Should albedo be taken into account in meeting CO2 emissions reduction targets?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Carana
May 15, 2009, 5:09:06 AM5/15/09
to geoengineering
"Should albedo be taken into account in meeting CO2 emissions
reduction targets?"
reduction targets?"
Here's my view:
Geoengineering should not become a substitute for emission reductions.
Climate change requires a comprehensive response, consisting of at
least four parts:
- Emissions reduction
- Carbon stock management
- Heat transfer and radiation management
- Adaptation
All parts need to be adequately addressed and each of these parts
requires a separate and appropriate policy framework - details should
be worked out at the Copenhagen Conference.
At the Copenhagen Conference, an agreement should be reached on
targets for "emission reduction". Each country can then decide how to
achieve their targets, provided they do reach them, which should be
backed up by sanctions against countries that fail to reach their
targets.
The efforts of one country in one part, e.g., albedo change achieved
by white roofs, may deserve credit, but only as part of "radiation
management". Such credit should not translate into a reduction of to
duty for that country to reduce its emissions.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
David Schnare
May 15, 2009, 8:38:11 AM5/15/09
to Geoengineering FIPC
If we are going to get into albedo management, then we really would have to get into land management. Pielke's work modeling the effects of land albedo in Florida and the North East demonstrate the massive effect of changing albedo. Thus, if we are going to get into white roofs, it makes no sense but to get into an entire albedo budget. Not sure there will ever be sufficient political opportunity to mandate land use practices as part of a climate change response.
d.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
Andrew Lockley
May 17, 2009, 3:45:05 PM5/17/09
to dwsc...@gmail.com, Geoengineering FIPC
Countries may well try to use such techniques as a may of meeting obligations, or to justify not cutting GHGs. We should be prepared for the arguments.
David Schnare
May 17, 2009, 6:54:12 PM5/17/09
to Andrew Lockley, Geoengineering FIPC
Actually, land management probably should be taken into account by regional authorities. Reforestation around Kilimejaro (sp?) would reestablish the snow cap up there fairly quickly. Reestablishment of the swamps over 60 percent of Florida will cool the state by "several" degrees and increase rainfall by 10 - 12% according to the Matthews et al study. Similar opportunities exist in western Africa, Australia and no doubt many other places. Should the planet continue to warm, regardless of the cause, land use may well be a part of adaptation necessary to maintain local temperature and precipitation.
David.
David Schnare
May 17, 2009, 9:19:47 PM5/17/09
to Andrew Lockley, Geoengineering FIPC
I mentioned a paper by Mathews. My error. I meant Marshall and the following paper:
MARSHALL, C.H. et al. (2003) “The Impact of Anthropogenic Land-Cover Change on the Florida Peninsula Sea Breezes and Warm Season Sensible Weather”, Monthly Weather Review, V. 132 (2004). See: http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-272.pdf
Pielke, et al. have done similar studies for the Northeast U.S., in Australia and I think in the California agricultural valley. He also discussed some similar work on the west coast of Africa. Add up enough of this and it could have a significant effect on global temperature. These level of changes are not adequately reflected in the GCMs used by the IPCC, according to Pielke.
d.
Sam Carana
May 18, 2009, 4:48:43 AM5/18/09
to geoengineering
There are clear arguments in favor of doing things in addition to each
other. What should be avoided is that countries start doing one thing
instead of another.
One of the basic problems with "cap and trade" is that it lets
countries trade their way out of their obligations to reduce fossil
fuel emissions. In my view, a country facing a "cap" on emissions,
should not be allowed to "trade" itself out of that obligation by
paying for some radiation management somewhere on Earth.
Furthermore, many types of radiation management require political
agreement at international level, with delicate diplomatic
negotiations. On the other hand, no international agreement will be
breached if a country decides to build solar or wind farms, to reduce
the emissions from its coal-fired power plants that will be
decommissioned as a result.
I therefore suggest that emission reductions and radiation management
each be dealt with in a separate policy framework, but I hasten to add
once more that a comprehensive response to global warming should
include both parts, and more.
Similarly, carbon stock management deserves a separate political
framework, because the oceans have to be included. Furthermore, topics
like preservation of rainforests and associated biodiversity require
special attention.
There can be some overlap between emission reduction and carbon stock
management. As an example, a country that fails to reach its agreed
emission reduction target, could make up for that by carbon capture.
But this should not be the rule, it should be an exception, bounded by
tight conditions. Instead of making "cap and trade" the rule, we
should adopt "cap and capture" as our motto.
As an example, a country could be allowed to offset a shortfall in its
emission reduction target, if it demonstrated successful capture and
safe storage of, say, twice the amount of the shortfall. Failing to do
so, the country would face sanctions, as arbitrated by the WTO, and
tariffs could be imposed up to the cost such CCS (by international
tender) with the proceeds of such tariffs used to ensure that such CCS
does indeed take place.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On May 18, 11:19 am, David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mentioned a paper by Mathews. My error. I meant Marshall and the
> following paper:
>
> MARSHALL, C.H. et al. (2003) “The Impact of Anthropogenic Land-Cover
> Change on the Florida Peninsula Sea Breezes and Warm Season Sensible
> Weather”, *Monthly Weather Review*, V. 132 (2004). See:http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-272.pdf
other. What should be avoided is that countries start doing one thing
instead of another.
