I don't think we should panic, and just go for a geo-engineering
solution without doing research on it. I don't agree with Jo's
statement 'WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR THE RESEARCH RESULTS'. I
would say 'WE *MAY* NOT HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR THE RESEARCH RESULTS'. The
science is at the moment too uncertain to say, we might have quite a few
years. And if we just jump into something, like ocean fertilisation, it
may make things even worse, perhaps by acidifying the ocean and making
it even less able to absorb CO2 for example. So we need to do the
research into geo-engineering properly
And when Jo says 'The big research programmes don't have room for
geo-engineering research', shouldn't we be pressing for it? I bet a
fraction of the world's military budget could find a solution if applied
to geo-engineering research .But what we mustn't do is allow the hope of
a geo-engineering solution to allow people to go on polluting as if a
techno-fix will come to the rescue.
I think what we need to do is press for the solutions that do work to
de-carbonise society - like renewable electricity and passive houses for
example, aiming for zero carbon as fast as is feasible. How fast this
is is a complicated judgement to make, because it not only entails
questions of technology, but also lifestyle, and therefore involves
judgements of risk as well as moral questions, such as 'Is it acceptable
to have any fun which is not zero carbon, because any other fun you do
have, like flying abroad, increases the risk of harm to others through
causing climate change?'. The Centre for Alternative Technology's Zero
Carbon Britain report <www.zerocarbonbritain.com> suggests 20 years til
we can reach it.
At the same time we should demand a massive budget for geo-engineering
research, and for this to be completely independent, so no vested
interests are able to push their own solutions
Chris
jo abbess wrote:
> Hi Crisis Forum,
>
> Biofuels cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions that burning Diesel ? It
> wasn't meant to be this way ! Remember when Europe's fields suddenly
> went yellow from all the oilseed rape (canola) ? Europe was supposed
> to be extending the oilseed rape growing area to supply not only food
> markets but fuel, also. But free trade killed all that local fuel
> efficiency off. Fuel oil became highly marketised, and it was found
> that certain pliant South East Asian countries were only to willing to
> submit to market incentives to rip out rainforest to grow oil palm.
> And North American farmers carried on spraying oil-based pesticides,
> fungicides and fertilisers over their crops intended for ethanol, even
> though it was not for human consumption, which completely undermined
> the Carbon benefits of growing the crops for fuel in the first place.
>
> What other "technologies" are we going to try that get kyboshed by
> globalised trade rules and/or oil dependency in their product lifecycles ?
>
> Geo-Engineering : we don't know whether some of the proposals can
> work, or be tweaked to made to work, and in some cases there are clear
> threats, and there are debates and science done about those threats.
>
> It's all very well resorting to the "we need to do the research"
> speech, but quite frankly, WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR THE
> RESEARCH RESULTS to come in.
>
> The big research programs do not have room for Geo-engineering
> research, anyway.
> In the Space Programme network, people are planning to mine the Moon,
> or wasting their lives on testing Mars soil samples. Cataloguing human
> DNA seems to take more priority than researching Sustainable Energy
> Technologies or Geo-engineering.
>
> I contend that we already have enough tools in the box to deal with
> Climate Change. We use LESS. We burn LESS. We get to win. But we don't
> all get to DRIVE.
>
> jo.
> +44 77 17 22 13 96
> http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:50:02 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: geo-engineering costs
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> No, it is $100m R&D and setup cost, then $120m per year to deploy.
>
> Oil implications? The vessels would be wind powered.
>
> Re Chris's question, "would it work?", that what the research side
> would be all about. It's no good finding we need to take desperate
> measures only to find we dont know what measures, or whether they
> work, as they have never been researched.
>
> Chris also asked about side effects. That's another thing we need to
> research obviously, but prima facie you would not expect a massive
> downside. All we would be doing is putting more saline droplets in the
> air than are there already thanks to wave action.
>
> Oliver Tickell
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Barker
> *Sent:* 01 August 2008 13:05
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: geo-engineering costs
>
> That ($200 million per year, which is more likely) is only cheap by
> today's standards of wealthy and energy-rich multinationals and
> centralised governments, and it doesn't include research and
> development. What are the oil implications of this sort of thing? It
> costs a lot of energy to maintain these global political and economic
> power structures, and this will be in short supply whatever course is
> chosen by the powerful. Annually increasing costs without reducing
> dependence is as short-sighted as doing nothing, though we are
> reaching the point where technical fixes will be required in order to
> stave off disaster, whatever else we do.
>
> For many reasons, there is no energy source on the horizon that can
> even get near to replacing oil, and the consequence of that is
> downsizing. We need ways to help ordinary people in small communities
> to realise that they are powerful themselves. If millions of small
> communities make structural changes to reduce vulnerability to global
> problems, the worst case projections may be avoided. Attempts to
> overpower the powerful will result in just one outcome: failure.
