Climate change mitigation strategies informed by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) increasingly rely on major deployments of negative emissions technologies (NETs) to achieve global climate targets. Although NETs can strongly complement emissions mitigation efforts, this dependence on the presumed future ability to deploy NETs at scale raises questions about the structural elements of IAMs that are influencing our understanding of mitigation efforts. Model inter-comparison results underpinning the IPCC's special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C were used to explore the role that current assumptions are having on projections and the way in which emerging technologies, economic factors, innovation, and tradeoffs between negative emissions objectives and UN Sustainable Development Goals might have on future deployment of NETs. Current generation IAM scenarios widely assume we are capable of scaling up NETs over the coming 30 years to achieve negative emissions of the same order of magnitude as current global emissions (tens of gigatons of CO2/year) predominantly relying on highly land intensive NETs. While the technological potential of some of these approaches (e.g., direct air capture) is much greater than for the land-based technologies, these are seldom included in the scenarios. Alternative NETs (e.g., accelerated weathering) are generally excluded because of connections with industrial sectors or earth system processes that are not yet included in many models. In all cases, modeling results suggest that significant NET activity will be conducted in developing regions, raising concerns about tradeoffs with UN Sustainable Development Goals. These findings provide insight into how to improve treatment of NETs in IAMs to better inform international climate policy discussions. We emphasize the need to better understand relative strength and weaknesses of full suite of NETs that can help inform the decision making for policy makers and stakeholders.
#1. No Poverty “Healthy soil can produce more food and goods, they contributing positively to food security and incomes for the world’s poorest people” ‘For SDG 1, No Poverty, reducing costs and dependency on external resources together with the increase in crop productivity would help farmers to be self-sufficient while increasing incomes.”(Smith et al., 2019). Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.8, based on biochar being available to so many of the poorest through cooking and heating. The two others could be raised a little.
#2. Zero Hunger. Healthy soil can produce more food and goods, thereby contributing positively to food security and incomes for the world’s poorest people.. food security will benefit from higher yields and higher agro-ecosystem resilience (Smith et al, 2019). Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.9, based on roughly tripled NPP in Terra Preta soils (after centuries). Would raise the other two a little.
#3. Good Health & Well Being. “by increasing crop yields, aiding soil remediation and water purification, [soil carbon enhancement] and biochar application to soils can contribute significantly to peoples’ nutritional health”. (Smith et al., 2019). Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.8, based on #2 rationale. And scores of 2 & 1 to the left could be raised.
#4. Quality Education. No score given in paper. RWL proposed score: 1.5 , based on the complexity and novelty of analyzing biochar (covers so many topics - both in the social and physical sciences).
#5. Gender Equality. No score given. RWL proposed score: 1.9, based on personal experience in world of third world charcoal-making cook stoves. Also can be great gender equality benefit in agricultural field work.
#6. Clean Water & Sanitation Reduced soil erosion. (Smith et al., 2019) Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.8, based on dozens of papers every month on both of these two topics. Also scores of 2 and 0 to left. Much more here than erosion control.
#7. Affordable and Clean Energy “give people access to Affordable and Clean Energy (through energy crops).” (Smith et al., 2019) Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.7, based on having centuries of out-year benefits compared to BECCS, which also received score of 1 (the only two NETs’s with. positive scores) Biochar is the only CDR approach I have ever seen quoted as having negative costs (possible with cook stoves) because of what happens for centuries AFTER biochar is placed in the soil.
#8. Decent Work and Economic Growth Through the combination of improved agricultural productivity, improved water and air quality, and the potential of soil (organisms) to provide medicines, SCS can contribute positively to SDG 3, Good Health and Well-being. This may also help to achieve Decent Work and Economic Growth and Industry” (Smith et al., 2019). Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.8, based mostly on much greater (full time) job opportunities than the two to left. Good place also to mention low risk for investments.
#9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Biochar could provide carbon negative energy with value-added co-product. More resilient soil can dampen the effect of climate hazards (Smith et al., 2019) Score:1. RWL proposed score: 1.7, based on blue carbon score of 2. Also huge number of monthly biochar papers in these three “I” areas.
