Solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change?

[Red Baron Farms]

Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A political ad?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

A political ad?

Not really, since it is bipartisan and not really what I advocate actually.

I posted here for a skeptical analysis of what I wrote, not the politics part.

I am of course in favor of AGW mitigation. So I wrote that with this title on the share: "The bipartisan Energy Innovation AND Carbon Dividend Act to mitigate global warming is being considered right now, but we Conservatives can do even better."

So yes. There is a political side to this, but I am more interested in a discussion of the strategy itself here in the science section.

 

[MikeG]

I'm not seeing any figures, so that looks just like an advertising campaign rather than a serious proposal.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm not seeing any figures, so that looks just like an advertising campaign rather than a serious proposal.

It is so difficult to write something that addresses the complexity of climate change mitigation strategy and still is readable and comprehensible to the general public.

I try and do a simplified outline with bullets and all the meat is in the links and citations.

I know already I am not the best at this. But I am willing to listen.

 

[Wayward son]

"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"

Yes.

"and what is preventing its implementation?"

Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).

We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.

France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"

Yes.

"and what is preventing its implementation?"

Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).

We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.

France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.

I have no issues against Nuclear where appropriate. What makes you say that?

 

[jonesdave116]

The solution is to get rid of anthropogens. Sorted.

 

[Reality Check]

Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation?

This is a slightly biased opinion piece about a US bill. Scott Strough, a "researcher in carbon farming as a climate change mitigation strategy", emphasizes his area of interest and minimizes other climate change mitigation strategies without justification.

His "It won't work,..." statement is not supported by his reference.
Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (2016)
Carolyn Snyder wrote a doctorial thesis that reconstructed the last 2 million years of temperature. Part of this was published in a Nature paper. The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.

The rest of the opinion piece is reasonable given his bias. Implementing as many climate change mitigation strategies as practical is the logical way to go.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

His "It won't work,..." statement is not supported by his reference.
Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (2016)
Carolyn Snyder wrote a doctorial thesis that reconstructed the last 2 million years of temperature. Part of this was published in a Nature paper. The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.

It is a prediction that if we actually don't lower atmospheric CO2, then temperatures continue to rise anyway.

That leaves us with the options to draw down CO2.

We can try CCS and that indeed is the strategy proposed the majority consensus on how to reverse Global warming. The idea is to substitute biofuels for electricity production and then use a "to be developed" CCS technology to sequester CO2 directly from those deep underground. Thus turning a supposedly carbon neutral biofuel into an actual net negative in the carbon cycle. This "to be developed" future technology is termed "active decarbonisation of the atmosphere" and most science bodies like for example the Commonwealth Academies of Science project a more conservative 3 degrees as long as we stay under the so called "budget" of carbon emissions rather than 5 degrees even if we end all net emissions completely tomorrow.[1]

This is why an alternative biological carbon capture and sequestration (BCCS) is so important. The technology is already here having been discovered in 1996 initially and actively developed in the field all around the world. It is not a mature technology by any means but even by 2008 the first 10 year case studies from the field were coming in showing 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr sequestered in the soil on average.

Under appropriate conditions, 40%-60% of carbon fixed in green
leaves can be transferred to soil and rapidly humified, resulting in
rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of five to 20 tonnes of
CO2 per hectare per year[2]

Since then it has been confirmed at least in that range or greater. But as I said it is not a mature technology yet. While these numbers are plenty, there are those doing more, and no one really knows what the biological limit might be.

 

[Reality Check]

It is a prediction that if we actually don't lower atmospheric CO2, then temperatures continue to rise anyway.

Correct. The issue is that the cited article and paper do not say that lowering emissions will not work as was written. It says that not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

That leaves us with all climate change mitigation strategies.
A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Another strategy is carbon sequestration which is not just changing farming with its current uncertainty and possible economic issues.

Other more extreme strategies not off the table, e.g.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Correct. The issue is that the cited article and paper do not say that lowering emissions will not work as was written. It says that not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

That leaves us with all climate change mitigation strategies.
A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Another strategy is carbon sequestration which is not just changing farming with its current uncertainty and possible economic issues.

Other more extreme strategies not off the table, e.g.

lowering emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2.

One is the cumultive effect of many years of emissions and even taking emissions to zero will not necessarily lower atmospheric CO2 unless something is done to actively decarbonize.

It takes many millennia for simple passive rock weathering to remove those sorts of excess CO2 we see in the atmosphere now. It's not a good option. It's not a worst case scenario, but it is pretty bad.

You are dreaming if you expect simply reducing emissions to somehow balance the carbon cycle, much less actually draw down CO2.

 

[lomiller]

Sigh, not this again...


Land use changes are a real part of global warming, but till small in comparison to the impact of fossil Carbon.

