GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf

[Andrew Lockley]

Appendix 1 deals with geoengineering, 1st page extract below

Climate engineering or ‘negative emis-

sions’ technologies involve the removal 

of CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR or 

GGR) or the deflection of sunlight be-

fore it reaches the earth’s surface (SRM). 

Originally proposed as stopgap 

measures to cover an interim period 

where the impact of actual emissions 

reductions might be insufficient, they 

have — in the absence of the latter — 

increasingly entered the mainstream of 

IPCC discourse on mitigation pathways 

and long-term deployment. 

This is an alarming development. 

The IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report 

referred to mitigation techniques in-

volving human interventions to lower 

actual GHG emissions through green 

technology, energy efficiency, improved 

land management and other means.195

Now, as reported in Science in 2016, 

“Almost all the scenarios with a like-

ly chance of not exceeding 2 degrees 

Celsius being considered by the IPCC 

assume that the large scale roll-out 

of ‘negative emissions’ technologies is 

technically and economically viable … 

If we rely on negative-emission tech-

nologies and they are not deployed or 

are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from 

the atmosphere at the levels assumed, 

society will be locked into a high-tem-

perature pathway.”196

 This appendix outlines the main 

geoengineering options available, 

and explains why they are not an ap-

propriate solution to the climate and 

environmental crises. Carbon Capture 

and Storage (or Sequestration)

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (OR 

SEQUESTRATION) (CCS)

CCS involves capture of CO2 emitted by 

industrial processes (steel and cement 

production, chemicals and refining, and 

fossil fuel combustion for generating 

electricity. This is followed by compres-

sion/liquefaction, transport via pipe-

line and high-pressure injection into 

near-depleted oil and gas fields, saline 

aquifers, or ocean beds. Used mainly in 

combination with enhanced oil recovery 

(EOR), CCS is therefore interesting to the 

fossil fuel industry.

The technology is costly and chal-

lenging. Environmental hazards197 in-

clude water depletion, toxicity and eu-

trophication. Its symbiotic relationship 

with EOR makes it questionable as a se-

rious climate change response. Leakage 

of the injected fluid into water bodies 

has been reported,198 which undermines 

any sequestration gains and raises con-

cerns about water contamination. Re-

ports of damage to rock formations and 

the activation of geological fracture 

zones199 increase the questionability of 

this technique.

BIO-ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND 

STORAGE (BECCS)

BECCS involves capture and storage of 

CO2 emitted by bio-energy use. It has 

taken centre stage in recent years as 

a key negative emissions technology 

and integral part of IPCC mitigation 

pathways. Virtually all climate change 

models projecting a future consistent 

with the Paris Agreement assume a key 

role for BECCS.

The “negative emissions” claim is 

based on the fallacy that bio-ener-

gy is in the first place carbon neutral, 

whereas Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) con-

clude otherwise, showing that many 

bioenergy processes lead to even more 

GHG emissions than the fossil fuels they 

replace.200

A vast amount of land will be need-

ed to produce the necessary biofuel 

crops — more than 40% of all arable 

land, which is likely to exacerbate 

land-grabbing and conflict with food 

crops and food sovereignty201 that 

has already and invariably followed 

the large-scale cultivation of biofuel 

feedstock.

Furthermore BECCS deployment 

could cause up to 10% reduction in 

global forest cover and biodiversity.202

A recent study by the Potsdam Institute 

for Climate Impact Research shows that 

it involves high risks of transgression of 

planetary boundaries for freshwater 

use, land-system change, biosphere 

integrity and biogeochemical flows.203

Within safe boundaries, BECCS can 

compensate for less than 1% of current 

global GHG emissions.

In addition, BECCS shares all the 

drawbacks of the injection and storage 

phase of CCS.

CARBON CAPTURE AND USE (AND 

STORAGE) (CCU OR CCUS)

CO2 is extracted as in CCS but then fed 

to algae to produce biodiesel (whereby 

the gas will again be released) or re-

acted with calcified minerals (mineral 

carbonation) 

In addition to sharing the draw-

backs of the capture phase of CCS, 

lifecycle analyses indicate that CCU 

involves a questionable energy balance 

and the possibility of net increase in 

GHG emissions.

MASSIVE AFFORESTATION

Forests have multiple values as a source 

of natural capital: apart from absorbing 

carbon, they regulate soil and water 

levels and nutrients, protect biodiver-

sity, improve resilience and adaptation 

capacity, and protect against deserti-

fication and erosion.

Afforestation is being promoted by 

governments and the private sector as 

a safe and cost-effective carbon se-

questration technique. However, there 

are numerous setbacks to deploying 

massive afforestation in this way.204

Planted forests do not provide the ben-

efits of natural ones. Emphasis on the 

carbon sink function of trees is leading 

to the plantation of vast monocultures 

of fast-growing, evergreen and often 

non-native species like palm, pine or 

eucalyptus, which are water-intensive, 

often involve intensive use of pesticides 

and fertilizers, and can lead to “green 

deserts” and degraded soils.205

Invasive species can spread to oth-

er areas where native species cannot 

compete. Moreover, the carbon seques-

tration capacity of trees is often unpre-

dictable, being highly dependent on 

climate change and weather conditions 

and associated effects like pest infes-

tations, drought and storms. And most 

importantly, forests are not permanent 

- their potential removal in the future,

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew and list:

Thanks for the lead.

