Pachauri’s call for 350 ppm is breakthrough moment for climate movement 13

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   dreamer Posted 5:54 pm
   25 Aug 2009

   Hopeful? Definitely. But when will 350 encompass a goal of 3,500 billion people and zero human population growth for planet Earth? (Let's do this voluntarily, over a long time, through education and empowering everyone on Earth to freely choose family size.)

   Permalink

2. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 10:41 pm
   25 Aug 2009

   Done. The enormous potential of a solar to hydrogen economy"Abbott argues that a solar-hydrogen economy is more sustainable and
   provides a vastly higher total power output potential than any other
   alternative. While he agrees with the current approach of promoting a
   mix of energy sources in the transition period toward a sustainable
   energy technology, he shows that solar-hydrogen should be the final
   goal of current energy policy"

   Permalink

3. 

   alexd Posted 11:57 pm
   25 Aug 2009

   I don't understand this target. Atmospheric CO2 levels are already at 387 ppm. We're struggling to stabilize them at 400 ppm. The technology does not yet exist to repeat the work that trees do on a much grander scale: that is to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it somewhere else. We know how to recycle CO2 into methane but not how to extract it once it's been put into the atmosfere. So how can we reach a target of 350 when we're already at 387ppm, growing at 2ppm a year and positive carbon feedbacks are kicking in thereby accelerating the growth in CO2 concentrations?Please enlighten me.

   Permalink

4. 

   Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:26 am
   26 Aug 2009

   Who knows, perhaps the human family will soon come to see that we need to care for Earth's ecology the way the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us protect their insatiably greedy interests in the unbridled growth of humanity's soon to become unsustainable global economy.

   Permalink

5. 

   Billhook Posted 10:26 am
   26 Aug 2009

   Perhaps Pachauri's optimism for Copenhagen is not surprising given that, as a senior IPCC scientist,he has long observed the absurd Sino-US brinkmanship over "Who can ignore climate destabilization the longest ?"and
   given that both nations are now facing a potentially catastrophic loss
   of their farm outputs both through intensifying long-term drought and
   loss of vital snow and ice-cover,meaning that Copenhagen has
   become not just another nationalists' strutting-ground but actually a
   vital mutual escape-route from the outcome of their brinkmanship.Pachauri
   has certainly started encouraging non-governmental contributions to the
   event - it is only recently that he went on record to declare his
   forthright personal endorsement of the global climate policy framework
   of "Contraction & Convergence" as the necessary basis of UN negotiations, in a recorded interview.Clearly,
   with spoilers including even US Democrat calls for trade threats
   against foreign polluters (!), he sees that there is everything still
   to play for.Regards,Billhook

   Permalink

6. 

   Billhook Posted 7:54 pm
   26 Aug 2009

   AlexD - while I'm not up to enlightening anyone, perhaps I can pass on some useful ideas.First, the 350 ppmv target was chosen for pragmatic rather than strictly scientific reasons - for instance, the decay of peatbogs worldwide, leading to rising "dissolved organic carbon" [DOC] in water-courses, from whence it rapidly outgasses, has been rising by 6% /yr since it was first observed around 1960, when CO2 was far below 350 ppmv. In 2003 it was found that microbial action is responsible, and that it increases annually with the rise of CO2. By 2060, if we fail to cleanse the atmosphere and retain present trends, just the DOC feedback would emit carbon equal to our entire 2003 output.Thus the 350 target is just a sensible very large step below the 450 that has become a respectable goal in recent years.Second, we have no choice but to cleanse the atmosphere or the feedback loops will, predictably, swamp the natural sinks and take climate destabilization far beyond any human intervention.To this end, since we don't have techno-trees more effective than real ones, it is worth considering just what the latter could do for us if we deflate the prejudice against sustainable afforestation. Some very serious scientists were discussing how, using sustainable forestry product as feedstock, carbon sequestration via farmers' use of forest-sourced Biochar could interr between 5.0 and 9.0GTC per year. They focussed instead on wastes as feedstock once some enviro-bigots started smearing them and the whole idea.That scale of Biochar usage would mean that an annual reduction of airborne CO2 could be readily achieved, which emissions-cuts will not do for at least several decades under present targets. I.E., even stringent emissions targets are liable to be far too late to avoid the feedback loops becoming self-fuelling - logically we have to intervene effectively by the most benign sequestration system available.Which brings me to the optimum silviculture for more than a gigahectare of non-farmland afforestation, namely 'Coppice.' This is an ancient living tradition that has many forms around the world, but seems rather scarce in the US.  It entails the felling of young deciduous trees on a regular cycle (from 7 to 28 yrs depending on sundry factors) and allowing them to regrow from the stumps. This they do vigorously, yielding about 20% more than the replanting required in cohort forestry. Also, this means that the root-ball and soil carbon are not lost at each harvest, while the varying light influx to the woodland floor means that coppice supports the highest biodiversity of any European ecosystem. (And presumably acts similarly in other regions).Third, since you ask how we can reach a target of 350 ppmv, I'd say that sufficient afforestation for at least 7.0GT of Biochar/yr is a necessary component, but its complement will be the agreement at the UNFCCC of stringent declining emissions budgets allocated equitably under the Contraction & Convergence framework, but, crucially, with only a minor fraction of resulting cuts being permissible to offset by even the best options such as UN-accredited forest-biochar projects, while the worst, such as the fantasies of "deforestation-avoided" should be excised altogether.Hoping that these ideas may be of interest to you,regards,Billhook

   Permalink

   1. 

      alexd Posted 2:37 am
      27 Aug 2009

      That's very useful info indeed. I've never read anything like this before. I'm going to conduct some more research into this. I guess I had a technological bias on this. Your solution seems delightfully simple and looks cheap enough to implement. If you're right on this, I'll try to find out what I can do to get this sort of solution up and running in my neck of the woods. You have enlightened me! :)

      Permalink

   2. 