#10. Reduced Inequalities Not directly impacted by SCS or biochar (Smith et al., 2019), but global carbon market could provide means of financing sustainable agriculture in the developing world (Author assessment) Score: 0. RWL proposed score: 1.6, based on score of 1 given to Blue carbon. This argument much like that for SDG 5 on gender equality. Note the Smith statement relates to SCS - not biochar. This the only zero given for biochar - which doesn’t fit with the biochar literature.
#11. Sustainable Cities and Communities “This may also help to achieve Decent Work and Economic Growth and Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, which in turn might contribute to developing Sustainable Cities and Communities” (Smith et al., 2019) Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.6, based in part on blue carbon receiving a score of ‘2’. But also Stockholm is having good success with biochar. Cities aren’t going to be the main biochar target, but for most cities, biochar seems the most likely NET.
#12. Responsible Consumption and Production. Carbon markets could offer pathway to finance more sustainable agriculture. (Smith et al., 2019). Score: 1 RWL proposed score: 1.6, based in part on score of 2 for blue carbon. But also especially the role of biochar in improving forest health.
#13. Climate Action. “All NETs positively contribute to SDG 13: Climate Action by removing CO [sic] from the atmosphere, coinciding with the sequestration potential of each NET.’ No scores provided, but the totals are certainly different and sums and averages could have been given.). RWL proposed score: 1.7, based roughly on my 16 other SDG scores. Some biochar activities already receiving funding in this category.
#14. Life Below Water. “SCS can help to prevent erosion and polluted substances from reaching water bodies.” (Smith et al., 2019). Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.6, based in part on blue carbon score of 2. Numerous biochar papers on biochar’s capability to retain phosphorous and other pollutants. Can help with ocean acidification. Note Smith quote is only on SCS.
#15. Life on Land “SCS can help to improve soil health, thereby enhancing potential for biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.” (Smith et al., 2019) Score: 1. RWL proposed score: 1.6, based in part on blue Carbon having a “2” score. But also biochar seems to be the only way to reclaim land that has no possible present use. Many papers on biochar for mine-land reclamation. Also many biochar papers on reducing fire hazards due to forest over-growth.
#16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions Not scored. RWL proposed score: 1.7, based in part on the likely control of biochar installations at the local level, if needed at all. Most risk is to the land owner, who can easily do prior testing.
#17: Partnerships for the Goals. Not scored. RWL proposed score: 1.6, based on the wide range of environmental and societal problems (other than climate) being addressed in the several thousand annual biochar papers. This SDG is a catchall - where biochar fits, even if other NETs do not.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-06dru%2BEE3FMHW0VWbi3LUomEzMd6KGUKo522rSZHSLOZg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/0E451F1B-5A7B-460D-948D-D713CEC4F4CD%40comcast.net.
On Apr 8, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Benoit Lambert <benoit....@biochargeneration.com> wrote:Ron,While I agree with you ranking using sustainable development goals (SDG) is an appropriate methodological used in this article, the attributed marks show little understanding of biochar, as very well expressed in your own re-marking and comments below. How in the world could « an unfortunate typo » assimilate biochar with BECCS? How could such an error be maintained in Figure 5 as it did…
What about: the authors do not master soils-based solutions... It appears so when they write "The second difficulty with NETs and the standard model of directed technical change is that many NETs have no value except for their contribution to lower GHG concentrations. These are not substitutes for some other way of producing goods. While R&D investment is required to bring NETs costs down, their use never becomes less dependent on the GHG price, as is the case with renewables replacing fossil fuels. » They should know biochar as numerous co-benefits besides lower GHG, and should have written about it.
Their description of biochar is almost non-existant. They mention the return of biochar's carbon to the atmosphere, in fact very marginal in biochar literature — and do not mention terra preta recalcitrant to decomposition after milleniums. It gives the impression they know very little about biochar. The insistance in the literature on BECCS and DACs, two no-existant technologies in the real world, is simply mind blowing. The fact they give no mark to SDG on education for biochar tells a lot, the authors do not see biochar is a great example of bio-mimicry.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/E9926598-F0C1-4DA2-A9CC-1FE4EFB3A348%40biochargeneration.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/478846DD-B6D3-430E-A196-507AD522A15B%40comcast.net.
