solar” half of 
>> "Geo” as exemplified by this sentence:  “….Information material on climate 
>> engineering, which we defined as stratospheric aerosol injection for the 
>> purpose of this survey;” .   But there are many on this list who would love 
>> to see similar surveys for the other half of “Geo”:   CDR/NET.  No 
>> question here got to any part of CDR/NET, so I think we know much less about 
>> “aerosol injection” than we could have.
>> 
>> 2.  As with other such surveys, the respondents clearly didn’t feel well 
>> informed.  I urge more learning/education take place if anyone is planning 
>> something similar for CDR/NET - or for both halves of “geo” in a single 
>> survey.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments: 
>>> Preliminary results of a web survey on students' perception in six 
>>> Asia-Pacific countries
>>> 
>>> Masahiro Sugiyama, Takanobu Kosugi, Atsushi Ishii, and Shinichiro Asayama
>>> 
>>> Abstract: 
>>> There is a growing literature on public surveys regarding solar 
>>> geoengineering, but the spatial coverage has been mostly limited to the 
>>> Western societies. However, the non- Western voices are paramount to 
>>> climate engineering governance since technology's reach is global and since 
>>> different cultures and socio-political backgrounds might substantively 
>>> affect governance discourse. Here we report a preliminary analysis of an 
>>> international web- based survey conducted in March 2016, targeting 
>>> university students in Japan, Korea, Australia (OECD countries), China, 
>>> India, and the Philippines (non-OECD), a diverse set of six countries in 
>>> the Asia-Pacific region. Our questionnaire builds on earlier studies by 
>>> Mercer et al. (2011) and Merk et al. (2015) but digs deeper into the aspect 
>>> of field experimentation. 
>>> The survey results show that non-OECD undergraduates tend to be more 
>>> seriously concerned about climate change and open to the idea of climate 
>>> engineering than OECD counterparts. Majorities of the students believe that 
>>> an international framework is needed and that scientists should openly 
>>> d

Re: [geo] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew and list (that hopefully will get eventually to persons conducting these 
surveys):

1.   I understand that the intent was only to study the “solar” half of 
"Geo” as exemplified by this sentence:  “….Information material on climate 
engineering, which we defined as stratospheric aerosol injection for the 
purpose of this survey;” .   But there are many on this list who would love to 
see similar surveys for the other half of “Geo”:   CDR/NET.  No question 
here got to any part of CDR/NET, so I think we know much less about “aerosol 
injection” than we could have.

2.  As with other such surveys, the respondents clearly didn’t feel 
well informed.  I urge more learning/education take place if anyone is planning 
something similar for CDR/NET - or for both halves of “geo” in a single survey.

Ron



> On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments: 
> Preliminary results of a web survey on students' perception in six 
> Asia-Pacific countries
> 
> Masahiro Sugiyama, Takanobu Kosugi, Atsushi Ishii, and Shinichiro Asayama
> 
> Abstract: 
> There is a growing literature on public surveys regarding solar 
> geoengineering, but the spatial coverage has been mostly limited to the 
> Western societies. However, the non- Western voices are paramount to climate 
> engineering governance since technology's reach is global and since different 
> cultures and socio-political backgrounds might substantively affect 
> governance discourse. Here we report a preliminary analysis of an 
> international web- based survey conducted in March 2016, targeting university 
> students in Japan, Korea, Australia (OECD countries), China, India, and the 
> Philippines (non-OECD), a diverse set of six countries in the Asia-Pacific 
> region. Our questionnaire builds on earlier studies by Mercer et al. (2011) 
> and Merk et al. (2015) but digs deeper into the aspect of field 
> experimentation. 
> The survey results show that non-OECD undergraduates tend to be more 
> seriously concerned about climate change and open to the idea of climate 
> engineering than OECD counterparts. Majorities of the students believe that 
> an international framework is needed and that scientists should openly 
> disclose all the results of field tests, including negative ones.
> 
> Keywords: 
> geoengineering, solar radiation management, climate change, public opinion, 
> public 
> awareness
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Virtuous Life, Climate Change and effective altruism

[Ronal W . Larson]

List, Andrew and 4 added ccs:

1.  I agree in part with Andrew - on his (below) "argument” term.  But I think 
the topic is hugely important and this list needs to encourage more like this - 
from Philosophers snd Ethicists.   I particularly think this sentence is not 
justified, for ALL of geoengineering - and maybe not for any:

“The true intention of geoengineers and their supporters is less to combat 
climate change than to preserve their comfortable lifestyles at the expense of 
the wellbeing of others.”


2.  A main concern for possibly all on this list is that although the authors 
of the paper acknowledge that “geo” has both CDR and SRM parts, they (as in the 
above quote) make no distinction between the two parts.   This note is going to 
the authors (and their team leader) at Lausanne hoping that they can continue 
this important type of analysis - but with a  more fine-grain approach.  This 
is my only negative view on the paper.  I found many good ethics topics to 
follow up on.


3.  On the positive side of the article are at least two more aspects:   

a.   “Geo” introduction seems most likely to be decided by Social 
Science  than hard science contributions; this is a much needed and (partially) 
helpful contribution.  Helpful by asking we in the “Geo” world to prove we can 
fit in an important category being raised:  “Altruism”  (and the sub-category “ 
Essential Altruism”).

b.  There is a major emphasis on the topic of benevolence; some CDR 
approaches would seem to me to meet that criterion.   I have been trying to 
follow topics that include the terms “ethics” and “morality” - and found some 
new cites to now follow.  For instance, this on the person most cited in the 
paper (Hutcheson): http://www.iep.utm.edu/hutcheso/#H4 
.  
Both authors clearly have a solid background for their paper’s theme 
(see:
https://www.unil.ch/philo/fr/home/menuinst/moderne-et-contemporaine/collaborateurs/michel-bourban.html
 

  (with a proposed thesis topic listed as:
“Climate Justice: Duties and Corresponding Policies”.  (The word 
“duties” seems important re “Geo” - and the first time I seen it raised)
https://www.unil.ch/philo/fr/home/menuinst/moderne-et-contemporaine/collaborateurs/lisa-broussois.html
 


4.I can only speak knowledgeably about a single CDR approach.  I suggest 
that only 1.5 driving hours away from Lausanne (in Valais, Switzerland) is a 
biochar scientist I consider one of the two (!) best in the world - and who 
seems to me also to exemplify the words “Benevolence”and “Altruism”.  So, I 
hope the 4 Swiss receiving this message will find a way to get together and 
further explore words like  “justice”, “duties” and “altruism” in the “Geo” 
context.It may seem inappropriate to say that starting any CDR business is 
benevolent - but I think it fits in this case.  Appropriate in large part 
because biochar is moving exceedingly rapidly now - for non-CDR business 
reasons.  Those reasons, and Hans-Peter’s role in this rapid recent growth 
(1500 technical papers in 2015 - 100 times as many as in 2006 - the year before 
the term “biochar” was adapted) are well described in this 45 minute video: 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9diBFds0R1Q 
.  This video only has a little on 
the CDR aspect of biochar; mostly this video is on the soil/food side.  But, 
speaking only of “Geo”, I believe (after 10 years on this topic) that 
Hans-Peter is working on the CDR approach with the greatest potential (tor 
instance, he uses the term 1000 t C/ha - more than 20 times a recent max value 
posited on this list).
Here are other sites for H-P (who heads the Swiss biochar group as 
well, and fully active in the important, world-leading EU activities on 
biochar):  http://www.ithaka-institut.org/en/ 
, and https://www.biochar-journal.org/en 


To summarize - your article has been both criticized (by Andrew and myself) and 
praised (by me).  You can greatly help our “Geo” list dialog by first making 
contact with a person/group a very short distance  from Lausanne - and 
reporting back to this list on whether one specific “Geo” approach would pass 
your “Hutcheson” altruism test.  If not,  we will all benefit from learning why 
not.

Again thanks for writing in this important social science topic area - 
where we need much more analytical work - at a detailed level - not just for 
“Geo”.

Ron













> On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:51 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note : excuse mangled text. Personally, I think this is a very weak 
> argument
> 
> 

Re: [geo] CIA Director Brennan Speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

List: Fred, Ken, and other ccs

1.  There is a much longer version of the Brennan talk, including 
numerous Q/A (none re geo),  at:
http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security/p38082
 


2.   Because I officially visited a CIA library in the mid-70s re 
solar, representing a Congressional entity, I’d be very surprised if there were 
not a lot of CIA staff looking at all the Geo approaches.  Alan Robock has 
mentioned being interviewed once.  Anyone know more that relates the CIA to 
"Geo”?

3.   See inserts below.

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:
> 
> I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar 
> geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation. 
> 
> They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as 
> more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar 
> geoengineering.

RWL:  The (above, highlighted) double negative looks like a typo.  I 
agree that more CDR means less SRM.  But also believe that more SRM means more 
CDR.  So no symmetry.

one more below
> 
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:52 Fred Zimmerman  > wrote:
> What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this 
> community had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred 
> mechanism, most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch 
> option for slowing the rate of change.  Do others agree with my formulation?
[RWL:  Not me - on both counts.  It seems to me that BECCS has fallen 
from that #1 position given the many problems today facing CCS.  The 
Mississippi CCS plant is now projected to cost 3X the promised value.  And the 
value is supposed to lie in EOR, not real sequestration. 

