This email was shared on The Arctic Methane Emergency Group site. It is worth repeating - there are many issues that need careful consideration!:
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [geo] Many nations wary of extracting carbon from air to fix climate | Reuters (SEE the link below to this article)
China, the European Union, Japan and Russia were among nations saying the draft, to be published on Sunday, should do more to stress uncertainties about technologies that the report says could be used to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it below ground to limit warming."
GR - Natural CDR already consume 55% of our emissions from the atmosphere, and is (so far) the only thing staving off planetary climate disaster. Any "uncertainty" here? If CDR is so "uncertain", shall we turn off natural CDR and see what happens?
"Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) "technologies are currently not available and would be associated with high risks and adverse side-effects," the German government said in a comment on the draft by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
GR - Guess the Germans didn't get the memo that Mother Nature is already performing CDR. Anyone want to ponder the "risks and adverse side-effects" of turning off this existing CDR?
"There are no CDR technologies by now," Russia said. The technologies would go far beyond the traditional focus on cutting emissions from burning coal, oil or natural gas.
GR- Yes, CDR does go beyond the tradition focus, but then how is that traditional focus working out, climate-wise? In contrast, CDR is what is saving our bacon right now. How about trying to improve upon what is already working to moderate climate while we wait for those traditional CO2 emissions reduction miracles?
Truly breathtaking how the people in charge of setting climate/CO2 action policy that will affect the entire planet for millenia have no understanding how nature already does CO2 mitigation, and that maybe we might want to study, learn from, emulate, modify and/or improve upon these already highly effective processes just in case (less risky?) "traditional" approaches continue to fail us.
Why is it that we all seem to forget that trees are natural CDR entities and that they are very unstable in the best of times, but replace themselves if there is any chance of their survival.
I am looking out my kitchen window at a stand of trees we chose to leave unthinned for aesthetics sake. The trees appear healthy but the recent thinning has revealed many smaller trees that have died and some of the larger ones have rotted from the middle. A large white oak has branches that reach over thirty feet from the trunk and the lower ones over five inches in diameter at the trunk of the tree have died and are rotting.
The take away message here is that the carbon that these natural agents take up is there for a short time before being rereleased. In fact most forests start from over 500,000 (corrected after the fact - one extra zero) small trees and end up with fewer than one hundred growing to maturity. This reduction in numbers can take decades or centuries or can happen overnight. The climate change community has missed the importance of the impending storm severity on the stability of the forest carbon. The individual trees will be damaged either mortally or internally so that they rot over time with much of the carbon being released as methane. Researchers at Yale Univ. have found rotting trees with internal methane levels 80,000 times the ambient level. This is natural and happens all the time. It will go faster as things get hotter.
We need to convince any owner of forest resources that it is in their best interest to sequester the carbon at risk in trees that they can perceive not survive more than twenty years. The only sustainable way that they can do this is by capturing the volatile energy for local use (either as heat, electricity and heat or liquid fuels) and converting the majority of the non-gasifiable carbon into a recalcitrant form, and using it throughout the community for filtration and nutrient extraction before mixing it with other carriers and depositing it in fields and forests.
We have done a lousy job of countering the misinformation or lies about the forest that have been repeated by the "preservationist" community. They may rot in a hell of their own making.
The important point not mentioned is that any of these CDR measures (tree carbon sequestration included) is going to take investment of time by people and other resources. The trees are already there and the only reason that people are not engaged is that work with these resources is not something that local people can afford to do given the current financial criteria of worthwhile effort. The droughts in Syria are supposedly driving farmers into shanty towns outside cities rather than doing long term activity that could reduce the scope of desertification. So these people have neither jobs nor beneficial presence on the local environments.
The banking community is not about to allow funding to go out of their short time frame calculation system because they are sitting on an apparent bonanza of paper speculative gains that require no work on their part. Who would want to work in the forest when they can dress up and play the ruler without getting their hands dirty?