Cooling credits or carbon tax for cooling

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

 

At the NOAC meeting on Monday, it was suggested that the carbon credit could be replaced with a cooling credit to offset the heating produced by CO2 emissions.

 

We can calculate the amount of heating from the emission of 1 tonne of CO2 quite easily, taking Hansen’s figure of 4 W/m2 for current CO2 forcing [1] and assuming the annual 37 Gt of CO2 raises this figure by 2.5%.

 

Heating per tCO2 = 1/37E9 x 0.025 x 4 = 1/0.037E12 x 0.1 = 2.7E-12 W/m2

 

The cost of polar cooling = $11E9 per year [2].  Cost for cooling offset to fund the refreezing of the Arctic would be 11E9 / 2.7E-12 = 4.074E3 = $4,074 per year for each tonne of CO2 emitted.  This is far more than anyone is prepared to pay.

 

Funding through having such cooling offsets will certainly not be enough to get the emergency cooling needed.  It would gain attention; and that could be justification.

 

Compare with a carbon tax for cooling.  $50 per tonne of CO2 might be an acceptable levy.  If added globally, we’d get $50 x 37E9 = $1850 billion per year.  At $5 per tonne we’d get $185 billion per year which would be more than enough to refreeze the Arctic and cool the planet.

 

So a carbon tax for cooling would be the most sensible course, unless a few governments get together to pay for it and get it done.  The US government could even go it alone at 0.1% GDP saving more than that in averted damage from weather extremes once they subside.

 

With a crash programme, Arctic and Antarctic warming could be halted in 5 years and global warming in 10 years.  Together, climate change could be put into reverse within 10 years.  Global mean temperature could be brought down to 0.5°C (above the IPCC baseline) in 30 years, i.e. 2053.

 

Efforts on decarbonisation are counter-productive unless there is cooling intervention to offset the SO2 reduction – Hansen shows that SO2 reduction could cause a doubling of the rate of global warming [1].  Aggressive CDR and methane suppression could bring GHG levels down to 1980 levels in 30 years, as part of the programme.  Life in soils and oceans could be regenerated for the bulk of CO2 drawdown with productivity benefits outweighing the costs.  The planet could be restored to a safe, sustainable and productive state in 30 years.

 

Every year’s delay to starting the programme adds a huge risk of tipping point catastrophe, when global warming and/or sea level rise becomes irreversible by any amount of intervention.  The probability has been underestimated by climate experts since several tipping points are already activated even with global warming under 1.5°C.   Even if the probability were to be low within this century, the impact would be an existential threat to our civilisation which means the risk has to be treated as extremely high.

 

Emergency cooling is a no brainer.  Additional motivation is planetary restoration within 30 years.  This should be enough for climate activists to grasp and lobby their governments accordingly.  The impact on economies will be entirely beneficial; growth can continue.  The fossil fuel industry needs to accept that refreezing the Arctic is actually of overall benefit to them – they must not be allowed to scupper our future for their own perceived short-term interests.

Cheers, John

 

[1] Hansen et al (2022)

Global warming in the pipeline

https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474

[2] Smith et al. (ERC, September 2022)

A subpolar-focussed SAI deployment scenario

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8cd3

[Jo Co]

Achim,

Great simple statement of the issue.  

Regarding a understandable unit to reach the ‘wider audience’, I talk to people about cooling devices to install in their backyards. they are home owners mostly.  They want me to describe the output of devices in units they already understand. The best is Watts. They understand that a hot plate or space heater that is 1800 watts is greatly hotter than a 600 watt device. They sort of understand that they buy power from their utility company in kilowatt hours. But even that single added unit of time leaves them adrift in making calculations. There will be a great advantage to coming up with an energy (cooling) unit that is actually easy to grasp for a wider audience. 

Jonathan 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 11, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Achim Hoffmann <ac...@woxon.com> wrote:



Hi John:

I agree that the calculation part should not be a problem. I had taken the approach using the IPCC data that correlates the global temperature with total CO2 content in the atmosphere, which is linear.

 

My planned approach for my ocean cooling tech was to take the non-confrontational path of introducing Cooling Credits via a conversion factor to Carbon Credits rather than replacing Carbon Credits, no need to pick that fight. We need both (in my view), one is the shorter-term urgent fix, the other longer-bterm root cause fix.

 

There is already a complex and growing industry in place around Carbon Credits which has taken time and effort to build. Especially given the urgency, the aim should be to piggy-back on those efforts.

Conversations with Vera, Goldstandard or Puro.earth could be a first step.

