My own view (and that argued in Kyoto2 (the book)) is as follows:
1. The dangers of a runaway greenhouse effect taking hold are such that we
need to be ready to deploy geo-engineering solutions in that event.
2. This means doing serious research on the subject now.
3. We need to look for several things in the solutions chosen: immediacy of
impact; rapid reversibility; low wider environmental impact (and if possible
beneficial collaterals); and low cost.
I don't think we should confuse biochar projects with geo-engineering.
Biochar production is something rather long term which does of course
sequester carbon but whose main benefit is probably in the form of soil
improvement, enhancing fertility and water retention qualities. What it will
not do is to turn around a runaway greenhouse phenomenon, though in the long
term it is part of the solution set that we need to deploy.
For geo-engineering options, most can be dismissed as costly, hard to
reverse or plain crazy. But one that appeals to me is the idea developed by
John Latham of using wind-powered ocean yachts to create and disperse saline
micro-droplets to act as cloud condensation nuclei and so make marine clouds
brighter and more reflective. This approach scores high on all the criteria
listed above.
More on all this in Kyoto2 pp.196-197 (biochar) and pp.198-205
(geo-engineering). Oliver.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRIS KEENE
Sent: 31 July 2008 22:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Fwd: Edinburgh- Lecturer in Social policy for biochar and soil
carbon storage]
I would be interested in knowing what people think of geo-engineering?
Is it to become the new biofuels?
Chris
|