Ron


> 
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
>  
> 
> Extract
> 
> Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively 
> as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of 
> global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is 
> stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere 
> with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way 
> that volcanic eruptions do.
> 
> An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks 
> associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy 
> additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also 
> relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully 
> deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. 
> 
> As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of 
> challenges for our government and for the international community. On the 
> technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to 
> accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean 
> acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the 
> atmosphere.
> 
> On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather 
> patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger 
> sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and 
> back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with 
> other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to 
> guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .
> 
> ᐧ
> 
> -- 
> 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 

Re: [geo] CarbonCycle and other profitable strategies for air capture of CO2

[Ronal W . Larson]

List  (cc Deane Little and Andrew - with thanks for this lead)

1.  This message seems worthy of additional dialog on this list.  I 
recommend looking at the following two sites which do a better job of 
explaining what is new
http://dc.engconfintl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041=co2_summit2 

http://www.newskyenergy.com/ 

2.I have been acquainted with Deane Little and New Sky Energy for 
much of its nine-year lifetime.  I can affirm that Deane has an excellent 
Chemical Engineering background and has been successful in selling gas 
processing technologies that mineralize CO2 and hydrogen sulfide.  This 
conference material is based on both concentrated CO2 streams and DAC.

3.  You will see that Deane is also supportive of biochar (although he 
does not use that term) as his slides show the importance of 
biomass/photosynthesis, especially when used to generate the needed non-fossil 
electricity.  This approach by New Sky seems important for CDR as it is 
commercially viable today (no carbon credits needed) - much as with biochar.  
Deane talks of DAC in the Ppt, but for me that is not the important part of 
this New Sky (patented  http://www.google.com/patents/US8227127 
) technology.

Ron



> On Jun 9, 2016, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://dc.engconfintl.org/co2_summit2/43/ 
> 
> CO2 SUMMIT II: TECHNOLOGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES
> 
> CarbonCycle and other profitable strategies for air capture of CO2
> 
> Deane Little, New Sky Enrgy
> 
> Conference Dates
> 
> April 10-14, 2016
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Development of an effective and economically viable strategy for air capture 
> of CO2 would be a game-changing development in the fight against global 
> warming. If widely adopted such a process would allow “chemostatting” the 
> atmosphere at sustainable CO2 levels and might not require widespread social 
> change in how we use fossil fuels. Unfortunately the concept that air capture 
> of CO2 “doesn’t work” has taken hold in academic and policy circles, based on 
> the assumption that such a process is inherently expensive and results in no 
> useful products. In fact, air capture of CO2 can be profitable and offers 
> fundamental advantages over other methods of GHG mitigation. Air capture of 
> CO2--the growth cycle of forests and grasslands during the Northern 
> Hemisphere summer--is the only process that lowers atmospheric carbon dioxide 
> levels on an annual basis.
> 
> A potentially profitable strategy for air capture of CO2 is to couple it with 
> production of economically valuable chemicals or products. Agricultural 
> production of plant based materials and food is a simple example of an 
> economically important process that couples profitable activity with air 
> capture of CO2. However there are other economically profitable products that 
> can be coupled to air capture of CO2, including production of clean fuels and 
> manufacture of carbon-based materials. New Sky Energy has developed and is 
> currently commercializing a patented CO2 capture and mineralization process 
> called CarbonCycle that combines capture of CO2 from the air or gas streams 
> with production of hydrogen, oxygen, acids and economically useful 
> carbonates. Two economically promising CarbonCycle strategies include 
> co-production of carbon-neutral hydrogen and pressurized CO2 gas captured 
> from the air, and co-production of hydrogen, oxygen, sulfuric acid and 
> carbonates. Co-production of hydrogen and compressed CO2 captured from the 
> air or flue gas requires only water and renewable or other low carbon 
> electricity—no other resources are consumed. Co-production of hydrogen, 
> oxygen, acids and carbonates from air captured CO2 requires only low carbon 
> electricity and sodium sulfate, an easily purified salt that is widely 
> abundant in the earth’s crust and seas.
> 
> Recommended Citation
> 
> Deane Little, "CarbonCycle and other profitable strategies for air capture of 
> CO2" in "CO2 Summit II: Technologies and Opportunities", Holly Krutka, 
> Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association Inc. Frank Zhu, UOP/Honeywell 
> Eds, ECI Symposium Series, (2016). http://dc.engconfintl.org/co2_summit2/43 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> 

Re: [geo] Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry Results,

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list:

1.   I suggest that the way the US Government looks at geoengineering 
topics for funding, you wouldn’t expect to see much USDA effort on BECCS.  The 
US R effort on BECCS I think is primarily (??) through the Pittsburg NETL lab 
which has spent billions on CCS.  That lab is for the fossil part of the 
Department of Energy;  probably no/little USDA connection there.  
However, about a year ago the DoE biomass office held a meeting on 
BECCS.   
   
http://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/bioenergy-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-workshop
 

 I have only found a summary - no details.  Maybe some USDA presenters, because 
the DOE and USDA do cooperatively fund some biomass work (but none I am aware 
of on biochar)

2.  Today’s announcement below is concentrating on adding carbon to 
soils.  None of today’s announcement (below) is on biochar, but there has been 
some biochar funding (a minor amount, I believe this list would agree).  CDR is 
seen in Ag circles mostly as no-till, continuous cover, etc,  but biochar might 
be catching up.

3.  Yesterday, as a member of the organizing committee for an October 
biochar conference,  I received an Excel listing of 120+ abstracts that have to 
be placed into different sessions.  I just did a word search and found the word 
“USDA” 50 times.  That seemed to reflect about 20 different USDA authors and 
co-authors.  Probably about 5-6 will present (August 22-24, Oregon State 
University, Corvallis, OR).  I don’t feel the USDA (or any US agency)  is doing 
particularly well (because of Congressional funding), but the USDA is by far 
the major funding source for biochar research.   This is barely recognized as 
CDR;  It is mostly categorized as soil improvement.   My perception is that 
this USDA biochar work (mostly through their Agricultural Research Service 
(ARS)) is highly regarded worldwide.

One paper is coming from an EPA author.  No speakers sponsored by DoE 
(whose National Renewable Energy Lab - NREL - has outstanding expertise in 
pyrolysis).  see http://usbi2016.org/ 

4.  In August,  I will report from Corvallis on what is new on the CDR 
aspects of biochar.  Mostly the papers will be on the food and soil aspects of 
biochar (which are not in any conflict with CDR).

5.  While on this BECCS-CDR-funding-conference theme - in less than 2 
weeks I will attend (first time) the annual CESM  (Community Earth System 
Model) Conference, where CDR I believe is based only on BECCS (no biochar - 
yet).   https://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws-2016 
 .  

Ron


> On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Interesting - not one mention of IPCC's savior, BECCS. Is the USDA on board 
> with IPCC's vision here?
> Greg 
> 
> 
> From: Andrew Lockley 
> To: geoengineering  
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 7:55 AM
> Subject: [geo] Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Climate Smart 
> Agriculture and Forestry Results,
> 
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamobile?contentid=2016/05/0112.xml=true_content=buffer19c5c_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer
>  
> 
> United States Department of Agriculture
> News Release
> Release No. 0112.16
> pr...@oc.usda.gov 
> (202) 720-4623 
>  Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Climate Smart Agriculture and 
> Forestry Results, Additional $72.3 Million Soil Health Investment to Support 
> Paris Agreement 
> WASHINGTON, May 12, 2016 – Today, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack shared 
> the first results of USDA's Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and 
> Forestry, one year after he unveiled the plan at Michigan State University. 
> In addition to providing specific goals and results of the many actions that 
> USDA is taking to help farmers, ranchers, and forestland owners respond to 
> and help mitigate climate change, Vilsack announced a new $72.3 million 
> investment to boost carbon storage in healthy soils during a speech on 
> climate at the Center for America Progress in Washington, DC.
> "American farmers, ranchers, and forestland owners are global leaders in 
> conserving rural America's natural resources and reducing greenhouse gas 
> emissions," said Vilsack. "With today's announcements, USDA is providing the 
> necessary tools and resources called for under the President's Climate Action 
> Plan so producers and landowners can successfully create economic opportunity 
> and provide the food, fiber and energy needs of a growing global population."
> On April 23, 2015, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announcedUSDA's 10 

Re: [geo] News review of week 23 of 2016

[Ronal W. Larson]

“Info”

This is to ask you to add to your calendar the event seen at 
http://usbi2016.org/  for a biochar conference Aug. 
22-25.2016