One of the basic problems with "cap and trade" is that it lets
countries trade their way out of their obligations to reduce fossil
fuel emissions. In my view, a country facing a "cap" on emissions,
should not be allowed to "trade" itself out of that obligation by
paying for some radiation management somewhere on Earth.
Furthermore, many types of radiation management require political
agreement at international level, with delicate diplomatic
negotiations. On the other hand, no international agreement will be
breached if a country decides to build solar or wind farms, to reduce
the emissions from its coal-fired power plants that will be
decommissioned as a result.
I therefore suggest that emission reductions and radiation management
each be dealt with in a separate policy framework, but I hasten to add
once more that a comprehensive response to global warming should
include both parts, and more.
Similarly, carbon stock management deserves a separate political
framework, because the oceans have to be included. Furthermore, topics
like preservation of rainforests and associated biodiversity require
special attention.
There can be some overlap between emission reduction and carbon stock
management. As an example, a country that fails to reach its agreed
emission reduction target, could make up for that by carbon capture.
But this should not be the rule, it should be an exception, bounded by
tight conditions. Instead of making "cap and trade" the rule, we
should adopt "cap and capture" as our motto.
As an example, a country could be allowed to offset a shortfall in its
emission reduction target, if it demonstrated successful capture and
safe storage of, say, twice the amount of the shortfall. Failing to do
so, the country would face sanctions, as arbitrated by the WTO, and
tariffs could be imposed up to the cost such CCS (by international
tender) with the proceeds of such tariffs used to ensure that such CCS
does indeed take place.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On May 18, 11:19 am, David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mentioned a paper by Mathews. My error. I meant Marshall and the
> following paper:
>
> MARSHALL, C.H. et al. (2003) “The Impact of Anthropogenic Land-Cover
> Change on the Florida Peninsula Sea Breezes and Warm Season Sensible
>
> Pielke, et al. have done similar studies for the Northeast U.S., in
> Australia and I think in the California agricultural valley. He also
> discussed some similar work on the west coast of Africa. Add up enough of
> this and it could have a significant effect on global temperature. These
> level of changes are not adequately reflected in the GCMs used by the IPCC,
> according to Pielke.
>
> d.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:54 PM, David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, land management probably should be taken into account by regional
> > authorities. Reforestation around Kilimejaro (sp?) would reestablish the
> > snow cap up there fairly quickly. Reestablishment of the swamps over 60
> > percent of Florida will cool the state by "several" degrees and increase
> > rainfall by 10 - 12% according to the Matthews et al study. Similar
> > opportunities exist in western Africa, Australia and no doubt many other
> > places. Should the planet continue to warm, regardless of the cause, land
> > use may well be a part of adaptation necessary to maintain local temperature
> > and precipitation.
>
> > David.
>
> > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Andrew Lockley <
> Pielke, et al. have done similar studies for the Northeast U.S., in
> Australia and I think in the California agricultural valley. He also
> discussed some similar work on the west coast of Africa. Add up enough of
> this and it could have a significant effect on global temperature. These
> level of changes are not adequately reflected in the GCMs used by the IPCC,
> according to Pielke.
>
> d.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:54 PM, David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, land management probably should be taken into account by regional
> > authorities. Reforestation around Kilimejaro (sp?) would reestablish the
> > snow cap up there fairly quickly. Reestablishment of the swamps over 60
> > percent of Florida will cool the state by "several" degrees and increase
> > rainfall by 10 - 12% according to the Matthews et al study. Similar
> > opportunities exist in western Africa, Australia and no doubt many other
> > places. Should the planet continue to warm, regardless of the cause, land
> > use may well be a part of adaptation necessary to maintain local temperature
> > and precipitation.
>
> > David.
>
> > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Andrew Lockley <
> > andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Countries may well try to use such techniques as a may of meeting
> >> obligations, or to justify not cutting GHGs. We should be prepared for the
> >> arguments.
> >> A
>
> >> 2009/5/15 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>
>
> >> Countries may well try to use such techniques as a may of meeting
> >> obligations, or to justify not cutting GHGs. We should be prepared for the
> >> arguments.
> >> A
>
>
> >>> If we are going to get into albedo management, then we really would
> >>> have to get into land management. Pielke's work modeling the effects of
> >>> land albedo in Florida and the North East demonstrate the massive effect of
> >>> changing albedo. Thus, if we are going to get into white roofs, it makes no
> >>> sense but to get into an entire albedo budget. Not sure there will ever be
> >>> sufficient political opportunity to mandate land use practices as part of a
> >>> climate change response.
>
> >>> d.
>
> >>> If we are going to get into albedo management, then we really would
> >>> have to get into land management. Pielke's work modeling the effects of
> >>> land albedo in Florida and the North East demonstrate the massive effect of
> >>> changing albedo. Thus, if we are going to get into white roofs, it makes no
> >>> sense but to get into an entire albedo budget. Not sure there will ever be
> >>> sufficient political opportunity to mandate land use practices as part of a
> >>> climate change response.
>
> >>> d.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages