Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al 3

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 10:32 am
   10 Nov 2008

   Or, We Could Just Wreck The Economy...Luckily for you, Wall Street has pretty much dismantled the remains of the DOW and the industrial economy, including GM, the oil companies, and the Federal Treasury.  
   If any CO2 is produced down the pike in 2012, it will be by a bunch of bums standing around a rusty drum trying to keep warm by burning books from the library.

   Permalink

2. 

   Jonas Posted 4:45 am
   11 Nov 2008

   350ppm means bioenergyThe reason why Romm (and others at Gristmill) are afraid of the 350 number, is because it means a massive investment in carbon-negative bioenergy, that is: biomass electricity coupled to CCS, biohydrogen coupled to CCS, and biochar. All bio that is, and not so much wind or solar or geothermal.
   This is so because these bioenergy technologies can yield carbon-negative energy, whereas the weak renewables only yield carbon-neutral energy and thus won't do (they won't do because we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and wind, solar and geothermal don't do that; negative emissions bioenergy does.)
   Read Hansen's text, page 227 (the key passage of the text, called "Policy Relevance" of this article - not mentioned by Romm, because it's all "bio").
   Desire to reduce airborne CO2 raises the question of whether CO2 could be drawn from the air artificially. There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, but with strong research and development support and industrial scale pilot projects sustained over decades it may be possible to achieve costs ~$200/tC or perhaps less. At $200/tC, the cost of removing 50 ppm of CO2 is ~$20 trillion.
   Improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2. Deforestation contributed a net emission of 60±30 ppm over the past few hundred years, of which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today.
   Reforestation could absorb a substantial fraction of the 60±30 ppm net deforestation emission.
   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 millennia. Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N2O. 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 ~8 ppm or more in half a century.
   [In the Supplementary Material Section] we define a forest/ soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150. 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 fueled by gas and biofuels [that is: carbon-negative bioenergy - biomass power plants coupled to CCS]. Low-input high-diversity biofuels grown on degraded or marginal lands, with associated biochar production, could accelerate CO2 drawdown, but the nature of a biofuel approach must be carefully designed.
   A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality. A 50 ppm drawdown via agricultural and forestry practices seems plausible. But if most of the CO2 in coal is put into the air, no such "natural" drawdown of CO2 to 350 ppm is feasible. Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim.
   Romm is uncomfortable with Hansen's message, because it implies a massive investment in bioenergy - the type of renewable that Romm, for some bizarre reason, can't stand.
   Anything less than a 350 aim means you're a fake green.

   Permalink

3. 

   erich Posted 9:49 am
   11 Nov 2008

   The Rest of the Biochar StoryThe Rest of the Biochar Story:
   Charles Mann ("1491")in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which  places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
   
   I think Biochar has climbed the pinnacle, the Combined English and other language circulation of NGM is nearly nine million monthly with more than fifty million readers monthly!
   
   We need to encourage more coverage now, to ride Mann's coattails to public critical mass.
   Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague's ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire.
   
   http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
   I love the "MEGO" factor theme Mann built the story around. Lord... how I KNOW that reaction.
   I like his characterization concerning the pot shards found in Terra Preta soils;
   so filled with pottery - "It was as if the river's first inhabitants had
   
   thrown a huge, rowdy frat party, smashing every plate in sight, then
   
   buried the evidence."
   A couple of researchers I was not aware of were quoted, and I'll be sending them posts about our Biochar group:    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/b...guid=122501696
    and data base;
   
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
   I also have been trying to convince Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story, with pleading emails to him
   Since the NGM cover reads "WHERE FOOD BEGINS" , I thought this would be right down his alley and focus more attention on Mann's work.
   I've admiried his ability since "Botany of Desire" to over come the "MEGO" factor (My Eyes Glaze Over) and make food & agriculture into page turners.
   It's what Mann hasn't covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article.
   The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar in the 07& 08 farm bill,
   Dr, James Hansen's Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference last month, and coming article in Science,
   
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
   The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate soils
   Glomalin's role in soil tilth & Terra Preta,
   The International Biochar Initiative Conference Sept 8 in New Castle;
   
   http://www.biochar-international.org/ibi2008conference/ab ...
   Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?
   
   Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages... SIMULTANEOUSLY!
   This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
   
   Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration.
   Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
   Erich
   
   540 289 9750
   
   

   Permalink