The comparable portion for biochar states (P 64)

" BIOCHAR

A method of converting biomass into charcoal and mixing this into the soil to store the burnt carbon.

 But field trials showed that biochar-treated soils were less effective in sequestering carbon than untreated soils: the added carbon stimulates microbes to release more CO2. 

Claims that addition of biochar enhances agricultural productivity has not been consistently demonstrated. 

No citations.  I conclude this biochar part of the paper received no serious attention.

Sentence 1 is OK, but char-ists would never use the term “burnt carbon”;  there is also a growing literature on using charcoal as an additive in concrete, asphalt, etc - not only soil placement.

  Sentence 2 refers to a soil phenomenon called “priming”.  This Google-available paper  "Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils “ by Andrew R. Zimmerman, Bin Gao,and  Mi-Youn Ahn

 has this as its final sentence of the abstract:

"The data strongly suggests, however, that over the long term, biochar - soil interaction will enhance soil C storage via the processes of OM sorption to biochar and physical protection. “.

Sentence 3’ s key phrase is:  "…not been consistently..”.  True - there are negative result outliers (that can be easily caught by testing).  But the vast majority of biochar outcomes have been and continue to be positive. We are seeing more than 200 technical publications per month on biochar - mostly favorable.

 After millennia, the Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are valued at triple or more the economic value of nearby non-biochar soils- because of triple or more productivity.  If positive timing is occurring, its impact is negligible.

There may be value in this report, but I’m not going to investigate it further - based on this biochar example.  I am still favorable to the GND (Green New Deal) concept.  Biochar can be a key part of making it work.

Ron

On Sep 2, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:

<GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf>

[Ronal Larson]

Gideon.  (Cc “Geo” list)

Thanks for the suggestion.

I looked all over their web site and found no way to send in a suggestion.  Not a single individual’s name could be found.

I like the idea of writing them, so am hoping you or other “Geo” list members can suggest an address.

Ron

On Sep 2, 2019, at 3:20 PM, <gfut...@worldward.org> <gfut...@worldward.org> wrote:

Hi Ron, 

This draft is in public consultation period, so I would recommend you sending your critiscm to the authors of the report (on the GND for Europe website) a sthe may edit some bits if criticed

Best wishes

Gideon Futerman
President of Worldward

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>

--

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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net.

--

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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net.

[Wil Burns]

What I find most problematic about this narrative, beyond quibbling with many of its quantitative assessments, is its immaturity. It essentially constructs a straw man that contemplates massive deployment of discrete CDR approaches, e.g. BECCS, or afforestation, and surprise, concludes that it’s unlikely to be sustainable at scales of 15 Gt or more. Of course, virtually everyone in the CDR community acknowledges this, and embraces a complementary portfolio approach, which could address many of the concerns in the document. It’s important to reach out when draft documents like this are published to try to establish a colloquy. Wil

 

Wil Burns, Co-Director & Professor of Research Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy | American University Phone: 650.281.9126 Web: www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal Email: wbu...@american.edu Skype: wil.burns Address: 917 Forest Ave. #3S, Evanston, IL 60202 USA Follow us:

--
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-061%3DBpptrfH5kWPfiPdM5LORY%3DcT0VkfPskH-CJhH4ovw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Pawel and David:  cc two lists

I assume you know that the CDR and Geo lists (addresses given below) have suggested that those of us who expressed concern on your draft GNDE Blueprint for Europe should contact you with notes like the following.  This is my response.  In addition to my original concerns given below about your three sentences on biochar, I submit that biochar should be much more highly ranked for these additional reasons:

a.   Numerous articles showing (for crop productivity reasons) continued use over thousands of years (especially as Terra Preta in the Amazon); an investment opportunity then and now - not an expense.

b.   Rapid growth as an industry:  hundreds of companies making and selling biochar,  hundreds of technical articles every month,  multiple annual biochar-only symposia - on almost every continent,  numerous active web sites, etc.

c.   Can provide valuable dispatchable backup energy for non-dispatchable wind and solar, at a lower cost than battery storage.

d.  Growth of the biomass resource prior to harvesting and pyrolyzing is more valuable than simply planting trees, if there are no plans for the certain return of their temporary captured CO2 to the atmosphere..

e.  Biochar fits well into all three of the carbon-related topics of your paper:  carbon neutral mitigation, carbon negative CDR/NET/GGR, and adaptation.

f.  Biochar will be especially valuable to the poorest - often also those with the least valuable land.

g.  A potential for use in our (quite sick) oceans - as well as on land.

h.  Apparently the least cost way to minimize wildfire damage, by offering a home for the over-growth of biomass accompanying decades of fire suppression.

i.  No need to provide insurance for CO2 stored deep underground.

j.  CO2 released after combustion of the valuable pyrolysis gases is much cheaper to capture than via direct air capture;  both immediate uses possible (greenhouses) and generation of high-value chemicals (from CO and H2)

k.  Has considerable potential for preventing release of CH4 and NOx.

l.  Considerable (half for some soils?) reduced need for irrigation and fertilization.

m.  Favorable economics from the smallest applications (rural cookstoves at a few kWth) to the largest (electric power plants at hundreds of MWe); and for different types of ownership.

n.  Pyrolysis can be cleaner than combustion, and much more climate friendly than allowing methanation.

o.  Improves composting (lowers odors, faster finishing, longer benefits)

p.  Seems to fit every aspect of the GND

       

Ron

Begin forwarded message:

--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net.

