Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : see images on Web

https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/does-cdr-provide-morale-hazard-for-avoiding-deep-decarbonization-of-our-economy/

Everything and the Carbon Sink

Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy?

OCTOBER 24, 2014

No. But the fact that some environmentalists question the value of developing Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) approaches for this very reason merits greater analysis. The “moral hazard” argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a “Trojan horse” that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we’ll have the CDR techniques to remove these present-day emissions).The key problem with this “moral hazard” argument is the hypothesis that “cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR solutions” are poised to proliferate at greater rates than GHG emission mitigation technologies (such as renewable energy and energy efficiency) that are required to decarbonize our economy. Today, CDR solutions remain largely in their infancy. Installed bio-CCS plants can be counted on one hand, for example, and not a single commercial-scale Direct Air Capture project has been built to date. Renewable energy, however, has had a considerable head start on CDR technologies on reducing costs. Take solar PV systems as an example. As the chart below shows, solar PV panels have dropped in cost from over $75/W to under $0.75/W over the past four decades.

Source: Costofsolar.com

This cost reduction in the price of solar PV panels happens to be exactly what economic theory would predict. Learning curve models show that that costs of energy technologies come down in a predictable fashion as cumulative installed capacity increases. The graph below shows learning curve estimates for a range of energy technologies.

Source: http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Pages/ArticlesETD.htm

So what does this mean for the “moral hazard” argument against developing CDR solutions?

For this “moral hazard” argument to be valid, we would have to believe that CDR approaches will be able to not only catch up to other renewable technologies in cost within a short-time frame, but then continue to reduce costs more quickly. Otherwise, renewable technologies will continue their inevitable march down their cost curve, and will continue displacing fossil sources in our energy mix.

Suggesting that CDR approaches will outpace other decarbonization technologies doesn’t seem particularly plausible. This is because the technologies that have the “steepest” learning curves are usually those that can be manufactured and installed in assembly-line type manners (like solar PV panels or fuel cells, for example). Most CDR technologies do not fit this mold — for example, large scale bio-CCS projects frequently require many bespoke designs to fit particular plants/geographies. Direct air capture and small-scale biochar pyrolyzers fit this assembly-line model better, but there is no reason to expect these technologies to come down cost curves more quickly than their renewable complementors.In fact, this learning curve analysis would suggest that CDR faces the opposite of a “moral hazard” problem — because CDR remains so far behind other renewable technologies, we will keep building more and more renewables and neglect to develop CDR, which will seem expensive by comparison. Neglecting CDR in this fashion would be fine if we didn’t need negative emissions as a society. But if we find that negative emissions are necessary in a few decades, and we haven’t started developing CDR technologies? Then we are like to find that the initial CDR deployments are incredibly expensive and thus not politically viable. So there is a strong argument to be made for us to start developing CDR technologiestoday alongside renewable energy technologies, so that if/when we need to start removing carbon from the atmosphere, we have a suite of viable solutions to do so.

In conclusion, it’s simply not worth worrying about a “moral hazard” problem that we won’t have for at least decades, and are most likely to never have all — especially when the problems of not developing CDR solutions today could be much more severe.

[Greg Rau]

I'd be a little careful about the argument made here that CDR will continue to be too expensive to seriously compete with emission reduction. As I've said before (OK, like a broken record), some 18 GT of CO2/yr are currently being removed from the atmosphere via natural CDR, enough to actually seasonally reverse air CO2 growth, and enough to save the planet from a more rapid climate catastrophe.  And did I say for a cost of $0.00? Is it really unthinkable that we could very cost-competitively up this CDR quantity while we also strive to reduce emissions?  And, shouldn't this natural CDR, rather than way too expensive BECCS, be the poster child for what is possible?

As the article in effect concludes, isn't there is a moral hazard in continuing to think that emissions reduction will solve the problem singlehandedly and in time, and therefore why wait to seriously evaluate CDR ideas and potential?

Greg

---

From: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink

--
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 post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Robert Tulip]

The 'decarbonisation' theme discussed by Noah Deich has become a central concept in advocacy for emission reduction, but in my view it is not a good way to understand the CDR agenda.  And the 'moral hazard' of CDR can more usefully be framed as a moral opportunity.

The central problem of global warming is summarized in the McKibben Stock Price Problem (link).  This is the fact, as noted by leading climate scientist Bill McKibben, that the stock prices of leading energy companies all factor in plans to move enough carbon from the crust to the atmosphere to cook the planet, without any remediation strategy.  This is not possible, because the business as usual scenario would lead the world economy to collapse before the ecosystems collapse.