Ron Larson



> On May 30, 2016, at 8:27 AM, CE News Site  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Engineering News Review for Week 23 of 2016
> Upcoming Events and Deadlines
> 
> · 06.-08.06.2016 
> , Workshop: 
> Volcanic Impacts on Climate and Society, Palisades, NY/USA
> · 10.06.2016 
> ,
>  (deadline) Job: PhD position-Modelling earth systemic and hydrologic impacts 
> of terrestrial climate engineering (Potsdam, Germany)
> · 11.06.2016 
> , Panel 
> discussions at Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences 2016, 
> Washington, DC/USA
> · 14.06.2016 
> ,
>  Discussion meeting: Remove On, Berkeley/USA
> · 15.06.2016 , Panel 
> discussion: Carbon farming, Berkeley/USA
> · 17.06.2016 
> , 
> Lecture: Climate tinkering and climate policy (German), Cologne/Germany
> · (new) 30.07.2016 
> ,
>  (deadline) Call for papers: Crutzen +10: Reflecting upon 10 years of 
> geoengineering research
> · 11.09.2016 
> ,
>  Lecture: Into the Great Wide Open? The Promise and Perils of Climate 
> Geoengineering, Berkeley City Club/USA
> · 28.09.2016 
> ,
>  Lecture: The Legal Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United States and 
> Internationally, Arizona State University/USA
> · (no deadline) Job 
> :
>  Part-time International Governance of Climate Engineering Program Assistant
> · (no deadline) Job 
> :
>  Director Policy and Markets at the Center for Carbon Removal
>  
> 
> New Publications
> 
> · Barrett, Scott; Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2015) 
> : The 
> alternatives to unconstrained climate change: Emission reductions versus 
> carbon and solar geoengineering
> · González, Miriam Ferrer; Ilyina, Tatiana (2016) 
> : Impacts of 
> artificial ocean alkalinization on the carbon cycle and climate in Earth 
> system simulations
> · Matthews, M.; et al. (2016) 
> : Laser vaporization of 
> cirrus-like ice particles with secondary ice multiplication
> · Kravitz, Ben; et al. (2016) 
> : Geoengineering as a design 
> problem
> · Lambini, Cosmas Kombat (2016) 
> : 
> Internalising Solar Radiation Management Technological Externalities. An 
> ethical review on the design of economic instruments
>  
> 
> Selected Media Responses
> 
> · Energy.gov 
> :
>  Scientists Can Recycle CO2 Using Gold
> · All About Shipping 
> :
>  Understanding potential impacts of marine geoengineering
> · GreenBiz 
> :
>  This is not your parents' conversation about carbon capture
> · Progressive Standard 
> :
>  New Study Says Geoengineering The Climate Not A Solution To Climate Change
> · SBS 
> :
>  The Crazy Climate Technofix
> · Inverse 
> :
>  The Crazy Plan to Zap Clouds with Lasers to Stop 

Re: [geo] Carbon Budget: >1.5 deg C assured in <10 years

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg  cc list

1.   To add to your (obviously rhetorical) very important question, I 
would say we need to add terms like “implementation” and “industrialization” to 
your “policy and R”.

2.  By chance,  I had an opportunity this past hour to make this 
“industrialization” point in a comment about a new article showing very good 
CDR economics at this web site:

> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154617 
> 
>  
> 

3.  I only started watching this “carbon brief” site in the last month. 
 It is now perhaps my favorite site - new pertinent articles every day.  The 
article you cite was written by carbon brief staff.   Very different from 
normal reporting; very well referenced - almost as though peer-reviewed.   The 
article under discussion said this as a post-script pertinent to the “geo” 
list:  “This article was updated on 19/05/2016 to include two paragraphs on 
negative emissions.”

Ron



> On May 21, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-only-five-years-left-before-one-point-five-c-budget-is-blown
>  
> 
> 
> "As of the beginning of 2011, the carbon budget for a 66% chance of staying 
> below 1.5C was 400bn tonnes. Emissions between 2011 and 2015 mean this has 
> almost halved to 205bn tonnes. The result is that, as of the beginning of 
> 2016, five years and two months of current CO2 emissions would use up the 
> 1.5C budget."
> 
> Is it time yet to seriously expand policy and R  beyond emissions control 
> for managing CO2 and climate?
> Greg
> 
> -- 
> 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] Who May Geoengineer: Self-defense, Civil Disobedience, and Revolution (Part One) – Patrick Taylor Smith

[Ronal W. Larson]

Professor Smith, cc List

1.  This is to urge that in your forthcoming Part II, you avoid the 
word “geoengineering” - and instead refer to SRM (solar radiation management) 
and CDR (carbon dioxide removal), according to your intent.  Because you at one 
point refer to ocean iron fertilization, one could believe your really did mean 
to treat them identically.  I don’t believe that the case as other papers I 
found you have written came to the same negative conclusion about only SRM - 
not geoengineering.  Thanks for making these other papers available.

2.  I believe CDR is critically needed, but your lumping CDR together 
with your obvious target of SRM can easily cause readers who are new to “geo” 
to believe they all forms of CDR suffer from the same risks as SRM.   I don’t 
think you believe that, but I fear your essay will be used against CDR.

3.   But the 10 or so CDR approaches are also vastly different.  It is 
just as important that they also all not be considered as identical.   The 
recent identification of a new paper by Professor Svoboda, somewhat like your 
paper, is helpful in raising the subject of “hybrid” geoengineering.  This is a 
helpful, and I think new, approach for this list, which I will expand on 
separately.  There is certainly a range of possible hybrids out there awaiting 
comparison.

4.  I do think it valuable for persons like yourself to raise these 
issues;  thanks for taking it seriously.  I look forward to reading about civil 
disobedience - especially with the CDR concept getting some attention.

Ron


> On May 19, 2016, at 3:24 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2016/05/18/who-may-geoengineer-self-defense-civil-disobedience-and-revolution-part-one/
>  
> 
> Who May Geoengineer: Self-defense, Civil Disobedience, and Revolution (Part 
> One) – Patrick Taylor Smith
> 
> Much of the discussion about the appropriateness or usefulness of 
> geoengineering—particularly dangerous and risky geoengineering strategies 
> like sulfate aerosol injection—has relied upon a shared assumption aboutwho 
> will end up deploying these new tools. That is, we’ve (mostly) assumed that 
> fairly wealthy, high-emitting states, private actors based in those 
> countries, or international institutions dominated by those states will be 
> the ones to finally inject sulfates or fertilize the ocean. This is entirely 
> reasonable. Rich and high emitting states have the resources (or contain 
> private agents with the resources) to engage in geoengineering research and, 
> potentially, deployment. Powerful states will have the political wherewithal 
> to either ignore the entreaties of global governance institutions and civil 
> society, or to gain their assent. From a practical perspective, the rich and 
> powerful states are those that are likely to fund the research that would be 
> needed should risky geoengineering strategies ever be deployed, and perhaps 
> even if they are not.
> 
> Yet, there is something odd, from a normative perspective, about this 
> emphasis. After all, geoengineering is presented as a solution to a problem 
> that has been—to a great extent—created by rich and powerful, high emitting 
> nations. There is something unsavory—or as Stephen Gardiner has put it, 
> morally corrupting—about the idea that rich countries would geoengineer in 
> order to allow them to retain a greater proportion of the benefits they’ve 
> accrued from emitting in the first place. Of course, one can try to justify 
> risky geoengineering as a way of reducing the negative impacts of climate 
> change on the poor, marginalized, and low-emitting. But again, this is an odd 
> argument for those responsible for those impacts to make: “I’ve caused a 
> terrible threat to hang over your head and I’ll remove it through a strategy 
> that is risky for you but more convenient for me.” So, the idea that rich 
> countries could justify risky climate strategies by appealing to the 
> protection of the people their policies endanger is problematic.
> 
> What can we say if this nation decides to engage in an act of self-defense, 
> protecting its territorial integrity and political autonomy from the actions 
> of more powerful nations?
> 
> This kind of worry doesn’t apply if those victims themselves decide to 
> geoengineer. They are simply defending themselves, or so the thought goes. 
> Let’s consider a scenario (borrowed liberally from Oliver Morton in The 
> Planet Remade); imagine a fairly wealthy but low emitting island nation that 
> will suffer catastrophic flooding. Adaptation measures are either unavailable 
> or prohibitively expensive. So, what can we say if this nation—that is not 
> responsible for climate change but nonetheless suffering from its ill 
> effects—decides to engage in an act 

Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter

[Ronal W. Larson]

Dave, list and ccs

See inserts below.

> On May 14, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:
> 
> ​Ron,
> 
> I you look up the publications of a number of the signers of this letter you 
> will see that many of them have published papers emphasizing the value of 
> carbon uptake in forests and soils.  
RWL1:   It would be impossible I think to argue the converse.  I’d 
appreciate the signer names I should look up who have emphasized biomass for 
CDR purposes (i.e. biochar).  I recognize none of the 65 as having written 
positively on biochar.

> A major reason many of them oppose this amendment is the language requiring 
> the adoption of policies that “reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest 
> bioenergy.
[RWL2:  The full quote (from below) is:
“reffect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and
> recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided the
> use of forest biomass for energy production does not cause
> conversion of forests to non-forest use.”

I agree that one can utilize biomass in a manner that will not provide 
carbon neutrality.  But I argue that biochar can be legitimately carbon 
negative (and easier to prove if the pyrolysis gases are utilized to displace 
fossil energy - instead of vented or flared).  My best proof are the Terra 
Preta soils.  If those soils are evidence of carbon negativity,  then carbon 
neutrality is guaranteed as well.  Much biochar is being made with no energy 
co-product value - and is still carbon negative -  wot when placed in the soil, 
but in a “ hort" time.  I’ll bet most (Congressional staff?) authors of this 
amendment never heard of biochar - but biochar’s rapidly growing acceptance 
nevertheless makes this above quote correct - in my opinion.  If not - why not?