 

As stated in the meeting, I see the “Cooling Credit” concept as the potential key to unlock and accelerate these types of solutions, especially if we can connect to established players in the certification industry.

 

Any first step to get this type of cooling discussion going in the wider public as an urgently required short term activity, must be welcomed.  

 

All the best

 

achim

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxpng9Sy6%3D%3DaOJ2uzyCpzL%2BCWYfamC_VYobJKYJUMzzwnA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/LO6P123MB66133A4A2D8302850EEBE6A5BAFC9%40LO6P123MB6613.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Achim Hoffmann]

Hi John:

I agree that the calculation part should not be a problem. I had taken the approach using the IPCC data that correlates the global temperature with total CO2 content in the atmosphere, which is linear.

 

My planned approach for my ocean cooling tech was to take the non-confrontational path of introducing Cooling Credits via a conversion factor to Carbon Credits rather than replacing Carbon Credits, no need to pick that fight. We need both (in my view), one is the shorter-term urgent fix, the other longer-bterm root cause fix.

 

There is already a complex and growing industry in place around Carbon Credits which has taken time and effort to build. Especially given the urgency, the aim should be to piggy-back on those efforts.

Conversations with Vera, Goldstandard or Puro.earth could be a first step.

 

As stated in the meeting, I see the “Cooling Credit” concept as the potential key to unlock and accelerate these types of solutions, especially if we can connect to established players in the certification industry.

 

Any first step to get this type of cooling discussion going in the wider public as an urgently required short term activity, must be welcomed.  

 

All the best

 

achim

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: 11 January 2023 16:45
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Kyle K <kylerk...@gmail.com>; Peter Wadhams <peterw...@gmail.com>
Subject: Cooling credits or carbon tax for cooling

 

Hi everyone,

--

[rob...@rtulip.net]

The International Organisation for Standardization explored the creation of an International Standard on Radiative Forcing in 2019. 

 

Reflecting the nascent and conflicted status of measuring climate impacts, the Standard was not agreed.  However, the attached draft document, ISO/NP 14082 GHG management – Guidance for the quantification and reporting of radiative forcing based climate footprints and mitigation efforts, was distributed for review and comment.

 

I heard about this through Kevin Lister at the time, who may know more about it. 

 

A stated goal within the draft Standard was to “support a technical roadmap to achieve net zero RF and return the climate system to its pre-industrial conditions.”

This would involve work to:

— Provide RF accounting protocols to facilitate greater understanding of the quantitative impacts

of RF climate forcers in the near term and longer term.

— Stabilize RF at the reduced levels necessary to prevent Global Mean Temperature from overshooting the UNFCCC

goal of +1.5°C and to maintain GMT significantly below this level.

— Reduce excess heat to sustainable levels in regional high-risk zones.

 

The stated purpose of the draft Standard was as follows:

 

This document provides guidance for quantifying, monitoring, reporting, and validating and

verifying reductions in climate forcers. It can be used to:

— develop RF management roadmaps;

— define global RF stabilization targets and RF reduction goals over specific time horizons;

— establish the radiative forcing reduction potential of different project categories;

— establish the potential of project categories to reduce excess heat within high-risk zones;

— assess the climate, environmental, and human health consequences associated with

implementation of projects within a project category;

— evaluate RF climate footprints of organizations and government entities; and

— calculate RF in a consistent manner across all of the applications above.

The use of this guidance standard is designed to:

— facilitate the use of RF-based climate accounting protocols;

— enhance the credibility, consistency and transparency of climate forcer and RF climate footprint

quantification, monitoring, and reporting; and

— facilitate the development and implementation of RF management strategies and plans, and

ensure the credibility, consistency and transparency of project verification and validation

in order to reduce global RF sufficiently by 2030 and thereafter to hold global mean temperature

(GMT) significantly below +1.5°C and stabilize the climate system.

 

Reviewing this draft standard could be a good way to progress discussion on cooling credits. 

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ye Tao

Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2023 3:33 PM
To: Achim Hoffmann <ac...@woxon.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Kyle K <kylerk...@gmail.com>; Peter Wadhams <peterw...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Cooling credits or carbon tax for cooling

 

Hi Achim,

Exact calculations of cooling credit is far from trivial, for both carbon and albedo based approaches.  On the carbon front, not all carbon removal have the same biophysical impact, and the resulting kinetics of ocean outgasing (could be virtual) depends on how and where capture is performed, in what end form the carbon is captured, and how it is stored.  On both albedo and carbon fronts, local feedback such as changes in upwelling IR and heat, and how the changes impact energy balance at the TOA need to be understood.  Currently, this area of science is pretty much blank.

