As the realities of global climate change become ever more alarming, advocates of technological approaches to "geoengineer" the planet's climate are gaining a following.
But the technologies that are promoted -- from spraying sulphate particles into the stratosphere, to dumping iron particles into the ocean, to stimulate carbon absorbing plankton, to burning millions of trees and burying the char in soils -- are all fraught with clear and obvious risks, and are most likely only going to make matters worse.
Yet zeal for these approaches continues unabated. According to right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute, geoengineering offers:
"...the marriage of capitalism and climate remediation...What if corporations shoulder more costs and lead the technological charge, all for a huge potential payoff?...Let's hope we are unleashing enlightened capitalist forces that just might drive the kind of technological innovation necessary to genuinely tackle climate change."
Forget about cutting emissions: manipulating the atmosphere and biosphere through geoengineering is the only sensible option for business and thus policy makers, they claim.
Notably, on the very same website, American Enterprise Institute claims that opponents of the Keystone Pipeline are exaggerating environmental risks while undermining economic gains and 'neighborliness'.
The connection between the tar sands industry and geoengineering advocates is perhaps not immediately obvious, but it makes perfect, ugly sense. Tar sands investors and their allies have long realized that geoengineering could provide them an extended lease on life -- and a convenient means to avoid the shuttering of their industry, which many consider the single most destructive and climat -- damaging form of energy extraction.
Hence, it isn't surprising that tar sands magnate Murray Edwards, director of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, actually fact funds a geoengineering company that works on techniques for capturing CO2 from the air called Carbon Engineering.
Carbon Engineering's president, David Keith, is one of the most vocal and best funded advocates of geoengineering. Carbon Dioxide air capture is often viewed as benign or "soft" geoengineering. After all, what could possibly be wrong with removing carbon dioxide from the overloaded atmosphere?
For starters, air capture of CO2 requires vast amounts of water and, yes, more energy. According to one study, scrubbing all current annual fossil fuel emissions from the air would deprive 53 million people of water. Even capturing CO2 from power station smokestacks, where it is already in a relatively concentrated stream, requires those power plants to burn nearly one third more fuel in order to generate the same amount of energy, plus the additional demand required to power carbon capture.
Top 10 Toxic Industries
Blog continues after slideshow
Capturing CO2 from the air, where it is measured in parts per million, would require vastly more power stations to be built in the first place. More carbon-spewing power stations that is, to help scrub a bit of the emitted CO2 back out of the air.
What Carbon Engineering is developing may be nonsensical from an environmental and scientific perspective, but it fits neatly into the tar sands' industry agenda for portraying themselves as "low carbon." In 2011, Richard Branson chose Calgary for announcing the shortlist of his "Virgin Earth Challenge" which offers a $25 million prize to one project working to remove CO2 from the air. His spokesperson explained the rationale for this choice:
"Calgary is a good place to start low-carbon technology. It's an energy centre [with inventiveness and rigor to apply "to sustainable, low-carbon and economically viable technology."
Tar sands influence behind so-called 'soft geoengineering' can be found in unexpected places. Take a recent announcement by Vermont-based Green Mountain Coffee:
"Mountain Coffee Roasters is helping to fund nonprofit Radio Lifeline's Black Earth Project, an initiative that uses biochar to help Rwandan farmers mitigate the effects of climate change. Radio Lifeline's project partner Re:char, a Kenyan developer of small-scale biochar technologies, will use agricultural residues such as dried corn stalks, grasses, rice hulls, coffee pulp, cow manure and wood chips as feedstock for the biochar production."
Green Mountain Coffee and Radio Lifeline may not associate such a project with ConocoPhillips Canada, but in fact, ConocoPhillips has been the foremost corporation to promote and fund biochar developments, apparently motivated by hopes that they can eventually purchase cheap offsets for their tar sands operations -- for example under the Alberta 'tar sands' Offset System. Re:char themselves have received funding from Conoco .
Far greater Conoco funds have gone to biochar developments in Iowa, to the Biochar Protocol , which aims to get biochar included into carbon offset markets, and to CoolPlanet, a US Venture with the motto: "Imagine driving today's cars & SUV's while actually reversing global warming using fuel that costs less than $1.50/gallon."
Other tar sands investors, including Cenovus Energy, BP and Shell have also funded biochar developments, as has their friend Richard Branson.
Some might argue that it is acceptable to take dirty money to fund projects that will help African farmers make their soils more fertile and hold more carbon. Yet what the scientific evidence and experience from field trials shows is that biochar cannot be relied on to achieve either of those goals.
It can even have the effect of suppressing yields and causing a loss of soil carbon. Farmers who are recruited for supposed "trials" tend to be ill-informed, hearing only the hype from project developers. In effect, they are being duped to take part in these projects based on incomplete and in some cases downright false information.