The reason land use change effects the climate is because at equilibrium healthy old growth forests hold more carbon than healthy grasslands and in turn healthy grasslands hold more carbon than typical crop land. In addition to burning fossil fuels humans have been busy cutting down forests and turning them into degraded croplands or worse.

The most that we can do to sequester carbon would be to allow all the old forests to regrow. First of all that isn't likely to happen, but even if we did the very most we could hope for is to reverse the CO2 contributions from cutting them down in the first place. We can't offset digging up fossil carbon using these techniques.

Proposals for "sequestering carbon in the soil" fall short even of this, because they mainly deal with grasslands. Grasslands by their nature sequestrator less carbon than the forests that were there previously so in their equilibrium state they still represent a release of carbon into the atmosphere.

What happens from time to time is someone looks a the transient response of unhealthy grassland becoming more health and and says "look at how much CO2 we sequestered". There is a wide error range in that number to begin with, but this is then multiplied many times over by assuming a) that all grassland would similarly improve and b) that this response would continue indefinitely rather than reach and equilibrium with increased CO2 released by decomposition in the soil. The end result is a MASSIVE overstatement of how much CO2 could be sequestered this way. When we look at the well understood equilibrium values for carbon sequestered in soil, however we already know ahead of time that we can't even sequester all the carbon releases by cutting down trees in the first place let alone absorb fossil Carbon as well.

 

[Warmer1]

In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).

https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/

 

[theprestige]

I'm still trying to figure out how paying farmers to sequester carbon will stimulate the economy.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm still trying to figure out how paying farmers to sequester carbon will stimulate the economy.

Maybe this will help your understanding.
Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural Ghetto.

Or is it you think Rural economies don't count as "real" economies?

 

[Reality Check]

lowering emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2.

I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

Lowering carbon emissions enough stabilizes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus stops global warming.

Lowering carbon emissions to zero eventually reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus reverses global warming. I think that the main uptake of C02 will be the oceans.

Lowering carbon emissions is a key element of climate change mitigation

Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term global warming and its related effects.[2] Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).[3] Mitigation may also be achieved by increasing the capacity of carbon sinks, e.g., through reforestation.[3] Mitigation policies can substantially reduce the risks associated with human-induced global warming.[4]

The goal is to stop global warming from reaching unacceptable levels by 2100. It seems not practical to reverse global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

Maybe this will help your understanding.

A reference that does not mention paying farmers to sequester carbon and whether it would stimulate the economy, Red Baron Farms !

Think about an extremely hypothetical scenario. Peat sequesters a lot of carbon. If we paid farmers to turn productive farmland into bogs, they would lose the income from their farms!

Or a more realistic scenario: Pay farmers to turn productive farmland into forests. They lose income from the farmland but they gain income from the trees.

The practical strategy is encouraging farmers to use improved farming practices that sequester more carbon. There is 1 study from 2013 that says that this can be done with no decrease of yield or profits (Regenerative agriculture).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

Exactly what I said.

Lowering carbon emissions enough stabilizes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus stops global warming.

No. Lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough. You literally just contradicted yourself.

Lowering carbon emissions to zero eventually reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus reverses global warming. I think that the main uptake of C02 will be the oceans.

Eventually as in thousands of years from now. This because of reinforcing feedbacks in the system already triggered. It is not a AGW reversal strategy with any hope of success.

Lowering carbon emissions is a key element of climate change mitigation

The goal is to stop global warming from reaching unacceptable levels by 2100. It seems not practical to reverse global warming.

It isn't without drawdown, but drawdown is possible. And exactly unacceptable to who? The Syrians might claim, with some justification, it already reached unacceptable levels.
The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

This is not the only area "unacceptable" climate change has already happened either.

Climate change has implications for human health and productivity. Models suggest that heat extremes affect worker health, reduce labor capacity, and commodity supply. Chronic health conditions are on the rise internationally. However there is a paucity of direct empirical evidence relating increasing temperatures to both agricultural worker health and productivity.
The impact of heat and impaired kidney function on productivity of Guatemalan sugarcane workers

They say it is even worse in some other countries.
The Silent Massacre: Chronic Kidney Disease in Central America's Sugarcane Workers

There are things we can do to help like educate about the importance of additional hydration and work breaks in heavy labor industries. But in these places around the world even small increases in average temps make tremendous differences in quality of life.

 

[Reality Check]

Exactly what I said.....

I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

There is no lowering of carbon emission in that quote. It is lowering of atmospheric CO2 by any means and that it does not happen.

Then I went on to climate change mitigation strategies which are ways expected to reduce global warming to acceptable levels by 2100.

A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.

Lowering carbon emissions will reduce global warming to acceptable levels ("stop global warming "). That may include lowering atmospheric CO2 over the next 80 years.