 

Climate stability is a prerequisite for economic stability. The solutions to deliver climate stability are either to either move less carbon into the air (reduce emissions) or stabilise it once it is moved (Carbon Dioxide Removal).  Current plans to move carbon without stabilising it are not possible due to the constraints of physics.  And Solar Radiation Management is more an emergency tourniquet than a climate solution.

 

Reducing emissions is the primary focus of global warming politics, supporting the premise of decarbonisation of the economy.  But emission reduction faces massive, apparently insurmountable, problems, seen in the steady 2.5 ppm per decade acceleration of the CO2 emission increase rate.  The economic incentives to burn coal and gas and oil are more powerful than the political incentives to switch to sustainable energy. And in any case, emission reduction still assumes ongoing increase in CO2 level in the air.  Ongoing increase should be unacceptable, because we need to drive CO2 levels down through negative emissions. 

 

Political agreements around emission targets are useless, essentially serving as a cover for failure of will and vision.  The political targets of ongoing warming build in massive danger of phase shift from the stable Holocene climate pattern that has prevailed for the ten thousand years of the growth of human civilization on our planet.  The implication is that there must be a technological focus on CDR, or we cook.  An end to Holocene stability is an unacceptable risk with a planetary population of ten billion people, given the likelihood it brings of conflict and collapse of civilization and loss of biodiversity.

 

In London in 1850, the problem of cholera was solved by pumping sewage out of the city.  Global warming is like a cholera epidemic for the twenty first century.  We need new sanitarians to work out how to pump carbon out of the air to solve the problem of global warming.  Funding that process means establishing economic and scalable methods to convert the harmful extra CO2 into useful forms.  That means finding practical commercial uses for more than ten billion tonnes of carbon every year.  The only way to do that, in my view, is to apply solar and ocean energy to grow algae on industrial scale.

 

This call to focus on algae as a useful form of carbon requires understanding of the distinction between carbon storage and carbon utilization.  Storing CO2 through geosequestration is not an economic contribution to stopping global warming.  Carbon stored as CO2 has no value, except to help pump up more fossil fuels.  But if CO2 is converted to algae, and the algae is then held in large fabric bags at the bottom of the sea, we have an enduring resource, a carbon bank. 

 

The ocean is a perpetual motion machine driven by earth’s orbital dynamics.  1.3 billion cubic kilometers (teralitres) of water move up and down by about half a meter each tide on average.  Tapping a fraction of this energy source for pumping should be a primary objective for an algae production and CDR system. Such a system would not decarbonise the economy, but would enable a massive increase in the practical use of carbon.  We can apply ingenuity and know-how to create innovative new methods to make good use of carbon stored as algae for infrastructure, energy and food.  An industrial production system that is largely automated, and that uses oceanic energy to manufacture its own replication resources, can become profitable.  Against this objective, ideas about prices on carbon, and the strategic model of decarbonisation, are not helpful.  We need a new integrated economic and ecological paradigm with a focus on mining more carbon than we emit.

 

The stock prices of energy majors can remain realistic only if their factored carbon reserves can be stabilised once they are burnt into the air.  It is therefore possible to work in cooperation with the fossil fuel industry to stabilise the global climate., turning their commercial resources and skills to advantage for new sustainable technology.  Decarbonisation wrongly poses the question in terms of conflict rather than cooperation.  CDR is a moral opportunity, not a moral hazard. The focus should be to mine the produced CO2 out of the air and sea and turn it into useful commodities. 

 

Robert Tulip

Disclaimer: My comments here are made in my personal capacity and do not represent official views of the Australian Government.

---

From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
To: "andrew....@gmail.com" <andrew....@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 2 November 2014, 5:15
Subject: Re: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[Adam Sacks]

Hi All -

I agree with Greg here, and I would venture to say that we need to pay far more attention to photosynthesis and restoring a healthy natural carbon cycle (and accompanying water cycles) on over 12 billion acres of land worldwide.  I suggest that it's the best, safest, cheapest and most effective form of "geo-engineering" that we could ever hope for.  We, including the IPCC, all know that emissions reductions are insufficient to avoid catastrophic consequences of global warming, some of which are already playing out.  And in any case it's apparent, based on twenty-five years of experience, that serious emissions reductions, despite important progress in non-carbon energy generation, aren't going to happen in any reasonable time frame.