>  Their justified fear is that this language will be interpreted as requiring 
> policies to assume that all or most forms of forest bioenergy are carbon 
> neutral.
[RWL3: I hope that your “most” (highlighted above) is a concession that 
one should not “assume” when one has evidence (Terra Preta) that the assumption 
is untrue.  Because terra preta exists, carbon negativity from biomass should 
not be in question - and therefore carbon neutrality (less difficult) should 
not be either.


>  Since such an assumption cannot be justified by science, they oppose this 
> language.
[RWL4:   There might have been 1000 papers in the last year in 
respected science journals about biochar’s impacts on soils - not all - but 
mostly positive impacts;  carbon negativity is rarely disputed in this biochar 
literature.  I don’t know of one that suggests carbon negativity is not 
possible.  A list of about 1500 cites are given for 2015 in the bibliography at 
www.biochar-international.org  (about 4500 cites I recall for all years).  So I 
am claiming this group of 65 is analyzing biomass and energy - not biomass and 
carbon negativity - the subject matter of this list - and they have come up 
with an incorrect conclusion on biomass and carbon neutrality - because their 
“net” was too small.

Ron
> 
> David
> 
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
> behalf of Ronal W.Larson 
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 7:09 PM
> To: RAU greg
> Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter
> 
> List,  cc Dr. Rau
> 
> 
> This is to comment on both the Senate Amendment 3140 and Greg’s reaction, 
> both received today..
> 
> 1..   The actual amendment is near the end of the Senate discussion on the 
> amendments - found at
> https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/02/senate-section/article/S470-2,
>  saying (in full):
> 
> "Amendment No. 3140, as modified
> 
> (Purpose: To require certain Federal agencies to establish consistent
> policies relating to forest biomass energy to help address the energy
>  needs of the United States)
> 
>   At the end of part IV of subtitle A of title III, add the
> following:
> 
> SEC. 30__. POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY.
> 
>   To support the key role that forests in the United States
> can play in addressing the energy needs of the United States,
> the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the
> Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
> consistent with their missions, jointly--
>   (1) ensure that Federal policy relating to forest
> bioenergy--
>   (A) is consistent across all Federal departments and
> agencies; and
>   (B) recognizes the full benefits of the use of forest
> biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest
> management; and
>   (2) establish clear and simple policies for the use of
> forest biomass as an energy solution, including policies
> that--
>   (A) reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy 

Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter

[Ronal W . Larson]

List,  cc Dr. Rau

This is to comment on both the Senate Amendment 3140 and Greg’s 
reaction, both received today..

1..   The actual amendment is near the end of the Senate discussion on 
the amendments - found at 
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/02/senate-section/article/S470-2
 
,
 saying (in full):
"Amendment No. 3140, as modified

 (Purpose: To require certain Federal agencies to establish consistent 
 policies relating to forest biomass energy to help address the energy 
  needs of the United States)

   At the end of part IV of subtitle A of title III, add the 
 following:

 SEC. 30__. POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY.

   To support the key role that forests in the United States 
 can play in addressing the energy needs of the United States, 
 the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 
 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, 
 consistent with their missions, jointly--
   (1) ensure that Federal policy relating to forest 
 bioenergy--
   (A) is consistent across all Federal departments and 
 agencies; and
   (B) recognizes the full benefits of the use of forest 
 biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest 
 management; and
   (2) establish clear and simple policies for the use of 
 forest biomass as an energy solution, including policies 
 that--
   (A) reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and 
 recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided the 
 use of forest biomass for energy production does not cause 
 conversion of forests to non-forest use.
   (B) encourage private investment throughout the forest 
 biomass supply chain, including in--
   (i) working forests;
   (ii) harvesting operations;
   (iii) forest improvement operations;
   (iv) forest bioenergy production;
   (v) wood products manufacturing; or
   (vi) paper manufacturing;
   (C) encourage forest management to improve forest health; 
 and
   (D) recognize State initiatives to produce and use forest 
 biomass.”
[RWL:  I find this amendment language to be quite acceptable from both a CDR 
and biochar perspective - and so hope someone can say which words they would 
have changed.  Of course, I wish that the term carbon-negativity had appeared 
rather than carbon neutrality.
 
2.   Re the last line (2)(D), last week I gave testimony on Colorado 
SB16-003 bill that passed a few days later on our legislature’s final day. 
Despite almost every bill dealing with energy or climate failing on a party 
line basis this year, this bill had 2 votes in opposition (one in each house). 
The Colorado bill contained a paragraph asking the state foresters to 
address the potential role of biochar in forest health.  P 3, line 21 reads: 
“USES FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS IN FORESTS, INCLUDING BIOCHAR, ENERGY,..”
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0FE77EB9EE65CA4887257F2400641EE2?open=003_rer.pdf
 

All the testimony, mainly from foresters and all positive, noted that Colorado 
forests are overstocked - with no funds to remove (and productively utilize) 
our huge supply of beetle-killed trees.  I mention this in hope some foresters 
will help Colorado on this CDR path.

3.  So,  I find this Amendment 3140 to be in perfect agreement with 
Colorado state action.  And the  reason is that our SB16-003 recognizes the 
need for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).  The text of the 65-signatory letter 
mentions only energy.  There is no hint the 65 authors were considering CDR - 
nor understand how much all CDR advocates desire a continually increasing 
forest.  Removing forests is prohibited in Amendment 3140.  Use of forest 
biomass does not have to be carbon positive - and especially if one is 
employing biochar (or, with more difficulty, BECCS).

4.  So, considering this list’s focus, I suggest there is no universal 
validity to sentences such as this from the actual letter (given in its 
entirety by Andrew a few days ago).
“This well-intentioned legislation, which claims to address climate 
change, would in fact promote deforestation in the U.S. and elsewhere and make 
climate change much worse. "
I see the exact converse as being more accurate;   the letter has a 
very narrow view of what is possible using free sunlight and photosynthesis to 
CDR advantage.   If we want healthy growing forests, they can and should be 
managed for CDR purposes.  I therefore suggest that the 65-author letter should 
not be used in any way to discourage CDR via biomass and so have to disagree in 
part with Greg.  

5.   I do agree with 

Re: [geo] Senate Energy Bill Carbon Removal Amendments

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:  cc Noah Deich and Dan Kammen


1.   This is to comment on the news release from the Berkeley “Center 
for Carbon Renewal”  sent 5 days ago by Andrew, which started this way:

> On May 5, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Senate Widens Scope of Energy Bill to Include Carbon-Negative Technologies 
> 

2.  But it is easiest to comment on the full release, which is only 
four paragraphs.

a. “BERKELEY (May 4, 2016) — The Senate recently passed two amendments to 
support the development of carbon removal solutions in the Senate’s Bipartisan 
Energy Bill: S.2012 - The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. The 
amendments focus on two carbon-negative energy technologies: bioenergy with 
carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and sequestration. According 
to Noah Deich, Executive Director of Center for Carbon Removal, “These 
amendments are an important recognition from the Senate on the need for 
negative emissions technologies to build a strong and secure domestic energy 
industry that is compatible with our climate goals.”

[RWLa:   My reading of the amendments are that they are, unfortunately, 
not primarily NETs.  I wish they were.   How do we get more real CDR/NET 
funding legislation?


b.  “Amendment S.3270, sponsored by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), calls for the 
creation of a “net- negative carbon dioxide emissions project” under the Coal 
Technology Program. This project would employ the co-conversion of coal and 
biomass fuels coupled with carbon capture and storage or utilization to produce 
net-removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Postdoctoral research 
scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, Daniel L. Sanchez, commented 
on the amendment’s role in fostering technology innovation and 
commercialization: “Near-term, large-scale, thermochemical co-conversion 
projects with carbon capture and storage can demonstrate technical feasibility 
and reduce investment risks, ultimately enabling gigaton-scale CO2 removal.”

[RWLb:   The amendment language and funding levels show this is a coal 
subsidy, but I concur we should be pleased that BECCS is in here at all.  

My question (for anyone) is whether biochar proponents might have any 
chance in proposing a pre-BECCS biochar component under this legislation.  That 
is - the input biomass can be pyrolyzed rather than combusted,  with the 
resulting biochar providing out-year CDR and economic benefits not possible 
with BECCS. The pyrolysis gases (but no solids) would be combined with the coal 
and (presumably) result in about half as much electricity per unit in-coming 
biomass.  The BECCS operation still captures, liquifies and places (combined 
fossil and biomass) CO2 deep underground,  but now about half as much CO2 from 
the biomass because char is being produced.  The coal companies should be 
delighted as the missing carbon that has emerged as biochar must be made up 
with coal.  Yet there should be more total NET/CDR because of the out-year 
benefits of the biochar.  