> Fortunately, bottom-up community change is already progressing
> rapidly, even exponentially. Our efforts should be directed at our own
> communities, whilst maintaining the argument and process for
> large-scale change.
> tom
>
>
> At 12:33 01/08/2008, Oliver Tickell wrote:
>
> Actually Tom the scary thing about geoengineering is that it could
> be very
> very cheap. John Latham has done a rough costing for his cloud albedo
> enhancer which comes to:
> $50m research
> $50m tooling up
> $2m each per spray vessel to build and maintain (60 per year =$120m)
> This would be able to keep the Earth's temperature rouighly where
> it is.
> At approx $100m per year it is cheap, cheap, cheap! Hence the
> danger that it
> might undermine the actions we need to take to reduce emissions.
>
> Oliver
> --
> www.kyoto2.org/ <http://www.kyoto2.org/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Barker
> Sent: 01 August 2008 09:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Edinburgh- Lecturer in Social policy for
> biochar and soil
> carbon storage]
>
> Some of it is scary, some of it bonkers, some of it might help,
> but it is
> all very expensive. I have a bid in for some myself, although
> it's a more
> benign form than you read in the papers. Biochar is not
> geoengineering,
> mind, it's rather sensible and promising, and does not share the
> dangers of
> biofuels.
>
> Cheers, Tom
>
>
> At 22:35 31/07/2008, CHRIS KEENE wrote:
> >I would be interested in knowing what people think of
> geo-engineering?
> >Is it to become the new biofuels?
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Edinburgh- Lecturer in Social
> >policy for biochar and soil carbon storage
> >Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:04:55 +0100
> >From: Daniele Conversi <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: Daniele Conversi <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >*University of Edinburgh*
> >*Lecturer in Social policy for biochar and soil carbon storage* (As
> >part of the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage)
> >
> >Biochar and soil carbon storage are newly developing topics which
> may
> >have a crucial role in mitigating climate change through
> alterations to
> >existing agriculture and forestry systems.
> >You will undertake, and lead, international quality research to
> create
> >a centre of world significance in biological carbon storage and
> capture
> >from atmosphere. This compliments our existing strong expertise in
> >powerplant carbon capture and storage. This post is focused on the
> >social aspects of innovating, funding and testing new systems in
> >agricultural and forestry practices worldwide. You will also
> undertake
> >undergraduate and MSc teaching. Funding exists for you to specify
> and
> >recruit one 3 year PDRA, and several PhD students.
> >
> >Edinburgh has funding to create 6 new permanent lectureships in
> carbon
> >capture. These will link from GeoSciences to Engineering and
> Chemical
> >Engineering in the University of Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt
> University.
> >In June 2008 the Times Higher rated Edinburgh as in the world top
> 8 for
> >Ecology and Environment research, Edinburgh is consistently
> ranked in
> >the world top 30 research Universities.
> >Your particular research expertise is to examine all aspects of the
> >social setting, systems and behaviour which enable or block the
> >innovation of biochar systems in rural communities and forestry
> >systems, to investigate national and world funding mechanisms, and
> >examine the technical effectiveness of biochar and soil carbon as a
> >long term mitigation strategy.
> >Adequate funding exists to rapidly establish a national and world
> >profile in biochar research, by means of conference attendance,
> >conference hosting, and PhD recruitment.
> >
> >You will initially be working as part of the UK's largest carbon
> >storage research group, currently focused on geological storage.
> There
> >are unprecedented opportunities to create diverse cross-discipline
> >links in biologically based carbon storage, within the University
> and
> >to national organisations in the local area, such as Scottish
> >Agriculture College, Centre Ecology Hydrology, and to act as a
> UK-wide
> >focus of biochar research activity.
> >You will have a PhD in social science, soil science, chemistry,
> >engineering, geosciences, or another relevant subject, and have the
> >proven and published ability to understand, work with, and lead a
> >diverse range of academics and stakeholders in the UK and worldwide.
> >
> >Salary Scale:* £34,793 to £41,545* pa
> >Vacancy reference:* 3009518jw*
> >Closing date:* 19 August 2008*
> >For further particulars_
> >
> https://www.jobs.ed.ac.uk/jobs/index.cfm?action=jobdet&jobid=3009518
> <https://www.jobs.ed.ac.uk/jobs/index.cfm?action=jobdet&jobid=3009518>
> _
> >and an application pack visit our website
> >(_ www.jobs.ed.ac.uk_ <http://www.jobs.ed.ac.uk_/>) or telephone
> the recruitment line on
> >0131 650 2511.
> >Click here for_ Employer Profile_
>
> Tom Barker BSc, PhD
> SWIMMER (Institute for Sustainable Water, Integrated Management, and
> Ecosystem Research)
> Nicholson Building
> University of Liverpool
> Liverpool
> L69 3GP
>
> 0151 795 4646
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Support Contraction and Convergence - the global response to climate
> change
> http://www.gci.org.uk/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now!
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571435/direct/01/>
|
