--
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/2051c264-e5b2-416b-948e-b6c009b8c153n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a35ebb90-87a3-4ea6-84dc-54e9e20951dcn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a35ebb90-87a3-4ea6-84dc-54e9e20951dcn%40googlegroups.com.
On May 16, 2023, at 10:10 AM, Toby Bryce <tbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Renaud,Thanks for the feedback on the brief -- which points seems to me to be primarily semantical. (E.g. NETs is very much not universally or exclusively established, and CDR [or GGR, which one might also say] are very frequently used.
"Human" is used in several places in place of "anthropogenic." Etc.)
Would love to discuss any feedback you have, beyond word choice, on the substance of the brief -- for which I facilitated the working group of ~20 CO2BC member companies and served as lead author. (Or where word choice is substantive and not semantical.)
In particular I'd be curious to hear what you find "somehow misleading" about use of "biogenic" in the text you quote below. That was a tricky passage to align on, however the inclusion of "biogenic" was considered and purposeful, to include BECCS (and similar BiCRS processes) in the definition of CDR, as distinct from CCS of fossil carbon emissions which are emissions reduction.
[RWL3: See RWL5 below.
Best, TobyOn Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:02:10 AM UTC-4 renaud.derichter wrote:Thanks for sharing this.Even if your "brief" mentions "Net-Negativity", and " ... deliver net-negative carbon removal ...", I'm a little bit astonished that it doesn't use the well established and used expression "Negative emissions technologies" (NETs).
Also the terms anthropogenic, mitigation, remediation are not used.The term "biogenic" in the following paragraph, seems to me somehow misleading:CDR is frequently (and erroneously) conflated with “carbon capture” (or carbon capture and storage [CCS]) which refers to capturing carbon dioxide from point-source fossil carbon emissions (e.g. from a cement kiln) and securely storing it in underground geological formations. CCS is a form of GHG emissions reduction, whereas CDR addresses atmospheric (or biogenic) carbon dioxide, making their methods and goals distinct. It is critically important to communicate in precise terms to differentiate the two.
c. Or both.b. Or maybe his “somehow misleading” refers to the previous sentence where the word “or” between "atmospheric” and “biogenic” could mean an equality - whereas most fossil-fuel-caused atmospheric CO2 is not usually termed “biogenic”, although some is.
--
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/A5724A50-F128-4629-8EB5-7B4E936A5EAF%40comcast.net.
A note on this part, "... and to eventually remove legacy CO2 emissions from the atmosphere...."
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1ew4f%2B6KjRCjdtVB1LDVGugHVOh%3Dgcw5MHW5u2reT8d4w%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/f41da3eb-f23f-4bef-ad20-8cda70f993be%40earthlink.net.
Toby,
I also think that the use of “or biogenic” in brackets after atmospheric is misleading/confusing. It is also unnecessary as all CDR techniques by definition aim to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly by biotic or abiotic processes.
Best wishes
Chris.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a35ebb90-87a3-4ea6-84dc-54e9e20951dcn%40googlegroups.com.
Please avoid the nonsensical oxymoron “negative emissions”, which only spreads confusion, and use the accurate term “carbon sinks”.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/196a01d98be4%242427c210%246c774630%24%40btinternet.com.
Yes, please ~ ~ ~
Another extremely confusing concept that plays into the concept of negative emissions is that "we first have to get to net zero before we can go negative." While true from a simple accounting standpoint, this statement appears to demand that first we have to achieve net zero, with all its extremely large complications where we have failed to come close for 30 years, then we can remove carbon from the sky.
Steep trails,
Bruce M
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/ACC81540-A49A-4FC8-B396-FA2A15DCBAAC%40globalcoral.org.
Hello all,
Thanks again for reading the CO2BC Defining CDR Issue Brief, and for your feedback and comments.
I wanted to briefly to respond to a few of the points that have been made subsequent to my last message:
Re. “negative emissions” – I neither like nor dislike the term as much as some of the respondents to this thread do 🙂 – and I think the Negative Emissions Platform for example does good work – but CDR is pretty clearly the preferred term for global governance (e.g. IPCC and Article 6.4 deliberations) and national governments (e.g. US and European Commission / EU) – so that’s the term I’m going to continue to use.
Re. “GGR” and methane – these concepts / issues are beyond the scope of a “Defining CDR” brief. I’m not an expert on this topic but my personal opinion is that methane abatement (and I guess removal if/when it is proven to work) is so distinct from CDR in multiple dimensions that it should not be lumped in with every CDR policy (as “GGR”) but rather addressed with distinct policy. (And distinct policy briefs!) Hence my continued pref for CDR vs GGR. Again I’m not an expert on methane and am not going to weigh in further on this issue – I look to Spark as the leading “market shaper” for methane mitigation and will try to learn from them. (If you didn’t watch the recent Airminers webinar w Spark et. al. I thought it was excellent and would encourage you to check it out.)
Re. “biogenic” – that is good feedback, thank you to Renaud, Ron, and Chris for highlighting. Again that parenthetical was included purposefully and at the request of the co2bc working group to highlight that BECCS approaches are point-source carbon capture that is also CDR – which point I do think is necessary to make in a policy brief. I now see the textual ambiguity that has been highlighted but think it’s mitigated at least somewhat by the reference link to the ICEF BiCRS Roadmap which indicates what we are trying to say – and I don’t see an easy fix without a substantial rewrite. (Which is beyond the practical scope of the assignment at this point – but perhaps for a future version. We did make some small edits based on the comments here and also caught an important missing footnote in the designed pdf – so thanks again to all for the feedback.) I get Chris’s point re “directly or indirectly…biotic or abiotic” but a key objective of the brief is to align on a definition and we wanted to go with the IPCC on that (also 50+ CDR experts who contributed to the CDR Primer) and not try to create a new definition.
Best, Toby
Toby,
If you are going to stick to referring to “biogenic” in brackets after atmospheric, then please change “or” to “including” to avoid confusion.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a6a7a8cd-60b8-469e-bedc-24dc831a6374n%40googlegroups.com.