This helps biochar’s argument as “all” (rather than half) of the 
biomass’ carbon is sequestered.  This helps the BECCS argument because of the 
long-term soil and NPP improvements that the biochar provides.  I have not seen 
this combined biochar/BECCS concept in print - except possibly by me somewhere 
earlier.  Anyone seen this hybrid before?  It could fly if the fundamental 
source is coal and CCS, where I am claiming costing should be improved.  For 
strictly biomass comparisons, I fear the extra costs of the BECCS component may 
not be justified. I know of lots of biochar deployment - but none with a BECCS 
aspect.   We need more comparative economic analyses between BECCS and biochar.

c. ”Amendment, S.3017, sponsored by Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Brian 
Schatz (D-HI), creates a prize managed by the Secretary of Energy to encourage 
the development of direct air capture systems by including “a financial award 
for the separation of carbon dioxide from dilute sources”. “Direct air capture 
is a vital technology for preventing climate change and ensuring that any 
emission can be canceled. A technology prize, like the one proposed in the 
Senate bipartisan energy bill, will aid these technologies in reaching cost and 
scale,” said Klaus Lackner of the Arizona State University Center for Negative 
Carbon Emissions on the amendment.”

[RWLc:  This language seems not to require CDR - since the Lackner/DAC 
emphasis seems (for cost reasons) to now be more on creating fuels - not on 
CDR/NET.   The connection to biochar (and BECCS) is that it should be much 
cheaper to capture the high density CO2 release from a power plant.  As with 
BECCS, biochar benefits from anyone finding a way to use the waste CO2 
productively.  So producing fuels from biochar’s waste/vented CO2 stream sounds 
well worth investigating.  Biochar 

Re: [geo] Analysis: How much is the UK relying on 'negative emissions' to meet its climate targets?

[Ronal W. Larson]

Phillip, list, Leo

Thanks.   

I just skimmed through your ocean-oriented biomass paper 
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4317#T2 
, and was 
surprised/delighted to see biochar, but not BECCS.  So I sense we are not very 
far apart on the question of appropriately analyzing the CDR benefits of 
biochar.

See inserts.


> On May 3, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Phillip Williamson (ENV)  
> wrote:
> 
> Ron -
> 
> Yes, the longterm effect of biochar on crop productivity is an important 
> consideration. 
[RWL:  Agreed.  I see I didn’t make a good enough case for the coupling 
of increased productivity with increased sequestration.  As one example, 
suppose that biochar uses dedicated forests, with (assumed) doubled 
productivity which means that (during all the subsequent growth period) CO2 is 
coming out of the atmosphere twice as face as without biochar.  Maybe not 
permanent sequestration, but anything out of the atmosphere for any time period 
is valuable.  With emphasis on continuing (s opposed to one-time) biochar, that 
removal is close to “ permanent”.   
More important - the biochar will be leading to increased microbe and 
fungal populations in the soil;  that is not NPP, but is supportive of NPP.

> 
> But NPP can’t be directly equated with carbon sequestration: most will be 
> re-cycled. 
[RWL:  I agree.  All the added soil carbon will be recycled on some 
time scale - but the portion that is subsequently (and sooner) turned into 
biochar will have had a large impact on atmospheric carbon (after its placement 
in soil - contradicting the “approximately half” statement that I quoted from 
2010 below).

> What matters is whether soil carbon will be significantly increased, in 
> addition to what’s added via biochar - with a reasonable likelihood of 
> stability, under future climate warming (there will be some). 
[RWL:  Agreed - but I would say “how much” rather than “whether” 
increase.  Much of the biochar now being used is going to the world’s worst 
soils - that is where the best economics lie.  No economic benefits today (in 
the absence of carbon credits) unless one is increasing both soil and 
above-ground carbon.  Re “stability” - certainly some portion of all biochar is 
labile - but the majority has plenty of lifetime to be considered seriously.

> Information on such aspects is currently uncertain.
[RWL:   Agreed;  this is one very difficult analysis problem.  The sad 
part of this story is that the past (maybe not continuing ?) emphasis on (the 
much-troubled) BECCS has kept biochar’s information-gathering much lower than 
is deserved.  I repeat this is likely mostly caused by many analysts’ 
inappropriately stopping the CDR analysis at the date of biochar’s placement - 
not after some (arbitrary) time like a century or two.

Again - thanks for (I sense) mostly agreeing that most present 
comparisons of biochar and BECCS have not understood how much extra 
sequestration can be (not necessarily will be) obtained after biochar 
placement.  Your work on ocean biomass (and “blue” biochar) can have a very 
valuable impact that too few (both land and ocean) biomass experts are 
understanding.  Placement of harvested ocean algae as biochar on land is not 
being studied enough, given the present rapid growth of a biochar industry (and 
the much slower growth of the BECCS industry).

Ron

> 
> Phil Williamson
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>   > on behalf of Ronal W.Larson 
> >
> Sent: 03 May 2016 21:49
> To: Geoengineering
> Cc: Leo Hickman
> Subject: Re: [geo] Analysis: How much is the UK relying on 'negative 
> emissions' to meet its climate targets?
>  
> List cc Leo Hickman
> 
> 1.  This is to comment on the 15 April sixth report at the Carbon Brief site 
> on NETs (mostly on BECCS) as provided to this list last Saturday.  
> http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-is-the-uk-relying-on-negative-emissions-to-meet-its-climate-targets
>  
> 
>  
> 
>
> Analysis: Is the UK relying on 'negative emissions' to ... 
> 
> www.carbonbrief.org 
> The Paris Agreement on climate change pledges to keep warming “well below 2C” 
> and “pursue...
> 
> 
> Following that lead, I found an inaccuracy in reasoning that has caused BECCS 
> to be the 

Re: [geo] Analysis: How much is the UK relying on 'negative emissions' to meet its climate targets?

[Ronal W . Larson]

List cc Leo Hickman

1.  This is to comment on the 15 April sixth report at the Carbon Brief 
site on NETs (mostly on BECCS) as provided to this list last Saturday.  
http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-is-the-uk-relying-on-negative-emissions-to-meet-its-climate-targets
 


Following that lead, I found an inaccuracy in reasoning that has caused 
BECCS to be the IPCC and Carbon Brief favorite.  The CarbonBrief article 
references a 2010 report at this URL:  
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/l/i/AVOID_WS2_D1_18_20100730.pdf 
   
where there is a fairly complete description of biochar (with BECCS and three 
other types of CDR).  But those 2010 authors missed the key feature of biochar: 
 out-year improved NPP benefits - not available with BECCS.   

 2.  The unusual met office idea of biochar is seen in this half-truth 
sentence about biochar just below Table 8 on p 26 (emphasis added):

" In addition compared to using the same biomass in BECCS complaint power 
stations, the net negative emissions are approximately half. “

3.  I use “half-truth” because this sentence is true only if one stops 
the analysis period upon placing the biochar in the soil.  But it is grossly 
inaccurate to stop the analysis after placing char in soil - as one is entitled 
to do for BECCS.  The vast majority of biochar publications are devoted to what 
happens in these out-years.  Several biochar meta-studies suggest about a 25% 
average annual increase of NPP.  The largest number I have seen reported is a 
4x NPP increase (http://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/3/723/htm 
).   The Terra Preta (biochar) soils 
of Brazil are reported to (still, after 500 years) double NPP and perhaps 
triple the soil’s dollar valuation.

4.  So I now fear that the Carbon Brief (and many other) comparisons of 
biochar and BECCS are still based on this non-appreciation of biochar’s 
out-year ever-increasing negative emissions.  

Or what am I missing?

Ron

One other comment below.

> On Apr 30, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 15 April 2016  8:52
> 
> Analysis: Is the UK relying on ‘negative emissions’ to meet its climate 
> targets?
> ROZ PIDCOCK
> 04.15.16
> 


> 
> 
> A conversation overdue
> 
> Negative emissions technologies, typically BECCS, are now baked into the 
> majority of the scenarios modelled by scientists showing how the world can 
> avoid breaching the 2C limit. These models tend to assume a growing amount of 
> BECCS being deployed globally from the 2040s onwards.
> 
> The vision for the UK is no different. The CCC has confirmed to Carbon Brief 
> that its own recommended “central scenario” for the UK’s carbon reduction 
> pathway for the decades ahead also assumes a rising amount of BECCS from 2035 
> onwards. And yet research and development – let alone the commercial 
> upscaling of a demonstration project – is still at a tentative, early stage.
> 
> Given that there are still large uncertainties about the efficacy and 
> scalability of BECCS – for example, the land-use implications; the choice of 
> bioenergy crop; the safe, available storage of sequestered carbon – it seems 
> that a conversation about negative emissions among scientists, policymakers 
> and the public is overdue.
> 
> 


-- 
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] Interesting climate/geo discussions today - with social science focus

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:

I listened for about 5 hours today to the NAS meeting identified below. 
 The meeting was very well done.  A video is promised  (I’ll pass on, if I get 
word later), but they said no transcript or other report on today will be 
coming.  

The website link given below was 
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/becs/dbasse_171101 


 - and this URL gives more:  
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_171703.pdf
 


The acronym for the group is BECS (= Board on Environmental Change and 
Society;  part of the NAS Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 
Education)  At least one participant noted the correspondence to BECCS.  The 
latter was a fairly large part of the second panel’s discussion on CDR (and a 
smaller bit on “Geo” and SRM).  Mine (on CDR) was the first of only two 
questions from the 200 listeners in addition to maybe 50 in the NAS auditorium 
- and might have generated some of the considerable amount on “geo” topics.   
Neither I nor any other used the word “biochar” - but there were comments that 
were relevant.  There was no mention of any “geo” topic during or after the 
first panel.

