Our January pilot of LOF is gearing up

[Peter Fiekowsky]

A New Pilot Project Opens the Path to Net-Zero by 2030

Yes, net-zero by 2030, and 300 ppm by 2050.

Who do you know who might want to be an early funder?

There's no guarantee, but there's also no reason we can't replicate nature.

I'm eager to hear your criticism.

Peter

Peter Fiekowsky

Substack: Climate Restoration

TEDx: How to End the Climate Crisis by 2050

Book: Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race

PeterFiekowsky.com | Climate Restoration 2025

(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California

[Dan Miller]

While it does sound exciting, I don’t think your math works.  You say: 

With intelligent scale-up, we expect to remove at least 30 Gt, which would compensate for continuing emissions. Then we have net-zero.

Continuing at that rate, we will have restored pre-industrial CO2 levels by 2050.

If we started today, that would be 24 years * 30 Gt = 720 GT.

Since pre-industrial, we have emitted over 2,700 GT, with about 1.3 trillion tons remaining in the atmosphere after ocean/land/plant uptake.  But while oceans/land/plants sequester about half of our emitted CO2, it will also put CO2 back into the atmosphere when we draw down CO2.  Some of the CO2 is now in the deep ocean and will take a long time to come back into the atmosphere, but you are still way short of returning CO2 to pre-industrial levels.

Of course, the other reason this doesn’t work is that humans will be continuing to emit CO2, currently more than 30 Gt/year.  So if your approach gets us to “net zero” for the next 24 years, we will have somewhat less CO2 (because of continued uptake of CO2 by the oceans/lands/plants) but temperatures will not go down (and may continue to go up for a while) because of the current energy imbalance.

Still, real net zero is way better than the path we are on!!

Dan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAEr4H2nFc0H1jK-u256jECkAARuyoXkK-R4oCMqdKfQ5Ry24Ug%40mail.gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

I thought I'd run this through WTF to see what the model says about reducing CO₂ concentration to 300ppm by 2050.  WTF is intervention agnostic; it doesn't care how emissions are reduced or CO₂ extracted from the atmosphere.  Here's what it says would need to be done to get to 300ppm by 2050.  Peter, is this feasible?

I've generously assumed that emissions will be gradually reduced to zero by 2070.  On that basis, and assuming we start CDR in earnest this  year and scale it along a logistic curve, we'd need to get to 125GtCO₂yr^-1 by 2035 and then gradually ramp it down to zero by 2070 to get to 300ppm by 2050.  Here's the profile of emissions, CDR and net emissions, and then the trajectory of the reducing ppm.  This scenario has warming peaking at about 1.7^oC by 2030 and then settling at 0.5 ^oC by 2050.

You'll notice that the amount of CDR is substantially higher than the 30GtCO₂yr^-1 suggested by Peter.  Perhaps he can explain how he gets to 300ppm with so little CDR.  

WTF is a version of FaIR.  It uses exactly the same calculations and parameters as FaIR except in relation to non-CO₂ GHGs that have little relevance here (the way WTF accounts for non-CO₂ GHGs is such that it produces virtually identical 2100 GSAT projections to FaIR for a wide range of SSP scenarios).

This is what WTF says would happen if you got to 30GtCO₂yr^-1 by 2030, held it there until 2070 and then gradually phased it out by 2170.

In this scenario we're at 434ppm in 2050 and don't get down to 300ppm until 2125.  That might not be such a bad outcome but it's quite a long way from Peter's projections.  It has very modest overshoot of the 1.5^oC threshold and sees GSAT warming reducing steadily from a peak of about 1.8^oC mid-century to settle around 0.5^oC by 2150.

It is also worth noting that the businesses that would need to be created to deliver this scale of CDR would need to understand that it would be a short-lived bonanza.  Having reached 300ppm, and assuming that emissions will have stopped long before then, the CDR will have to be terminated to prevent a human induced Ice Age.  This has significant economic implications for the endeavour.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/95153E19-BF64-415B-9DB8-D2C5FF517D82%40gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Dan-

Your math is correct, and I apologize for confusing you, and possibly others. Thank you for reading and asking about my piece.

The point of the piece is that our climate restoration groups are starting work on a localized ocean fertilization (LOF) pilot project which is designed to lead to scale-up to removing 30 Gt CO2 by 2030, and over 60 Gt / year shortly after that. 

It is an invitation for those interested in using nature's LOF method, proven safe, effective, and low cost, to join in.

Our climate restoration goal, as you know, is giving our children the same safe CO2 levels by 2050 that we boomers and millennials were given. That requires removing net 60 Gt CO2 / year,. That may require removing 95 Gt / year while we continue emitting 35 Gt / year, which is predictable based on the past 25 years. 

As you know, as much as people tell me privately that they like the idea of restoring the climate, few groups publicly endorse the goal. 99% of people I hear talk about "net-zero", not restoring the climate. So this piece was written for them. With the common net-zero goal in mind, framing restoration as a goal that a few radicals work on. 

Will you give us your support for achieving net-zero by 2030 (and safe CO2 levels by 2050).

I'd love to have HPAC's support for it. 

Who do you know that would be proud to fund this pilot?

Best regards,
Peter

[Dan Miller]

Hi Peter:

I’m excited about opportunities to restore the climate.

While some interventions like SAI, ocean alkalinity, and enhanced rock weathering seem to be supported by mainstream science, LOF does not seem to have the same level of scientific support. First, do you agree? And if you agree, why do you suppose that is?

I think have a few peer-reviewed papers pointing to the potential effectiveness of LOF would go a long way in generating support for the pilot.

Dan

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Dan- 

Yes, mainstream science is not discussing LOF, and the key actors tell me to hurry and get our material peer-review published. Mainstream scientists cannot discuss it publicly until there is peer reviewed literature to discuss—much as you’re saying. 

It’s heretical to repeat Sarmiento and Keeling’s 1993 claim that Pinatubo removed more than 12 Gt CO2 when GESAMP and other official groups say that the maximum possible removal with OIF is 1-3 Gt CO2.  Heresy takes patience to be adopted.

I’ve got one paper in review, and another ready to submit. 

It’s tough to get through peer review without credentials. 

Can you can suggest someone to work with me refining the papers on LOF to get them approved faster?

Thanks—

Peter