      Earl Killian Posted 8:12 am
      27 Aug 2009

      The target 350 ppm comes from James Hansen's paper Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?Your assertion "the 350 ppmv target was chosen for pragmatic rather than strictly scientific reasons" does not jive with Hansen's paper. Have you read it?AlexD, you will find in the paper suggestions on how 350 ppm might be accomplished. Here is a quote from the paper, "In Supplementary Material we define a forest/soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150 (Fig. 6B). This scenario returns CO2 below 350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level." 

      Permalink

      1. 

         alexd Posted 9:26 am
         27 Aug 2009

         Thanks, Earl, had a look at killian.com, don't know if that's yours but I like the list of books, have read a few, I'll have a read of the toxic sludge one. Like the fact Chomsky and Soros are both there, I like one's reflexivity theory and I like the other's analysis. Well rounded interests, impressive. Has anyone else got any info on methods to reverse carbon dioxide concentrations? Have asked the Ecologist to do an article on this because in 12 months of research on the biggest environmental issues we face, I've just not come across any info on this particular topic except a very lame analysis in New Scientist. I want to understand more so that I can explain it to people. Will review that paper Earl. Thanks again.

         Permalink

7. 

   JoytotheWorld Posted 9:53 am
   28 Aug 2009

   Wonderful, now how about addressing the thousands of ways we destroy our environment everyday beyond the CO2 issue?  It was like when I went to the doctor's office and told them my symptoms... which one was the worst?  which one would is most important to you?  It is like asking one of us which leg to fix first and risk losing an arm.  The whole culture of abusing the environment must stop.

   Permalink

8. 

   Billhook Posted 6:49 pm
   28 Aug 2009

   Earl - your view of the basis for proposing 350 ppmv plainly differs from mine.Mine is drawn directly from Hansen's paper on the matter, which includes, as I recall, multiple references to the potential need for further reductions in airborne CO2 below the 350 ppmv target. It also includes the justification for a present target specifically within the range 325 to 355.However, for all Hansen is undoubtedly well aware of the DOC feedback (first published in "Nature") he chose not to mention it, nor the fact that it would, on present trends, swamp the planet's carbon sinks by itself, somewhere around mid-century, nor the fact that it was first observed to be accelerating when CO2 was at only about 317ppmv.With just the evidence of hazards that he did include, there is a prudent case for a target at 300ppmv or even a full cleansing back to 250. But what would the outcome of that proposal have been in a culture struggling with 450, where even passionately commited diplomats like Evo de Boer says 350 "hasn't a hope in hell" of being agreed at Copenhagen ? Hansen would have lost what little traction he still has with the political establishment, who regularly snub him as it is.In this sense, the choice of 350ppmv, not of 300, 325, 349, 351 or 355 was essentially pragmatic, being a nice round number that has already been aired in UNFCCC, and that leaves another large step down to the obvious final target of 250, and is of course more than amply supported by evidence whose cogency rises weekly.Just today I read that 3.4 million Nepalis face starvation due to a destabilized climate causing the failure of their harvests.With regard to the potential of sustainable afforestation for Biochar interrment, your chosen quote from the 350 paper refers to the potential from the processing of wastes for Biochar, not new forestry. The sentences around it refer first obliquely and then directly to that massive potential, with a wise caution that the practice must be done carefully.From page 12, para 1. :-"Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing carbon for centuries to millenia (82). Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N2O (83). Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2 drawdown of ~8ppm in half a century (83).""In Supplementary Material we define a forest/soil drawdown scenario
   that reaches 50 ppm by 2150 (Fig. 6B). This scenario returns CO2 below
   350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level.""More rapid drawdown could be provided by CO2 capture at power plants fuelled by gas and biofuels (84). Low input high-diversity biofuels grown on marginal or degraded lands, with associated Biochar production, could accelerate CO2 drawdown, but the nature of a biofuel approach must be carefully designed (83, 85-87)."Given that the ancient sustainable silviculture of Coppice Forestry, and its use for Biochar that I proposed earlier, along with its co-product biofuels in gaseous or liquid form, is precisely the sort of careful low-input high-diversity design than Hansen calls for, and given that Hansen is far too experienced a scientist to disdain efficient pragmatism (as I hope I may have shown above) I think you're mistaken in assuming that my post does not "jive" with his seminal 350 paper.Regards,Billhook

   Permalink

9. 

   snedunuri Posted 10:24 am
   06 Sep 2009

   What, no Exxon-Mobilers or loonies posting about how 350 ppm is just a liberal scheme to take over the world and we have nothing to worry about b/c its all just sunspots??

   Permalink

10. 

    snedunuri Posted 1:18 pm
    06 Sep 2009

    What, no Exxon-Mobilers or loonies posting about how 350 ppm is just a liberal scheme to take over the world and we have nothing to worry about b/c its all just sunspots??

    Permalink