In light of current circumstances, I encourage everyone who is able to attend our upcoming ground-breaking conference, Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming, on November 21-23, 2014 at Tufts University in the Boston area.  Please pass the word!  We have a remarkable roster of speakers including scientists, land managers and activists in a weekend of discussions around the power and extraordinary benefits of supporting nature's carbon-capture "technology" of photosynthesis.  We'll explore how living processes can bridge political climate conflicts, return legacy atmospheric carbon to soils, reverse desertification and drought, and revive local economies and food supplies worldwide.  Collectively we will make the case of how we've grossly underestimated soil-carbon storage potentials and what to do about it.  

Come, learn, ask questions, bring your expertise, challenge us - together let's work this out!  Early bird rates through November 10th; student, non-profit and other discounts as well as volunteer opportunities are available.

Please contact me if you have any questions, publicly or privately - I hope to see you there!

Cheers!

Adam

===

Adam Sacks
Executive Director

Biodiversity for a Livable Climate

===

[Mike MacCracken]

On this issue of the progress we can or cannot make, there is lots that can readily be done, and we can’t give up pressing hard for it to happen rapidly:

1. In the US, at least, the estimate is still something like that efficiency improvements with existing technologies having a payback period of 3 years or so could reduce emissions of CO2 about 30%.
2. As the UNEP-WMO study on black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone showed, a reasonable effort could cut the projected warming from the present to 2050 in half. EDF showed a new chart at a Capitol Hill briefing on Thursday indicating how much natural gas leakage in the US could be cut with cost effective (i.e., three year or fewer payback) technologies right now—a huge number. That the US, at least, is hardly trying, is disgraceful.
3. I just learned that in the national statistics for electricity production, the reason the solar component looks low is that the national compilation only counts the utility solar installations—all the rest going in does not show on their statistics. Well, there is a huge amount of rooftop solar going in and doing very well (my 10 kW rooftop system, for example is giving me something like a 9% guaranteed return and a bit more in actuality—and it is such beneficial outcomes that are leading to rapid proliferation).
4. On a number of these issues, the lawyers are helping a lot, pushing for regulations, etc. I, for one, am working on a legal declaration for one lawsuit to come soon, and another lawyer contacted me about another one if coming regulation is not adequate—we have to keep at this, hard.
   

So, I am all for encouraging land uptake of carbon, but if we are not simultaneously pushing for cutting emissions sharply, it really degrades all the effort that needs to be put into land carbon buildup.

So, once more, let’s not circle the wagons and shoot in—we need to be doing everything and not letting anyone off the hook on this.

Best, Mike MacCracken

On 11/2/14 9:42 AM, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi All -

I agree with Greg here, and I would venture to say that we need to pay far more attention to photosynthesis and restoring a healthy natural carbon cycle (and accompanying water cycles) on over 12 billion acres of land worldwide.  I suggest that it's the best, safest, cheapest and most effective form of "geo-engineering" that we could ever hope for.  We, including the IPCC, all know that emissions reductions are insufficient to avoid catastrophic consequences of global warming, some of which are already playing out.  And in any case it's apparent, based on twenty-five years of experience, that serious emissions reductions, despite important progress in non-carbon energy generation, aren't going to happen in any reasonable time frame.

In light of current circumstances, I encourage everyone who is able to attend our upcoming ground-breaking conference, Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming <http://bio4climate.org/conference-2014> , on November 21-23, 2014 at Tufts University in the Boston area.  Please pass the word!  We have a remarkable roster of speakers including scientists, land managers and activists in a weekend of discussions around the power and extraordinary benefits of supporting nature's carbon-capture "technology" of photosynthesis.  We'll explore how living processes can bridge political climate conflicts, return legacy atmospheric carbon to soils, reverse desertification and drought, and revive local economies and food supplies worldwide.  Collectively we will make the case of how we've grossly underestimated soil-carbon storage potentials and what to do about it.  

Come, learn, ask questions, bring your expertise, challenge us - together let's work this out!  Early bird rates through November 10th; student, non-profit and other discounts as well as volunteer opportunities are available.

Please contact me if you have any questions, publicly or privately - I hope to see you there!

Cheers!

Adam

===

Adam Sacks
Executive Director

Biodiversity for a Livable Climate   <http://bio4climate.org>

===

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 5:14:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:

[Adam Sacks]

Thanks, Mike.  Of course I agree with you, emissions reductions are critical, zero as quickly as possible.  No part of the problem can get a free pass. 

But the emissions voice has been heard for the past twenty-five years, and will continue to get louder and louder; it's a familiar conversation, one we're all comfortable with, it requires continuing efforts but it's a fundamental climate reflex among those of us who have some understanding of the situation. 

The soil-carbon conversation, on the other hand, is still barely a whisper.  Yet it is every bit as urgent right now, especially because of its rapid potential (in biological cycle times, not geological ones) for removing legacy carbon from the atmosphere.  We're talking about photosynthetic sequestration in soils of ongoing emissions and current atmospheric burdens, not just annual fossil fuel contributions. 

Is it possible? Nobody really knows at this point.  The dominance of the physical sciences in the conversation has not yet made room for biology as a restorative driver of climate.  There are good reasons to believe that Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming is possible, and that's what the conference is designed to explore.  Furthermore, there are so many benefits and so little downside and risk that we may come to realize that climate-targeted eco-restoration should move forward with all possible resources and haste. 

First, however, we have to start being focused and serious about having that conversation.

Best,

Adam

[Michael Hayes]

Hi Folks,

This email is related to the geoengineering group discussion thread found here. Those who are not current list members have been CC'ed due to your potential interest in the subject(s) found within the thread. As we find many times within that forum, the initial starting point of the discussion often gives rise to a wide spectrum of relevant subjects. After all, the subject of geoengineering, itself, should take into consideration virtually every aspect of life on this planet. 

On the subject thread of CDR/Moral Hazard/Soil Carbon/Combined Land and Marine BECCS/Funding and Governance: My views.

1) The CRD Moral Hazard Red Herring:

The specious argument of a 'moral hazard' issue, within the specter of CDR based mitigation, is seemingly no more than a useless reductionist distraction (i.e. red herring). In that, the concept of carbon negative biofuels (i.e. BECCS) is one concept, among a few,  which simply makes the entire issue of a moral hazard moot, as it relates to CDR.

The soil based CDR approaches (i.e. biochar, olivine, pasture cropping etc.) also renders the issue of a moral hazard moot due to the many out-year C sequestration benefits as well as the significant reduction in agro FF and chemical uses. Also, it is important to keep in mind that many of these soil based CDR approaches are adaptable to the BECCS regiment, in that they are compatible technologies.   

2) BECCS efficaciousness at the practical and ethical levels:

Greg puts forth the premise that BECCS (i.e. carbon negative biofuel) is too expensive. Yet, one has to ask the basic question of; Relative to what? The most fundamental premise of BECCS (per IPCC WG 3) is that it must be profitable at all stages and thus offers one of the few mitigation concepts which can actually earn its own keep. In fact, not employing BECCS/carbon negative biofuel, in our current situation, is actually a true and significant moral hazard, in of itself, due to the multiple benefits of;

1) replacing FFs while utilizing/sequestering carbon

2) supporting important ancillary biotic processes beyond BECCS

3) providing far greater equitable distribution of the economic and environmental benefits than non-BECCS related options

Even PV does not achieve this important blend of technical, policy, profit, ethical advantages. Due to the robust list of benefits offered by BECCS related operations, not employing BECCS operations is seemingly as unethical as the un-abated continuation of FF use.

3) Energy First with Carbon Utilization/Sequestration Being the Other First:

Mike's opinion of "I am all for encouraging land uptake of carbon, but if we are not simultaneously pushing for cutting emissions sharply, it really degrades all the effort that needs to be put into land carbon buildup." is achievable once we adopt the broadest possible holistic view of the potential solutions. One important example of the benefits of taking such a broad view is found through the lens of working simultaneously within the marine and land biocapacity arenas.

In that, engineered carbon uptake within the marine environment (vis-a-vis vast scale maricuture which can include olivine use) can eventually dwarf land carbon uptake simply due to the vast scale of the marine resources available to work with. Further, a vast scale marine bio-production effort will significantly reduce agro protein production pressures and thus help preserve the land resources and land biodiversity.

This synergistic cascade of benefits can be extended through utilizing some of the marine bio-production stream of biomass for use as biochar and organic fertilizer to support increased land vegetable/grain bio-production. Also, the potential vast scale of freshwater production of marine bio-production operations would also be transformative to land based bio-production including large scale engineered desert afforestation operations.

The large scale use of land/marine hybrid technologies, such as aquaponics use either at sea or on land, can be economic game changers. 