For example, when a Cameroonian researcher looked at a Biochar Fund project in his country, he found that farmers had been promised great benefits, including finance from nonexistent carbon markets. They had donated their land and labor. Yet the promised benefits failed to materialize, and the project was shortly abandoned. It was nonetheless touted as a "success" on websites and in the media.
So far, biochar projects are invariably small, largely serving PR purposes. Yet if, as many of its advocates hope, it were to be scaled up to the level needed to supposedly offset any significant amount of fossil fuel emissions, the consequences would be grave. According to a study about the "sustainable biochar potential", 556 million hectares of land would need to be converted to biochar production to "offset" 12 per cent of annual CO2 emissions (presuming, of course, that all of that biochar would actually sequester carbon, which is contradicted by evidence).
Carbon dioxide air capture and biochar, despite their potentially massive impacts in terms of energy, water and land requirements, are among the geoengineering proposals that are considered more benign. They are being promoted in part to soften up public opinion for other more intuitively objectionable forms of geo-engineering, such as spraying vast amounts of sulphur particles into the stratosphere or manipulating clouds over large areas.
Those approaches would indeed be guaranteed to produce rapid effects. Among them: immediate crop-failures, acid rain and ozone destruction. In sum, geoengineering options amount to "picking your poison." The tar sands industry, with somewhere on the order of 50 billion dollars invested and rapidly expanding its operations, is hoping that choice will enable them to continue profiting from their dirty business, at any and all cost to the planet.
but it seems bio-char can come from plant debris not just trees. i suspect bio-char quality assessment could be done in a low-tech way by low-tech people.
IF there is a low-tech, local process for creating reliable high-quality bio-char from prunings and so forth, and IF burying that bio-char improves soil fertility enough to sequester via poly-agricultural photosynthesis more carbon than was released by making that bio-char, and IF such a process is carried out on a widespread and locally-controlled basis...
THEN bio-char seems like a good idea.
but clearly more R&D is needed.
smolke refers to a biofuelwatch pdf that says bio-char is not terra preta because the latter contains other leftovers.
perusal of the abstracts of the research cited in this pdf leaves me with the conclusion that we know some things, and other factors remain mysterious.
i would say we don't know whether or how bio-char could qualify as terra preta or achieve precise and repeatable carbon sequestration and fertility goals. however there does seem to be evidence of success on both counts even if repeatability remains elusive.
but the problem that big money can game the system is a different problem than developing a complete agro-ecological understanding of bio-char.
it would be nice if the biofuelwatch folks would put this much energy into pushing reforestation.
What IS immediately obvious is that the use of deliberately denigrating terms like "tar sands" is a red flag of political bias. Even the most illiterate know that tar is a refinery byproduct, unlike bitumen. The correct term is "oil sands."
And Brian is right. As I recall, the residence time for atmospheric carbon is 300 years. Slashing C02 does nothing in the long-run, especially when the biggest contributors (ie. China) are not only not on-board, but actively pursuing bitumen projects of their own (ie. Huadian in Jilin province, Fushun in Liaoning province). Most CO2 emission growth in recent years has been from that single country.
I believe climate change is coming, but there are very few if any credible models showing anything other than miniscule benefits from slowing the addition of CO2. Cap-and-trade policies are therefore virtually irrelevant, and the only way forward with any hope of success is adaptation to the inevitable changes coming. These changes will be gradual, not overnight like climate alarmists suggest, but one thing is for certain: we WILL be forced to adapt, either proactively in advance (smart) or reactively down the road (stupid)... like it or not.
Besides, soon a clean and very very cheap energy technology will emerge onto the market:
"A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude." ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
By the way, here is a survey of some of the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
For those who still aren't convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/
I am the founder and CEO of re:char. While I appreciate your mention of our project with Green Mountain, you make many logical leaps. Yes, we received a $75,000 grant from ConocoPhillips' Sustainable Energy Prize in 2011 along with several other young sustainable entrepreneurs (a wind turbine company, a solar energy company). To imply that we are puppets of big oil is really a stretch.
As you know, your organization is funded by the Wallace Global Fund, a trust established by Henry Wallace's family. Wallace was former US Ag secretary and a leading architect of the corn monocrop system which today dominates global ag. This agricultural system, and its resultant industry, have a documented and dubious environmental and social record. Furthermore, the Wallace Genetic Foundation continues to invest heavily in development and dissemination of Genetically Modified food in the developing world. By the logic you invoke in your article, I could claim that Biofuelwatch is a puppet of the GMO/Big Food lobby.
Furthermore, you equate re:char with the Biochar Fund project, which did not publish results. We regularly publish results (both positive and negative) on our blog. We also have an open invitation for anyone to visit us in Kenya and meet with our farmers.