Le 9 avr. 2020 à 01:33, Jay Fuhrman <jayfu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Second to all of Andres’ points.
Just to expand a bit more, our grouping of potential CDR methods was in part based on the 2018 report on negative emissions by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which groups biochar within a number of ways by which to enhance carbon stocks in soils, and more specifically, on croplands and grasslands. Within this still-broad category, the NAS report lists biochar as a “frontier technology/practice” still in the basic research phase, but we semi-broke biochar out (i.e., list as soil carbon / biochar) for the reasons of potential linkages and overlaps with BECCS that Andres mentions below.
I am also happy to have further discussions with you all on this topic.
Best,
Jay
On Apr 8, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Andres Clarens <af...@virginia.edu> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Le 9 avr. 2020 à 07:45, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Cheers, JohnBut most importantly, the soil-based approach has the capability to remove the 2-3 trillion tonnes of CO2 required for reducing the CO2 level to below 300ppm. This is one of the key components for the climate restoration that no doubt we'd all like for the future well-being of humanity, now that it seems possible.Hi Benoit,While agreeing with you whole-heartedly, can I be even more enthusiastic for biochar? There is absolutely no limit for the amount of carbon that can be put in the ground and sequestered there safely for hundreds or thousands of years. By combining biochar with regenerative agriculture, e.g. as advocated by Tomas Goreau [1], it can be done at low cost: estimated at $15 to $20 per tonne of CO2 removed [2]. But the actual cost may well be negative, in that there are so many co-benefits of this approach, including food production, thereby helping to meet SDGs. The approach is applicable to third world countries for subsistence farmers. Because the carbon sequestration can be measured, the method is suitable for subsidy by carbon offset, which would no doubt be more than welcome in poorer countries!
[1] Interview with Thomas Goreau
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9dbyU___LA
[2] Low cost CDR through regenerative agriculture
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:53 AM Benoit Lambert <benoit....@biochargeneration.com> wrote:
Dear list,Thank you Andres and Jay for your comments. IMO biochar should not be associated with BECCS in any way. In fact some biochar proponents as Dr Thomas Goreau oppose BECCS vigorously. Biochar should be presented for what it is, PyCCS, pyrogenic carbon capture and sequestration (Hans-Peter Schmidt, Biochar Journal).Let me explain where my comment comes from. The carbon dioxide removal community has been referring to BECCS and DACs as hopes for carbon removal, constantly, some with a passion. But there is no BECCS in operation whatsoever that I am aware of, and DACs has two experimental projects to my knowledge, one in Switzerland financed by the state, and one in Vancouver financed by the government and Bill Gates.Compare that to biochar. Amazonians have transformed 1-3% of the Amazon basin in fertile soils, sequestered huge amonts of carbon by doing so, and, developed a huge civilisation with agriculture starting with un-fertile oxysoils. It is the only civilisation in history to have made soils fertile without using fertilizers except for leaves falling from the forest on their man-made terra preta. Biochar is also present in most soils of the world to some degree, in particular all over boreal forests (see my picture below). Biochar is bio-mimicry.There is just no comparison with BECCS and DACs. Photosynthesis is a powerful machine that biochar amplifies with its amazing properties. It can be used in agriculture but it might have numerous non-soils uses, in concrete for example. BECCS and DACs are mostly ideas with very hypothetical financial potentials, with no solid proving.Puro-Earth in Finland is selling the first carbon negative credits in the world, some to Microsoft and Swiss Re. They made no mistake. They are selling 3 types of carbon net-negative credits: biochar, carbonated building elements (carbon negative concrete), and, wooden building elements. Puro-Earth is looking at BECCS, but has no mention of DACs at this point…Some say biochar will become as big an industry as the current petroleum industry by 2050.I do too. I was also glad to see see US NAS mention biochar. Yet in reality North America is now way behind Europe when it comes to climate change reversal strategies. Europe has reduced by 30% its emissions thanks to its application of the Kyoto protocol. With mandatory targets, it has been trading credits for 2 decades (I taught carbon credits myself for Abengoa in Seville). Europe is now charring into the future with confidence, increasingly with CDR in mind.Kind regards,Benoit
<86E2AFE0-FB89-4BB9-BF32-0A749416BCFC_1_105_c.jpeg><4DACC9E1-EC37-4544-9896-1724C98D6D2C_1_105_c.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/05D9D58E-A9AE-47E0-AB79-E2A7035CA71F%40biochargeneration.com.
