IPCC Acknowledges Likely Need for CDR, Al Gore Unloads

Reuters and the New York Times have both obtained a draft version of the IPCC's third and final AR5 summary report on mitigation.  According to news accounts, the draft summary recognizes the possible necessity of CDR in the future, noting that if the world breaches the 2C threshold, governments will probably need to "deploy CDR technologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide emissions become negative" this century.

In a conference call with reports, Al Gore responded to the news by unleashing a torrent of invective at geoengineering and those who support research into it.  Here are some notable quotes:

• Geoengineering would be "insane, utterly mad and delusional in the extreme."
• "The fact that some scientists who should know better are actually engaged in serious discussion of those alternatives is a mark of how desperate some of them are feeling due to the paralysis in the global political system."
• "The most discussed so-called geoengineering proposals - like putting sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere to reflect incoming sunlight - that's just insane.  Let's just describe that clearly - it is utterly mad."
• "We are already engaged in a planet-wide experiment with consequences we can already tell are unpleasant for the future of humanity.  So the hubris involved in thinking we can come up with a second planet-wide experiment that would exactly counteract the first experiment is delusional in the extreme."

This is disappointing.  In the first place, Gore has the basic facts wrong--SRM would not "exactly counteract" global warming.  No researchers argue this, in fact they emphasize that this is not possible and trade-offs would be inevitable.  His statement that researchers "should know better" comes across as patronizing and insulting to the many excellent scientists working in this field.  And using words like "insane," "mad," and "delusional" drags the debate into the gutter.  Those searching for solutions to the climate crisis deserve better than this.

Quick Recap of COP19 from a Geoengineering Perspective

COP19 in Warsaw has come to its merciful conclusion, with little of significance to report from a geoengineering perspective.  CCS was entirely absent from the agenda.  While there was some progress on finalizing financial and institutional aspects of REDD, nothing substantial regarding afforestation or reforestation was achieved.  The most meaningful outcome of the COP was an agreement among parties to "initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions" prior to COP21 in Paris in 2015, where a legal accord governing mitigation for the post-2020 period is scheduled to be adopted.  These "contributions" (weaker than the "commitments" previously agreed at COP17 in Durban) will be determined solely on a national basis, freeing developed and developing countries alike from any binding emissions reduction targets negotiated at the international level.  The general weakening of ambition represented by COP19 unfortunately makes an eventual turn to SRM more likely.

Carbon Credits Awarded to Moldova Afforestation Project

Two weeks ago, the Moldova Community Forestry Development Project, an afforestation project supported by the World Bank's BioCarbon Fund, was awarded 328,809 temporary Certified Emission Credits (tCERs).  (tCERs are carbon credits issued by the CDM for afforestation and reforestation projects.)  This Moldova A/R project, implemented by the National Forest Agency of Moldova (Moldsilva), has planted trees on 10,000 hectares of previously degraded land.  In addition to carbon storage, project benefits include landscape restoration, soil conservation, and economic opportunities through sustainable forestry.

Cool Planet Launches Biochar Product for Commercial Trials

Cool Planet Energy Systems, the pioneering biofuel/biochar startup, has officially launched its patented Cool Terra biochar product for use in commercial agricultural trials.  Field trials have already been conducted in California, and the company now intends to undertake a wider set of commercial trials in anticipation of a full market release sometime next year.  Cool Planet envisions a nationwide network of local pyrolysis stations utilizing cellulosic biomass to produce carbon-negative gasoline and biochar soil amendments.  The Cool Terra rollout was announced at the 2013 North American Biochar Symposium held earlier this month in Amherst, Massachusetts.

London Protocol Adopts Amendments to Regulate All Marine Geoengineering

Last Friday, parties to the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) on ocean dumping formally adopted amendments which would establish a new "positive list" of marine geoengineering techniques that could be permitted under the Protocol, subject to a test of scientific legitimacy using tailored "Assessment Frameworks."  The amendments are a slightly modified version of a proposal originally put forward by Australia, Nigeria, and South Korea in May (see New London Protocol Proposal to Regulate Marine Geoengineering, 5/18).  Like that earlier proposal, the amendments as adopted include only ocean fertilization on the initial positive list, with provision for the addition of other marine geoengineering methods.

The amendments represent an expansion of scope for the LC/LP beyond its current sole focus on ocean fertilization to possibly encompass other techniques such as enhanced weathering or microbubbles.  Furthermore, as amendments rather than resolutions (the official status of all previous ocean fertilization provisions), these new rules, if they enter into force, would be legally binding on consenting parties rather than strictly voluntary.  The amendments will enter into force 60 days after two-thirds of the Contracting Parties deliver an "instrument of acceptance."  The amendments were adopted at the 35th meeting of the LC and the 8th meeting of the LP, held jointly in London.

First Evidence Indicates Minimal Political Fallout from EPA CCS Standard

Two weeks after the EPA released a proposed emissions performance standard that would require CCS for all new coal-fired power plants (see EPA Releases Revised Performance Standard Requiring CCS, 9/23), initial evidence suggests that the political fallout for Democrats is minimal.  The new standard and the supposed "war on coal" being waged by the Obama Administration have become a flashpoint in the Virginia governor's race between Democrat Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton confidante, and Republican Ken Cuccinelli, the state's Attorney General.  Southwest Virginia is coal country, leading McAuliffe to evade questions about the standard in the days following EPA's announcement.  When he finally expressed support, Cuccinelli went on the attack and accused McAuliffe of hostility toward Virginia's coal industry.

A new poll of 1,150 likely voters commissioned by Politico shows that the issue has failed to catch fire among the state electorate.  In response to the question, "Do you support or oppose new Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, regulations on coal-fired power plants aimed at curtailing climate change?," 45% of respondents expressed support, 33% were opposed, and 22% were unsure.  Predictably, support was high among Democrats (67%) and low among Republicans (21%), while independents were 44% in favor, 36% opposed, and 19% unsure.  These results are largely mirrored in overall voter preferences, with 44% of respondents supporting McAuliffe, 35% supporting Cuccinelli, and 12% supporting Libertarian Robert Sarvis (in a hypothetical two-man match-up 52% of respondents prefer McAuliffe compared to 42% for Cuccinelli).  Cuccinelli is demonstrably suffering from voter dissatisfaction with the Republican-led shutdown of the federal government, which affects Virginia disproportionately given the state's high number of government employees and large federal presence.

IPCC WGI Gives Impartial Consideration to Geoengineering

This morning, IPCC Working Group I (WGI) released its highly anticipated AR5 Summary for Policymakers on the physical science basis of climate change.  The final paragraph of the report considers geoengineering:

Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed.  Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system.  CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale.  There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale.  Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification.  If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.  CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. (p. 21)

This is a relatively balanced statement, justifiably skeptical but neither implacably opposed nor enthusiastically supportive.  Language favorably disposed toward geoengineering, which the Guardian newspaper claimed was being pushed by the Russian delegation in a story last week (see Russia Pushing IPCC WGI to Recognize Geoengineering as Policy Option?, 9/20), is nowhere to be found.  (The Guardian report did, however, provide vocal geoengineering critic Clive Hamilton the opportunity to draw an intimate connection between climate engineering and the predatory Russian state in a follow-on essay.)  The IPCC will take up geoengineering at greater length when Working Group III (WGIII) on mitigation finalizes its contributions to AR5 next April in Berlin.