To avoid a wild-west situation where people claim whatever they feel like, we need to promote the establishment an international bureau of standards dedicated for such tasks.  Such a bureau would need to develop the science and monitoring capability in close collaborationo with national and international centers with remote sensing and in situ monitoring networks (to be established).

Ye

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/LO6P123MB66133A4A2D8302850EEBE6A5BAFC9%40LO6P123MB6613.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/d090ab98-04db-f604-83e5-e915612492a8%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Grant Gower]

I keep a watch on one of the the fossil fueller's mouthpieces, the Global CCS Institute

This item reports: 

Ernest Moniz, who was the U.S. energy secretary during Obama’s presidency, proposed creating a federal agency that would pay for carbon removal projects. Moniz now leads the Energy Futures Initiative, a think tank that recently released a report in favor of government funding carbon removal, overseen by a new National Carbon Removal Authority.

Moniz is a very smart guy who could assist in forwarding the concept of a carbon capture equivalence for cooling technologies, and opening up to the CCS funding channels.

So far CCS advocacy is winning the money game.

A brilliant linkage, Achim!

Grant

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/5747ABB5-A682-45BC-A6B7-2463D561C43A%40gmail.com.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Achim,

Exact calculations of cooling credit is far from trivial, for both carbon and albedo based approaches.  On the carbon front, not all carbon removal have the same biophysical impact, and the resulting kinetics of ocean outgasing (could be virtual) depends on how and where capture is performed, in what end form the carbon is captured, and how it is stored.  On both albedo and carbon fronts, local feedback such as changes in upwelling IR and heat, and how the changes impact energy balance at the TOA need to be understood.  Currently, this area of science is pretty much blank.

To avoid a wild-west situation where people claim whatever they feel like, we need to promote the establishment an international bureau of standards dedicated for such tasks.  Such a bureau would need to develop the science and monitoring capability in close collaborationo with national and international centers with remote sensing and in situ monitoring networks (to be established).

Ye

On 1/11/2023 12:16 PM, Achim Hoffmann wrote:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/LO6P123MB66133A4A2D8302850EEBE6A5BAFC9%40LO6P123MB6613.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Ye Tao]

Thanks for this resource, Robert! Good to know initial efforts have started.  Discussion of albedo-based radiative forcing seems rudimentary.  Not much seems fleshed out.  At this rate, would be encouraging to have a rough methodology by 2030.

Cheers,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/043001d92669%24192866c0%244b793440%24%40rtulip.net.

[Ron Baiman]

Robert, Ye, NOAC colleagues, et al.,

Agreed and thanks for the resource! 

Let me add that the complexity goes beyond natural science.  As with carbon removal and mitigation the "ex ante" situation (would the rooftop have been painted white anyway?) is not always easy to pin down.  If measures were devised they would probably have to be done at a large scale (to ensure robust and reliable signals). In the same vein, it would probably (as with emissions reductions) be necessary to hold large nations or administrative regions responsible for their cooling budgets as large scale measurement and evaluation would be much more reliable than individual contract protocols and assessment (see p. 11 of this: https://www.cpegonline.org/post/arctic-sea-ice-traige-carbon-cycle-restoration-and-a-renewable-energy-and-materials-economy). Cooling also includes important local and regional impacts that are not a problem for carbon reduction and offset. In this sense carbon reduction and removal is truly a global "public good" - it doesn't matter where and when the carbon emissions are reduced or drawn down, the global benefit is the same - whereas cooling this is not the case for cooling.

But there may be some possibilities, as evidenced by this recently publicized "cowboy SAI initiative": https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/important-pioneers-or-pirates-make-sunsets-sell-launch-sai/id1529459393?i=1000591767167

Critiqued by Andrew here: as risking a Russ George "circle the wagons backlash" (my characterization).

Best,

Ron

  

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/043001d92669%24192866c0%244b793440%24%40rtulip.net.

[lee mcnair]

John, are you all reaching out to John Kerry or better still creating relationships with various Congresspeople to advocate for research and development funds?

 It seems to me for the various options you have been discussing you need funding on the federal level just to get started plus it's awfully obvious that the public and the government need to be educated on some levels beyond GHG emissions. Education is a large part of advocacy so is there a particular agency that is advocating for research funding for your work? Thanks, 

Lee (she, her)

"May you be filled with loving kindness.
May you be safe from inner and outer harm.
May you be healthy in body and mind.
May you find Peace and be truly happy. "

Find out whose land you’re on at https://native-land.ca/

I live on the lands of the
Nacotchtank (Anacostan) or the lands of the
Piscataway.