Unfortunately, we cannot continue to engage your organization in meaningful scientific dialogue after reading this article. We wish you the best in your efforts.
best regards,
Jason Aramburu
Did you not wonder why ConocoPhillips chose to support ReChar? I believe you also received funds from Air Terra Canada, also linked to Conoco. Conoco clearly has a great interest in biochar, having contributed funds to the development of the "biochar offfset protocol" for the Alberta Offset Scheme, whose primary interest is cheap offsets for tar sands emissions.
Re our funding. If you trace back through history you can find dirty history for most money. CS Fund does not fund, and has no interest in industrial corn, nor tar sands. Biofuelwatch does not have any funding from Wallace Genetic. Energy Justice Network may have some funding from them, but we do not receive any support from them. Wallace Genetic does not currently fund GMOs in third world countries, nor do they have historical or current interest in tar sands. Its a bit of stretch to compare CS Fund or Wallace Genetic with ConocoPhillips, really.
Good that you protect the farmers who you engage in Kenya, and while it is fine to make data available on your website, this is not science. That would require following stringent protocols for replication and also engaging in peer review. It is far, far too easy to make unsubstantiated claims. Not that science is infallible, clearly, but the scientific method is a very useful, and perhaps the only real tool we have for discriminating between the multitude of "claims" and actual "truths".
This is to suggest that Dr. Smolker is failing to consider the urgency of taking carbon out of the atmosphere. So, I ask Dr. Smolker:
a. Do you concur with the mid-century goal of 350 ppm atmospheric CO2, as promoted by Bill McKibben and Dr. James Hansen?
b1. If no to a), why not, and what best citation supports this view? (Can end here)
b2. If yes, do you think we can get there by mid-century without using the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) portion of geoengineering?
c1. If yes, why, and what is your preferred non-CDR approach? What citation best supports this optimistic view?
c2. If no, what CDR approach do you recommend, and what citation best supports this view? (I assume your choice is not biochar.)
It's a no brainer that we should reduce emissions but it's going to have 20-50 years before it'll have a measurable effect while we have record drought after record drought.
This isn't a joke people, many more will die.
Please read the failed ippc report noticing how it doesn't contend with the methane coming out nor the change in albedo due to ice loss.
Just love this new cap and trade stuff, had the pielc giving carbon offset money from attendees to the largest factory dairy farms in washington and idaho for their methane capture.
Charles Duemler
Project Charles
I read this quote somewhere and it describes our actions perfectly. "We're living on this planet like we have some other planet to go to." This is all we've got. We need to protect it, sooner rather than later.
The all-powerful biotech, oil/gas, chemical cartel would rather continue with the old billion dollar profit-making practices, finding new ways to make money from their own planetary destruction, rather than find new solutions that stop the degradation and pollution of Planet Earth in the first place. We have ceded power to the corporate world that now runs our governments, policies, and you and I through consumerism.
Science is not God. We humans do not have sufficient knowledge of the intricate workings of this incredible planetary biosphere to begin messing with something as profound as the atmosphere that has no boundaries. There is great risk of creating an irreversible impact with unknown outcomes on regions of the world that have no say in this meddling. Further, it has been going on for years, unbeknown to us, unregulated with no oversight and often I wonder if it is contributing to the factors closing in on us weather wise.
In support of your thesis, please see:
"RAINING CHEMICALS FROM THE SKY" http://ow.ly/jmlX9
TAR SANDS - "The Dirty Truth" - Video http://sco.lt/6OpdeT
Again, Rachael, thank you for broaching this very important subject.
It would certainly not be wise to embark on the risky business of implementing geo-engineering climate change solutions. Some limited basic research, maybe. Getting serious about actual applications, NO WAY!
We have moved on and now we can stop acting like neocons.
Climate Change Science:
Comet hits are a “real eventual crisis” but science has never said the same about climate change crisis. It was a 27 year old “maybe” crisis, so be a real planet lover and be glad a crisis was exaggerated. Bush admired our fear mongering however.
*Not one single IPCC warning isn’t swimming in “could bes” not “will bes”. *
Science says comet hits are inevitable and eventual but climate change isn’t.
History is laughing at the Reefer Madness of climate blame.
I don't agree with her treatment of biochar, however. Yes, it is possible to do more harm than good by implementing biochar recklessly. But there is a wide range of discovery taking place of the benefits to soil, agriculture and other aspects of our planet's health, that can be reaped by taking carbon from the air and putting it to use in the soil. Some examples to be found at:
http://pinterest.com/nnumeric/what-is-biochar/
We can't trust "civilized" governments to stop fighting senseless, endless wars of aggression so how can we trust them to not use the weather as a weapon? The historical record shows both the Russians and Americans have been seeking out weather/climate weapons since cloud seeding was developed in 1946. The Americans used cloud seeding covertly as a weapon over Vietnam for the better part of a decade (Operation Popeye). Governments, corporations, and banks are as corrupt as ever, and history shows they will use technologies for political, military, and economic gains. "Stopping global warming" is just PR. These technologies will be abused if they are not already being abused.