All the panelists (mostly not members of the official BECS group) were 
knowledgeable on this combined social science / climate topic.  I am missing 
here a few other speakers (whose names are all on the agenda that can be found 
at the first link).  I have most of the names of those asking questions (mostly 
comments) after each panel - and they will be in the video when released.   A 
few good Ppt slides hopefully coming.

Here are the two panels:

Panel 1: The bottom-up approach for international agreements, and the 
uncertainties in meeting the climate targets of national climate plans 
Moderator: Richard Moss, Joint Global Change Research Institute, BECS Chair 
Guiding Questions: • What is understood about how bottom-up approaches work and 
achieve their objectives at the international level? • Are there examples that 
serve as guides (or warnings)? More generally, what do we know and still need 
to know about how different forms of international agreements result in 
emissions reductions? • What do Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) indicate 
about the outcome of Paris agreements for global mean surface temperature? Do 
they make assumptions about behavioral and societal changes that might affect 
IAM results? • What role can NGOs play in achieving national climate plans and 
how can they be meaningfully engaged? 
David Victor, Director of the International Law and Regulation Laboratory, 
University of California-San Diego (Via WebEx) 
Nathan Hultman, University of Maryland 
Leon Clarke, Joint Global Change Research Institute 
Gavin Schmidt, Director NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 
Keya Chatterjee, Executive Director US Climate Action Network

Panel 2: Institutional and behavioral responses to policy and technology 
initiatives 
Moderator: J. Timmons Roberts, Brown University, BECS member 
Guiding Questions: • What do we know about the social science of implementation 
of other similar programs in the past? What are the possibilities to improve 
implementation? • How do we keep the majority of fossil fuel in the ground as 
required to meet emissions targets? • What should we realistically expect in 
terms of emissions reduction, by economic sectors, by level (national, 
community, individual/household), and by types of tools adopted (such as market 
approaches, regulation, etc.)? • How do institutions support and thwart energy 
system transitions, including by affecting technological innovation and policy 
creation? 
Joseph Aldy, Harvard University 
Jennie Stephens, University of Vermont 
Michael Vandenbergh, Vanderbilt Law School 
Tom Dietz, Michigan State University

I intend to follow this BECS group closely.  I heard a lot of good 
material.

Anyone else have comments on this NAS social science (BECS) group or 
today’s program?

Ron


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Tina M. Latimer" 
> Subject: Registration Confirmation
> Date: April 19, 2016 at 9:55:40 AM MDT
> To: Ronal Larson 
> 
> Dear Webcast Registrant -
>  
> Thank you for your interest in the Board on Environmental Change and Society 
> Seminar “Moving on From Paris: Implementation Lessons from Social Sciences”
>  
> The seminar will take place on April 28, 2016.  A detailed agenda and further 
> information can be found on our website 
> .  The webcast 
> information will be e-mailed shortly before the seminar.
> 
> Please contact Tina M. Latimer (T tlati...@nas.edu 
>  – (202) 334-3218) if you have any further 

Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

[Ronal W . Larson]

both biochar and biofuel) can be increased about 60% compared to
>>biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.
>> 
>>It would be crucial to increase the ratio of CDR amount to the
>>processed
>>biomass amount when the available global biomass resources are limited,
>>and this biomass-nuclear synergistic process will be useful for such
>>circumstances.
>> 
>>By the way, as the heat supplied to the endothermic reaction will be
>>contained in the heat of combustion of products, the nuclear heat is
>>effectively converted to a part of the heat of fuel, deducting heat
>>loss
>>during the processes.
>> 
>>A quantitative image of global carbon/energy balance in Year2065 by
>>this
>>Carbon Negative Energy System is shown in the attached figure.
[RWL:   Not reproduced here, but I think we can do more with biomass 
(Dr.  Hori showing biomass harvest for CDR as 6 Gt C/yr, with biochar from that 
at 1.1 Gt C/yr),  Additionally, more biochar is possible when co-produced with 
electrical and thermal needs in mind.  But also much more when using ocean 
resources (per Michael Hayes).   I can’t see that Dr.  Hori is using ocean 
biomass.
>> 
>> 
>>Masao Hori
>> Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
>> Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132
>> Email: mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp 
>>
>> 
>>Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:
[RWL:  I believe the above contribution from Dr.  Hori is based on this 
comment on BECCS (not biochar?) from Dr. Rau four days ago, replying to me.
>> 
>>> I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
>>> production.  Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
>>> figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
>>> hydrogen rather than the carbon).
[RWL:   I don’t understand the above.  There are hundreds of biochar 
companies now - with at least a dozen (and many more academic and others) who 
are producing both biochar and energy on a daily basis.  And probably about 
half the energy is from carbon (the weight loss is about 3/4- but only 1/2 the 
carbon is lost as CO2 in the pyrolysis process).  A beauty of the biochar 
production process (for CDR) is that so much of the hydrogen can be removed for 
energy purposes; the considerable energy value of H2 in biomass is not needed 
for CDR.

>> If $100/tonne CO2 is a
>>showstopper for
>>> negative emissions energy, then  why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
>>to BE
>>> the darling of this field?
[RWL:   I didn’t mean to say that $100/tonne CO2 was a showstopper.  It 
probably is cheaper than the alternative of not aggressively pursuing CDR 
(agreeing with you I think).  But that numerical figure gives about $300/tonne 
biochar (combining the 44/12=3.67 value and the fact that biochar is not 100% 
carbon). Charcoal itself (not certified biochar) itself can be purchased today 
at a value less than $300/tonne.  In addition biochar has commercial value 
today in excess of its sale price (because of increased production and reduced 
other expenses - even possibly with a one-year payback - as can be seen in 
Cool-Planet literature).   So, I presume that Greg’s reference to “darling” 
means BECCS, not biochar.   In the absence of the $100/tonne CO2,  BECCS is 
expense only - not the investment category when one is buying biochar.


>> The energy penalty for CCS is on the
>>order of
>>> 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
>>increase
>>> land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)

>>> The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
>>production
>>> may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
>>required).
[RWL:  All of these statements apply to BECCS, not biochar.   
The problem is compounded by needing to analyze the “payback” over hundreds of 
years, whereas BECCS requires continuing expenditures for monitoring (no 
out-year income).  These out-year payback computations must include many 
aspects of carbon - above and below ground.  I don’t see those out-year 
computations in almost any CDR comparison.
But my guess on why we will see BECCS languish is the user’s need for 
insurance - the same as for CCS.  The US’ DoE has already declined to pay for 
CCS insurance.

I am mostly agreeing here with Greg- not disagreeing.

Ron

>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>>   

Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list

 My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”.  Your papers 
have talked about $100/tonne CO2.  Biochar is growing quite rapidly with no 
present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks (even in year 1) in reduced 
irrigation and fertilization costs and increased productivity.  Only a few 
receiving financial benefits from voluntary CDR payments today.

Ron


> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Ron,
> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is powered by 
> renewable electricity (or nuclear). 
> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc ---> H2 +  O2 + 
> dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
> e.g. silicates - 
> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc > 2H2g +  O2g + Mg2+ + 4HCO3- + SiO2s
> e.g. carbonates:
> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc >H2g +  1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3- 
> See the links I listed earlier.
> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to electrolytic H2 production 
> is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of minerals is exothermic.  
> CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges from 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
> G
> 
> 
> From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 
> Cc: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>; Geoengineering 
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
> 
> Greg,  Stephen, list
> 
>   1.  Re Stephen’s idea:  Sounds like an idea where the next step will 
> have to be by the US air force (or someone’s military).  Starting with 200 
> passenger designs wouldn’t seem to go very far.
> 
>   2.  I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but Helium 
> should be considered as well.  I believe we are still venting a lot.
> 
>   3.  To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs lower than 
> $100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking co-products of biochar and jet 
> fuel.  Not happening now (I gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the 
> anticipated $100/bbl.
> 
>   4.  Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with either solar, 
> wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?  Seems to me it has to be 
> biochar.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net 
>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative emissions H2:
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full 
>> <http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full>
>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875 
>> <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875>
>> Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for a price).
>> 
>> As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about zeppelins? I know that 
>> Hindenberg incident over here last century didn't help this technology (the 
>> Led Zepplin album cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire 
>> generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and for propulsion? 
>> Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof. Northcott's desire for more 
>> civilized travel (his Action Item 11 below).
>> 
>> Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel, and Mr. Musk has 
>> now demonstrated the soft vertical landing of such.  Was that landing on a 
>> rolling barge in the open ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or 
>> is it just me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> From: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
>> 
>> Hi All
>> One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for aircraft fuel.  It has 
>> a great weight advantage but also a severe volume disadvantage.  This could 
>> be partly overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes landing on 
>> ground vehicles.The landing gear on an Airbus 380 weighs the same as 200 
>> passengers and their luggage.
>> A note with sketches is attached. 
>> Stephen
>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University 
>> of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 57

Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg,  Stephen, list

1.  Re Stephen’s idea:  Sounds like an idea where the next step will 
have to be by the US air force (or someone’s military).  Starting with 200 
passenger designs wouldn’t seem to go very far.

2.  I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but Helium 
should be considered as well.  I believe we are still venting a lot.

3.  To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs lower than 
$100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking co-products of biochar and jet 
fuel.  Not happening now (I gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the 
anticipated $100/bbl.

4.  Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with either solar, 
wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?  Seems to me it has to be biochar.

