aldeira
To: w...@feronia.org; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] CDR as Mitigation
CDR reduces net emissions.
What is the difference between a coal plant with CCS and a bio energy facility
without CCS versus a coal plant wit
cience.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Wil Burns ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] CDR as Mitigation
CDR reduces net emissions.
What is the difference between a coal plant with CCS and a bio energy facility
without CCS versus a coal plant without CCS and a bio
I like to think of this question in terms of partitioning of the planet's
carbon stock. Global carbon is divided into two reservoirs: the lithosphere
(rocks and fossil fuels) and the biosphere (soil, biomass, oceans, atmosphere).
While some climate disruption is presented by transfers within the
CDR reduces net emissions.
What is the difference between a coal plant with CCS and a bio energy
facility without CCS versus a coal plant without CCS and a bio energy
facility with CCS?
Why should the addition of CCS be considered mitigation in the first case
but not in the second case?
On Wed,
I agree with Dr Burns, the conflation of CDR with mitigation is
problematic. It is both more logical and more politically expedient for CDR
to be referred to as "restoration" or "remediation".
--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
a
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira
mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar
geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.
I find the characterization of CDR as "mitigation" as both inaccurate and
ill-advised in the
