I wouldn't agree with CCS, it is too uncertain. The carbon dioxide
might leak
Chris
Jonathan Ward wrote:
> biofuels were one of the 'easy' ways forward,politically and
> economically (although of course the world is now witness to their
> downsides because we didn't treat the root of the problem, demand).
>
> geo-engineering seems the last-resort science. not all of it, some may
> be suited to more immediate goals. others however seems to miss the the
> fact that the warming inertia is carried in the oceans, GHG lifetimes
> (plus airborne fraction) and sink statuses. Missing the fact that we are
> locked in to future change through very large systems that tinkering
> with won't change in any great hurry. Unless of course we scale up such
> projects and become the creator or destroyer of worlds. They might seem
> nice options for a government wishing to be seen to act, and act by
> large investment, whilst protecting the way of life of the voting core.
>
> Things like CCS are much easier (although still suffering from problems
> itself, i.e. kingsnorth plans) to design and implement, and are a
> temporary relief. larger ideas suffer more form the lack of suitable
> testing. where can one test large-scale geo-engineering plans?
>
> out of interest, has anyone tried to run any large geo-engineering ideas
> (cloud changes, iron fertilisation, etc etc) through GCM and AOCMs?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> Oliver Tickell wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get Hotmail on your Mobile! Try it Now!
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719965/direct/01/>
|