Ron



> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative emissions H2:
> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full 
> 
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875 
> 
> Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for a price).
> 
> As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about zeppelins? I know that 
> Hindenberg incident over here last century didn't help this technology (the 
> Led Zepplin album cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire 
> generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and for propulsion? 
> Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof. Northcott's desire for more 
> civilized travel (his Action Item 11 below).
> 
> Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel, and Mr. Musk has 
> now demonstrated the soft vertical landing of such.  Was that landing on a 
> rolling barge in the open ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is 
> it just me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI 
>   
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> 
> From: Stephen Salter 
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
> 
> Hi All
> One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for aircraft fuel.  It has 
> a great weight advantage but also a severe volume disadvantage.  This could 
> be partly overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes landing on 
> ground vehicles.The landing gear on an Airbus 380 weighs the same as 200 
> passengers and their luggage.
> A note with sketches is attached. 
> 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 18/04/2016 06:38, Greg Rau wrote:
>> Dear Michael,
>> Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present madness", but just in case 
>> all of those suggested aren't adopted in the next few decades it would seem 
>> immoral not to at least hope for additional options just in case 1-11 don't 
>> pan out in time.  As for crossing the the "large scale", "totalitarian" and 
>> "public debt"  thresholds, something tells me that it's going to take some 
>> very large scale, draconian implementation to execute 1-11 in the dwindling 
>> time remaining, and many of these activities will require capital and 
>> investment from somewhere. 
>> Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be doing a good job consuming more than half 
>> of our CO2 emissions and actually reversing the air CO2 rise for a period 
>> each year*.  So given this positive example and the task we face, how 
>> immoral might it be to see if there are safe and cost effectively ways to 
>> increase or add to this natural CO2 uptake process just in case our journey 
>> on more virtuous paths to a stable planet proves to take longer than 
>> demanded by the recently lowered and oh so moral 1.5 Deg C warming limit?
>> 
>> * 
>> https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: NORTHCOTT Michael  
>> To: "johnnissen2...@gmail.com"  
>>   
>> Cc: "m...@psu.edu"   
>> ; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
>>   
>> ; Greg Rau 

Re: [geo] ARPA funding 30m for ROOTS sequestration tech

[Ronal W . Larson]

Andrew and list:

1.  This ARPA-E announcement seems important for CDR’s future.  The 
background papers and the requirements for proposers both are well thought out; 
 it will be tough to prepare a winning proposal given the three-pronged 
approach they ask for.  The $30 million will potentially support 8 contractors 
- a lot in CDR circles.
At first I thought the proposed new DoE funding was intended as support 
for biochar and maybe BECCS - but this is for from the case.  This is a CDR 
technique I have not previously seen, with essentially no connection to the 
main biomass CDR approaches.
But I believe (not anywhere in the “ROOTS” description) that this 
emphasis on (mostly grain) roots is 100% supportive of biochar.  If the 
proposers are successful, biochar should see larger input and output bases with 
lower costs.   

2.  The announcement includes two lengthy and well-written background 
“roots” documents, after you get to 
https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/#FoaId063b5038-d272-4caf-91d0-d104bb80569b 
 
(then search for “1565”).   These are well written and even have the concept of 
sequestration (with language similar to that for afforestation, often not 
listed as a CDR approach).  The first (60 pp) starts with 25+ pages that reads 
like a technical paper (49 cites) on root theory.  The final three pages are a 
technical even more detailed root-oriented appendix.  I learned a lot about 
plant roots that I never have seen in any biochar paper.  All the usual 
proposal procedural material in between.   The second was paper is also 
excellent - attributed to a well known consulting firm - but using a well known 
soil scientist as first author. 
Another no-fee roots review paper is at 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11627-001-0122-y#page-2 
 .   
Googling found a lot more, such as this also from ARPA-E:  
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/0915_lynch_1.pdf 
 .  The popular 
biomass press is on top of this as well: 
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/04/13/arpa-e-goes-back-to-the-roots-in-30m-bid-to-transform-carbon-sequestration/
 

This next cite (http://biomassboard.gov/pdfs/tac_2016_q1_doraiswamy.pdf 
 ) showed there is 
much more going on with the Federal government re CDR and biomass than I had 
realized - including macro algae.So I have been mistaken in my belief that 
DoE was only interested in BECCS.  There are at least four other new CDR 
activities described here for biomass alone (biochar and BECCS not among them).

In sum, if readers know anyone already deeply involved with plant root 
studies - this should be a great opportunity.  CDR is much less the focus than 
root biology - but CDR is the stated main motivating factor.

Ron



> On Apr 13, 2016, at 12:45 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=news-item/arpa-e-announces-60-million-funding-two-innovative-new-programs_content=buffera1400_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer
>  
> 
> ARPA-E ANNOUNCES $60 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR TWO INNOVATIVE NEW PROGRAMS
> 
> News Media Contact: (202) 586-4940 
> For Immediate Release: April 12, 2016
> 
> ARPA-E Announces $60 Million in Funding for Two Innovative New Programs  
> Programs Aim to Enable Energy Savings for Future Connected and Automated 
> Vehicles and Improve Crop Breeding for Better Plant Carbon Storage  
> 
> WASHINGTON— The U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects 
> Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) today announced up to $60 million in funding for two 
> new programs that aim to solve some of the nation’s most pressing energy 
> challenges by accelerating the development of novel energy technologies. ……
> 


> Rhizosphere Observations Optimizing Terrestrial Sequestration (ROOTS)
> 
> Improving the ability for plants to store carbon in the soil has the 
> potential to significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. The ROOTS program 
> is making up to $30 million in funding available to pursue technologies that 
> develop new crop breeding approaches for improved root and soil function that 
> will help plants to store more carbon in the ground and take up nutrients and 
> water more efficiently. ROOTS seeks to develop novel technologies that 
> measure root and soil function and advance predictive models that accelerate 
> the selection and development of 

Re: [geo] How BECCS became the poster child for negative emissions

[Ronal W . Larson]

Greg and List:  cc “carbon brief”

1.  Like Greg,  I was impressed by the BECCS historical summary at 
http://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology?utm_content=buffer79430_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer
 

Leo Hickman did a fine job.  My main point in this note is to hope that 
he/“carbon brief” can soon provide a similar “template” (Greg’s term) history 
for other CDR approaches.  
For biochar, the main commonality is likely to be statements by Peter 
Read, who I believe changed his CDR preference from BECCS to biochar (a term he 
is given credit for) about 2007.  In that year we met in Australia as biochar 
received its present name.  A little later he invited me into biochar 
discussions on this list.  Unfortunately Peter died late in 2009.  For those 
wanting to see his biochar views, I recommend two cites to this list: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/tD2e6GVcKkM 
 and  
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/geoengineering/biochar$20peter$20read
 

 .  A paper of his about that time with favorable comments about biochar is at  
http://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read/GGLBnqf25ix08.pdf 


2.  A second reason for writing is to say that the recent problems that 
CCS has been having (major funding cutbacks in the US, UK, and Australia) may 
lead some CDR advocates to put too much emphasis on the “savior” aspect of the 
presentation (in the title “Timeline: How BECCS became climate change’s 
‘savior’ technology”).  Indeed I believe that biochar may have even already 
taken over the (undesirable) “savior” position.   The main reason for a switch 
(if there has been one) is the recent drastic cutback in funding for CCS. Is 
there any recent positive news for BECCS?  Two recent BECCS analyses that 
suggest otherwise are:
http://blog.uvm.edu/jstephe1/files/2012/03/Stephens-2015-CCS-A-Controversial-Climate-Mitigation-Approach.pdf
 
,
 and
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/5/4024/htm 
  (“Social Science Insights for the 
BioCCS Industry”;  Anne-Maree Dowd †,*, Michelle Rodriguez † and Talia Jeannette
Thankfully for a positive CDR future, the global biochar industry seems 
today to have a doubling time under two years.  This is because biochar’s 
carbon negativity cumulative impact, unlike that for BECCS,  can increase for 
centuries (as terra preta has).  The December Paris meetings ended up with an 
emphasis on soils that has helped biochar (but not BECCS) a lot.

3.  So hopefully we can have some real list dialog on what has happened 
and is happening for all the CDR competitors.   I suspect that Mr. Hickman and 
“carbon brief” agree that there is no single “savior” CDR approach. 

Ron


> On Apr 13, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> http://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology?utm_content=buffer79430_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer
>  
> 
> 
> Very nice history of the development of the BECCS concept, starting with a 
> few words written in a book chapter by Robert Williams of Princeton in 1998. 
> Much longer gestation period than I thought, and perhaps a template (or 
> cautionary tale) for further CDR development
> 
> Greg
> 
> -- 
> 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 

[geo] A Social Science Inventory of (Geo?) Sustainability Indicators

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:  (I will separately send a courtesy note to Dr.  Hicks and possibly 
others.)

1.  I believe that the CDR technologies (and especially biochar) are 
going to advance because of sustainability issues and more on the basis of 
social science understandings rather than the hard sciences.  And I prefer 
quantitative to qualitative descriptions.   Accordingly, I recommend a short (2 
1/3 pp, 12 cites) article in the April 1 issue of Science:  “Engage key social 
concepts for sustainability - Social indicators, both mature and emerging, are 
underused”   By Christina C. Hicks +16 others   
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/352/6281/38.full.pdf 
]

2.  The first paragraph (removing two cites, emphasizing one phrase) 
reads:  “With humans altering climate processes, biogeochemical cycles, and 
ecosystem functions, governments and societies confront the challenge of 
shaping a sustainable future for people and nature. Policies and practices to 
address these challenges must draw on social sciences, along with natural 
sciences and engineering. Although various social science approaches can enable 
and assess progress toward sustainability, debate about such concrete 
engagement is outpacing actual use. To catalyze uptake, we identify seven key 
social concepts that are largely absent from many efforts to pursue 
sustainability goals. We present existing and emerging well-tested indicators 
and propose priority areas for conceptual and methodological development. 
[RWL:  The “seven key social concepts” are next broken into a group of 
four:  1. Well-being,  2. Values,  3.  Agency, and 4. Inequality   - with a 
paragraph on each (and a helpful table).  These are followed by a group of 
three,  each also with a single paragraph:  5.  Power,   6.  Culture,  7.  
Injustice.  Mostly there is only a single cite for each of these seven social 
concepts.  There is no mention of the usual Geo/CDR comparators, such as 
technological readiness, magnitude of impact, costs, risks, safety, etc.  Most 
of these seven concepts show multiple subdivisions - there are dozens of 
possible numerical indicators identified in total.

3.   The final paragraph reads (with numerical additions added for 
emphasis on the way the paper is organized)   “Progress has been made toward 
development of some indicators, and in many instances, relevant data and 
expertise exist within national and international, official and unofficial 
statistics bureaus (e.g., national censuses, representative surveys, and 
polling reports). Further work is needed to understand and communicate 
desirable directions of change. Reasonable consensus exists that it is 
desirable to increase wellbeing (#1) and agency (#3) and to reduce inequality 
(#4),  injustice (#7), and imbalances of power (#5). In contrast, although 
extreme values are detrimental to sustainability goals, there is no desirable 
direction of change for values (#2) or culture (#6). Instead, these concepts 
facilitate understandings of how sustainability goals manifest and how policies 
can be crafted. Although critical gaps remain with concepts in need of 
indicator development, quantitative indicators are alone insufficient for 
understanding these concepts. Complementary, qualitative, and reflexive 
assessments will remain critical for development, implementation, and 
interpretation of robust measurement systems. “
[RWL:  Here’s hoping these 17 authors or some similar group of social 
scientists can organize to provide numerical indicator values for the 6-8 
different CDR approaches and the smaller number of SRM approaches.   It would 
be interesting to see if there is much different from the mitigation and 
adaptation climate/sustainability technologies.   Note the final paragraph’s 
emphasis on policy.

Ron 

-- 
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] Release of project report: Using scenarios to explore SRM governance

[Ronal W . Larson]

Sean and list:

I thought you had performed a useful governing exercise for the SRM 
technologies.  This is to ask if there is more that your group could say about 
the CDR approaches.  Particularly, was there any discussion of the 
appropriateness of the two parts of geoengineering being more coupled than I 
found them to be in your report. 

 I ask because I found this sentence from page 37 to be interesting:
Third, the opinion was expressed that “CDR Technology Advancement” could be the 
most decisive factor among the key uncertainties because its projections 
imposed strong and immediate consequences on almost all other key 
uncertainties’ outcomes. 

I don’t think the converse would be expressed by a CDR group.

Ron


> On Apr 6, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Sean Low  wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> We are pleased to announce the release of the report for Solar Radiation 
> Management: Foresight for Governance (SRM4G), a collaborative project between 
> the IASS-Potsdam  and Foresight Intelligence 
> , which sought to create and test a 
> framework based on foresight methods for exploring the capacities of 
> different SRM governance proposals.
> 
> Leveraging the participation of scholars and practitioners heavily engaged in 
> early conversations on SRM governance, SRM4G applied scenario construction 
> methods to generate a set of four fictional, alternative futures set in 2030, 
> based on uncertainties deemed by participants to bear the strongest potential 
> for shaping global strategies to address climate change over the next 15 
> years. Each scenario exercised a different influence on the challenges 
> associated with development of SRM technologies. The scenarios then provided 
> the context for the design of systems of governance with the capacity and 
> legitimacy to respond to those challenges, and for the evaluation of the 
> advantages and drawbacks of different options against a wide range of 
> imaginary but plausible futures.
> In doing so, SRM4G sought to initiate a conversation within the climate 
> engineering research community on the capacity of foresight approaches to 
> highlight the importance of conceptions of the future to discussions of SRM’s 
> risks and benefits, to examine the assumptions embedded in how SRM’s aims, 
> development and governance are conceived, and to discuss the capacity of (or 
> the need for) governance options to adapt to a wide range of possibilities.
> 
> To find out more, see the IASS Working Paper or the project website:
> 
> The IASS working paper 
> 
>  describes the scenarios, the methodology for their construction, SRM 
> governance options, and a detailed set of participants’ reflections.
> The project website 
> 
>  contains a brief summary of SRM4G background, aims, and participants, and a 
> list of seminal assessment reports as well as projects that apply foresight 
> methods to climate engineering.
> Best wishes,
> 
> Sean Low (IASS)
> 
> On behalf of the project co-organizers,
> 
> Johannes Gabriel (Foresight Intelligence)
> 
> Miranda Boettcher (IASS)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sean Low 
> Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam
> sean@iass-potsdam.de 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Book : The Carbon Farming Solution

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:

Last week,  I bought this book and also heard the author speak about it 
in a small permaculture meeting.   As obvious from the title, there is zero 
here about SRM and very little on CDR.  Biochar is mentioned mostly favorably - 
but on only one main page and in guarded terms, with about 8 citations.  The 
term BECCS is not here, but possibly some of the book contents would be of 
interest to BECCS proponents as well, as there are numerous chapters on how to 
increase land/biomass productivity.  I presume this list understands that land 
productivity increases are much easier with biochar than BECCS - which might be 
why BECCS is not mentioned..

In both the book and the talk, there is/was a lot on land and cattle.  
Toensmeier calls for much more research, but he is clear that today’s 
management of range and pasture land leaves much to be desired from a climate 
perspective.  And he notes that 70% of ag land is pasture land - not at all 
well used today for “carbon farming”.

There are 29 chapters arranged in 5 major categories:  1. The Big Idea, 
 2.  A Global Toolkit of Practices and Species  (biochar is only 1 page in 
Chapter 9- entitled “Additional Tools”),  3. Perennial Staple Crops,  4.  
Perennial Industrial Crops  (plenty in here on increasing biomass, including 
for energy), and 5. Road Map to Implementation (the Policy Section - all 5 
chapters pertinent to this list).

Probably about 400 citations, 700 species , possibly 80 tables.  Some 
of the best data from a CDR perspective are tables on annual growth (in tonnes 
C/ha-yr) for many species.

It is easy reading;  this is not your typical scientific paper.  But 
those papers are referenced.   He is making a clear statement that 
geoengineering is missing a lot today in the area of “Climate Farming”.

For a species list, see also his website:  
http://carbonfarmingsolution.com/plant-species-lists 
.  But this doesn’t give 
the needed detail and the citations that are in the book.  The website also has 
a recommended reading list for the five sections and about 25 videos -  a few 
are his.

I am impressed that he is teaching at Yale - apparently by student 
demand.  He has been involved in the perennial theme for decades and make good 
case for it.

It is not a cheap book at $75 list (available cheaper) - but I am 
delighted I bought it.  It should be in most libraries as a reference book - 
independent of CDR - but some types of CDR can be helped a lot with his main 
themes.  

Ron


> On Mar 20, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zsh2CwAAQBAJ=geoengineering=%22climate+stabilization%22=lang_en=gbs_navlinks_s
>  
> 
> The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops and 
> Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food 
> Security
> 
> Eric Toensmeier
> 
> Chelsea Green Publishing, 22 Feb 2016 -Science - 512p
> 
> Agriculture is rightly blamed as a major culprit of our climate crisis. But 
> in this groundbreaking new book, Eric Toensmeier argues that 
> agriculture—specifically, the subset of practices known as “carbon 
> farming”—can, and should be, a linchpin of a global climate solutions 
> platform.
> 
> Carbon farming is a suite of agricultural practices and crops that sequester 
> carbon in the soil and in above ground biomass. Combined with a massive 
> reduction in fossil fuel emissions—and in concert with adaptation strategies 
> to our changing environment— carbon farming has the potential to bring us 
> back from the brink of disaster and return our atmosphere to the “magic 
> number” of 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Toensmeier’s book is the 
> first to bring together these powerful strategies in one place, including 
> in-depth analysis of the available research and, where research is lacking, a 
> discussion of what it will take to get us there.
> 
> Carbon farming can take many forms. The simplest practices involve 
> modifications to annual crop production. Although many of these modifications 
> have relatively low sequestration potential, they are widely applicable and 
> easily adopted, and thus have excellent potential to mitigate climate change 
> if practiced on a global scale. Likewise, grazing systems such as 
> silvopasture are easily replicable, don’t require significant changes to 
> human diet, and—given the amount of agricultural land worldwide that is 
> devoted to pasture—can be important strategies in the carbon farming arsenal. 
> But by far, agroforestry practices and perennial crops present the best 
> opportunities for sequestration. While many of these systems are challenging 
> to establish and manage, and would require us to change our diets