On Apr 8, 2020, at 6:42 PM, Andres Clarens <af...@virginia.edu> wrote:Hi everyone,I’m the corresponding author on this paper and would be happy to answer questions you all have. I’m also cc’ing Jay Fuhrman, a graduate student in my lab and lead author on the paper.I apologize for not chiming in sooner. I receive the CDR emails but 1) many of the notes get caught in my spam filter and 2) I’ve been managing the fact that my lab is temporarily shut down (half our group is experimental), teaching online, as well as the normal deadlines.A few quick replies to some of the points raised below:- Our statement that NETs other than BECCS don’t have value outside climate mitigation needs to be interpreted from the perspective of IAMs. IAMs in general have sophisticated energy systems modeling capabilities with lower fidelity hydrology, crop, industry, etc. models. Biochar clearly has co-benefits that are important and so do many of the other NETs and that is why we wanted to provide this qualitative framing in the context of SDGs. But GCAM, the IAM with which I am most familiar, would need a lot of work to capture the co-benefits to ag yields, water quality, etc. This work is necessary and important, but hasn’t been done yet. This paper is intended to highlight some of those gaps - not to disparage biochar in any way.
- The reason we wrote that BECCS and biochar are coupled is that doing either of these things at Gt/yr scale would probably require that the activities be coupled in some way. My understanding is that ag residue and sludge etc. will quickly be exhausted as sources of biochar and we will need to build BECCS plants that can produce some heat and some biochar as a byproduct. Papers like this one influenced our thinking here. But we would love to learn more about this.
- We are not definitely experts in biochar, nor do we claim to be. But we also don’t have any particular agenda regarding biochar or any of the other technologies included here. Our objective was simply to highlight some ways in which the integrated modeling community might better model a suite of technologies. Right now they are betting the house on BECCS and afforestation alone, and that’s a problem.
- Ronal’s point by point discussion of our rating effort is much appreciated. I have no doubt that if we had used an expert elicitation process we could have come up with a figure that would be more refined than this one but our figure is meant to be a first overture and will hopefully help stimulate discussion and refinement as you all are doing here.
In my opinion, one of the biggest lessons I learned writing this paper was that modeling the true potential of any soil-based approach to mitigate climate at a global scale is very difficult but very necessary. If any of you have a desire/interest to work on some of this, I’d be excited to discuss. It’s not a direction our work is heading now, simply because we aren’t experts in this space, but I am happy to discuss where we see opportunities.
Thanks again for the really interesting conversation. I look forward to discussing more.
Andres
Andres ClarensAssociate Professor, Engineering Systems and EnvironmentAssociate Director, Environmental Resilience InstituteUniversity of Virginia
On Apr 8, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/478846DD-B6D3-430E-A196-507AD522A15B%40comcast.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/08752F19-4094-410C-AC90-CB3E5418ABF9%40comcast.net.
On Apr 13, 2020, at 4:27 AM, Thomas Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:Just a brief point, Biochar that is nearly pure carbon is severely deficient in the other elements plants need, so supplementation with minerals in the form of ash from biomass burning is always beneficial.To be most effective all biochar should be supplemented with rock powder, of which basalt is best because it contains all the minerals plants need except nitrogen, and with organic compost (for the nitrogen).Or use biochar to absorb nutrients from waste waters to recharge it with nitrogen and phosphorus, works great on dairy and human wastes!This is needed for almost all biochar except perhaps from those made from marine algae, which are nutrient rich and carbon poor.
And of course as the rock powder weathers and provides long-term, slow release nutrients it absorbs CO2 from the air and turns it into dissolved groundwater bicarbonate through the weathering reactions.
Rock powder/biochar mixtures maximize the benefits of each for CDR, the minerals make biochar much more biologically effective, and intense root and fungi growth accelerates rock weathering rates several orders of magnitude.