In brief, viewing the global bio-capacity of the combined marine and land areas, as opposed to the current restricted view of primarily that of land use only, provides us with the fullest spectrum and scale of global carbon management tools along with a robust list of food/energy security means and methods.

4) What exactly do we mean by ' Sustainability':

The recent WWF 'Living Planet Report 2014' "measures one key dimension of sustainability: the extent to which the Earth's reproductive ecosystems have sufficient regenerative capacity to keep up with humanity's consumptive demands" (page 152 section 9). The combined regenerative capacity of land and marine environments, utilizing coordinated engineered BECCS methods as outlined in the IMBECS Protocol Draft, offers a level of sustainability capable of meeting current and trans-generational anthropogenic mitigation needs as well as many of our critical commodity needs. Such a combined approach to mitigation and commodity needs would also possibly stimulate the development of a robust global circular economy.

5) Dealing with 900 lb Gorillas:

It is not the technology nor the natural resources which we lack. As we all know, it is the lack of political and corporate level will to take actions which address that which threatens us, our descendants and the vast majority of species on this planet. And, the primary impediment to opening up a virtual flood of well thought-out and appropriate methods/actions is found within the needs of the FF industry.

Obviously, the FF industry can not be summarily shut down for multiple reasons. Converting that industry over to biofuel will be something of a blend between force feeding and weaning. Yet, through establishing a strong combined marine/terrestrial and internationally coordinated BECCS effort, which can supply the large scale commercial quantities of bio-products, the current network of FF pipelines, tanker ships/trains and storage depots can start to be compelled into utilizing low cost carbon negative biofuels and thus begin the global weaning phase of our FF dependency. 

This force feeding biofuel into the FF distribution sector is not as difficult as it may first seem. So long as the fuels are of equal and or better value and all other aspects are equal, the distribution sector (and consumer) will care less if it is carbon negative biofuel or tar sands oil moving along the distribution network...in the vast majority of cases.

6) Getting to a Coordinated International BECCS Effort and Governance Policy: Something of a conclusion.  

Robert's position that "... if CO2 is converted to algae, and the algae is then held in large fabric bags at the bottom of the sea, we have an enduring resource, a carbon bank." may have technical merit yet storing the excess carbon within the soil through the production and use of marine derived biochar and organic fertilizer would seem to be far more productive. Yet, both paths should be explored at the overall systems level. There is even a divide of opinions between the relative benefits between micro and macro algal cultivation and utilization. 

 

As the above difference of opinions illustrates, unless we can find common grounds on a full suite of energy/food security and climate change mitigation technologies, the probability of CDR/BECCS/biofuel/soil carbon etc. developing a strong enough market presence to substantially contribute to a stable future will be low.

In conclusion and to Mike MacCracken's encouragement to "not circle the wagons and shoot in—we need to be doing everything and not letting anyone off the hook on this", I would like to add the suggestion that we find convergence on an overall meta concept, which utilizes both marine and land based CDR, energy and food security methods, and build a funding alliance which can provide seed capital for a wide spectrum of benefit corporation (B-Corp) start-ups that can, once matured, provide the tools we need for a truly sustainable future.

The primary benefit of building such a broad, technically speaking, funding alliance is the potential ability of such an alliance to properly govern such a technically divergent yet interwoven and synergistic suite of solutions. The overall governance approach is being developed within the IMBECS Protocol Draft. Any suggestions or comments would be highly welcomed.  

Best regards, 

Michael Hayes

360-708-4976

The IMBECS Protocol Draft 

 

 

[Greg Rau]

Just to clarify, my view is that CCS is too expensive whether it's FFCCS or BECCS. There are cheaper ways to capture and store point source CO2, and those are what we should be discussing in the context of C-negative BE, not perpetuating the myth that expensively making concentrated CO2 and putting it in the ground is our only option. Yes, there can be co-benefits of C-negative BE, my favorite being generation of ocean alkalinity, as you've heard before. 

Greg  

---

From: Michael Hayes <vogle...@gmail.com>
To: Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Greg Rau <ra...@llnl.gov>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; adam....@bio4climate.org; me...@footprintnetwork.org; feed...@thenextgeneration.org; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>; "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <R.D.Sc...@uu.nl>; Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com>; nathan currier <natcu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 7:55 PM
Subject: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)]

I support Greg that CCS is a poor and too expensive way to reduce CO2, see attachment, Olaf Schuiling