[Ronal Larson]

Pawel and David, with ccs to two discussion lists

RWL:  I have done a bit more research on your backgrounds - and applaud what you are doing.  Others might want to read more at

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-what-a-green-new-deal-for-europe-could-look-like/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/green-new-deal-europe-capitalism

See more below

On Sep 28, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Pawel Wargan <pawel....@gndforeurope.com> wrote:

Ronal,

Thank you so much for this invaluable feedback and please accept my apologies for taking so long to reply.

Just for clarification, our position on geoengineering is based on a few points that are core to our campaign — and to much of the climate movement.

[RWLa:   For the last several years, the word “Geoengineering” has been disassociated from biochar - my only topic.  I urge being very careful with use of the word “Geoengineering” - which today is almost solely reserved for SRM = solar radiation management..

The most crucial is the need to achieve climate justice — this means finding solutions that do not contribute to the continued exploitation of land and people around the globe. That excludes CCS. 

[RWL1:   I totally agree with the first sentence - and claim that biochar benefits, not exploits, land and people.  

I do not understand your reference to CCS -which has only a vague relationship to biochar.   I agree that BECCS (which is much like “clean coal”) is very different from biochar.   Biochar is today mostly being advanced for soil improvement reasons - not for CDR reasons (which are still valid).  And generally is being sold with expectation of positive returns  - not costs.

Second, all of the key scientific models informing political decisions today assume continued economic growth. Our paper is grounded in post-growth principles, which call for a reduction in material throughput and energy demand. This should reduce the need for geoengineering solutions. 

[RWL2:  This second point also has no relation to biochar.  Biochar is unique in being able to support non-dispatchable wind and solar systems - which I presume you favor (and are certainly key in all GND programs).  Wind, solar and biomass (including biochar) are consistent with both reduced energy demand and reduced fossil fuel demand..

Third, the references in the IPCC to geoengineering (particularly BECCS technologies) were inserted largely by economists — historically, they, not the scientists, were responsible for drafting policy recommendations on climate. This has produced recommendations that reflect what is "politically achievable”, not what is scientifically necessary.

[RWL3:   To repeat,  BECCS and biochar are very different.   My experience is that BECCS is primarily favored by climate modelers, not economists.  The carbon can simply disappear in a model;  with biochar, the (positive) impacts must be considered for every out-year in the model.  The Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are giving huge (factors of 3x - 4x) positive benefits after thousands of years.

I concur on “scientifically necessary”.    Not sure about your “politically achievable” - as we are not moving at all fast enough.  For me,  biochar should lead in both categories.

Fourth, we want to end all uses of fossil fuels — zero emissions; not net-zero emissions. Technologies that enable the continued extraction and utilisation of oil and gas therefore cannot form part of our programme.

[RWL4:   My reading of the Green New Deal is different - that we MUST remove atmospheric carbon - which you seem to be denying.  I see no reason to say that biochar is designed for “continued extraction” - just the opposite since biochar is both carbon neutral (for every energy end use - not just electricity) and carbon negative.

Having said that, we want to be accurate in our account of these technologies. In particular, we see a large role for public sector-driven R&D in climate and environmental mitigation tools and strategies — and tools like biochar could form part of that. 

[RWL5:  Thank you for the new last clause re biochar.   But we must do much more than R&D.  The September technical paper listing publication from the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) has 250 papers - for just one month.  There are hundreds of companies selling biochar products.   We need to think beyond R&D - and that is the exciting aspect of the GND. (And Greta Thunberg).   IBI literature of all kinds is at www.biochar-international.org

Do you have any academic papers on the topic that you could share, beyond the one by Zimmerman, Gao, and Ahn? 

[RWL6:  My google scholar search for papers after the one I mentioned gave this (available on Research Gate) 

as the first (maybe because it had several thousand subsequent cites).  I have a very high regard for Professor Lehmann’s work.  

"Biochar effects on soil biota–a review”. J Lehmann, MC Rillig, J Thies, CA Masiello

There are several pages on this “priming” issue at section 3.3.2 at page 1822 - also NOT showing concern.

[RWL7:   Thanks for the response.  I hope you better understand biochar a bit.  Disparaging it will greatly slow down your commendable efforts with the GND.  I’d be glad to comment on any revisions you make.

Ron

All the best,

Pawel 

Pawel Wargan Campaign Coordinator

<D2D78A50E3DA4198A186502C69426837.png>

@gndforeurope @pawelwargan

---

<GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf>