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] Report of Negative Emissions seminar

[Greg Rau]

Report bullet points:"Urgent need to increase carbon sequestration in land and 
forests. With only 200GtCO2 left until the global carbon budget for 1.5°C is 
blown, it is highly likely that therewill be a need to increase removals of CO2 
from the atmosphere to limit warmingto 1.5°C or even 2°C. This could be done 
through halting deforestation and forestdegradation, 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? 
"Forests and land do not offset fossil fuel emissions. Plants, trees and soils 
removeCO2 from the atmosphere, but this does not offset the release of CO2 when 
fossil fuelsare burnt. Increasing carbon sequestration in plants, trees and 
soils repays the landcarbon debt accumulated from historical land use change, 
but does not compensateon-going emissions. To mitigate climate change we must 
reduce emissions from thefossil 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?) AND satisfy growing land based food, fiber and fuel production. 
Feasibility? Otherwise how/why can we ignore C management potential and food, 
fiber and fuel production in the ocean?



 
  From: 'Motoko' via geoengineering 
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:03 AM
 Subject: [geo] Report of Negative Emissions seminar
   
Fern 
(2016): Report of the seminar 'Negative Emissions' facilitated by Fern. 
Brussels.   
http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/Negative%20emissions%20seminar.pdf  
This seminar held in May 2016 brought key scientists together with 
environmental, development and human rights NGOs to understand the Paris 
Agreement’s implications for forests and land use.     -- 
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.