Ocean
fertilisation using iron remains unproven and potentially questionable as I
understand it. So the question is how one could achieve it without the issues
associated with dumping iron compounds (a little different from much more widely
dispersed windblown dust).
Biochar
is the best contender in my view - easy to motivate people to do it in theory
with financial incentives. But for any CDR approach, you need to consider just
how many gigatonnes of the stuff are being added to the atmosphere (to stay for
a long time) every single year. To achieve meaningful drawdown you not only need
to remove as much as is being added - but more on top. If anyone cares to
provide verifiable calculations backing up the argument to say it's more than a
minor option - I'd be interested (as is I think it requires near total
elimination of emissions to come into reach for helping).
Enhanced
rock weathering I think is also a potential - although there is the small matter
of energy inputs to grind the rock.
For
people to pay the true cost of their behaviour - absolutely - ideally with at
least partial historic responsibility (otherwise we do injustice to younger
people and all those who did not take so much advantage of the insanity -they
are the people who have been robbed in any future they
have).
But
only a solution with all necessary components even offers the slightest of
collective chances, a few silver bullets are inadequate - even if
adopted.
While
SRM geoengineering could potentially help buy a little more time (which could
make a critical difference given how little time may remain) I think it must be
seen in a much wider context. Otherwise it is like a borrower turning to payday
loans to make it through another month. It does only harm if only used to
postpone failure and I would favour faster collapse to do less ultimate damage
in that scenario.
Accordingly,
my argument is that it is a worthwhile activity to devote at least some effort
and thought to mitigating collapse in a failure scenario - to improve the lot of
our species into the indefinite future beyond the dismal projections that appear
probable currently. So few people seem to be considering this contingency
planning question. The closest I suppose are transition groups - though they are
less of a contingency approach and more one that intrinsically assumes upon all
the other components of the necessary minimum solution (I would place their
aspirations on 5 of my list - still a necessary component of a minimum
collective solution).
Regards,
Douglas
From:
Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Aaron Franklin
Sent: 23 April 2013 18:42
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic
and denial of life-threats
absolutely right about the trees taking too long. also the
problem is there is not enough land for an effect in a useful
time.
This is not a problem with ocean fert, and since there was
50x more ocean fert due to natural windblown dust in glacial periods, and we
have halved the natural ocean fert with our human intervention in the last
century, there is no legitimate ecological objections to doing
it.
see my integrated systems plan for CO2 back to 280ppm in 10
years, linked earlier, for a plan that involves biofuels, ocean restoration, and
reforestation, feeding the starving, all enhancing each
other.
Aaron
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Kevin Coleman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Slight snag with that idea. There is a time lag between what
is released from the fossil fuel in terms of polluting carbon compounds and what
is effective in mopping it all up again. A tree for instance is not capable of
absorbing the co2 in any meaningful quantity until it reaches at least 30 years
old and even older depending on the particular type of tree it is. Doesn't
matter how much money you throw at a tree it isn't going to grow any
quicker.
The very best bet is to stop taking down forests, plant more
forests, start leaving the fossil fuels in the ground altogether and start
reducing our dependence on trinkets that need conflict minerals and electricity
from the mains supply. Also add to that localisation of industry and services,
decentralisation of food supplies and resource provisions and stop commuting
everywhere. Also if stuff needs to be imported then ship it using sailing
vessels. If it reduces the quantity then the scarcity of the commodity will make
the price reflect the cost of importation and therefore make it worthwhile using
sailing vessels.
Trouble with modern society is that it is unwilling to
change its bad habits. The bad habits are now seen as a right rather than as
something to be earned or justified, other than in some sort of street cred
competition with their peers. Until society changes its attitude there will be
no improvement in the climate situation. Demand perpetuates supply and the fat
cats get fatter as a result.
Kev C
On 23/04/2013 22:19, John Nissen wrote:
Hi all,
I fundamentally agree with Aaron. If
people paid the full cost of repairing the damage caused by their pollution (and
other sapping of environmental capital), plus a certain percentage extra, then
we would have a chance to neutralise the damage and start to restore the
planet. The best way to raise the levy would be at the point of
fossil fuel extraction, because one would not need any further levy down the
supply chain. This could be also applied to logging or other deforestation
- pay at the point of extraction of the carbon, with a rebate for restoring the
forest that's been cut down.
Cheers,
John
--
On
23/04/2013 20:45, Aaron Franklin wrote:
And IMO, telling the fossil addicts that have the reigns of
the planet that its OK to burn the stuff a little longer, as long as you help us
mop up your poo's, isn't a bad Idea.
--
"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without
vision is a nightmare." Japanese Proverb