"Negative Emissions": Burning trees, burying the CO2

EU Green Proposal: Burn the world's forests to save Nature

EU Green Proposal: Burn the world’s forests to save Nature

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian reports that the leaders of the European Union have asked the UN for advice about “negative emissions”. The “negative emissions” proposal is like regular Carbon Capture and Storage, except more unworkable.

EU says 1.5C global warming target depends on ‘negative emissions’ technology

EU climate chief says that aspirational 1.5C target was put into Paris climate deal at insistence of ‘most exposed countries’ and will require new strategies.

The EU has admitted it has not yet looked into the polices needed to hold global warming to 1.5C, as agreed at the landmark Paris agreement, and will instead ask a UN climate science panel for advice involving “negative emissions” technology.

The bloc’s negotiators had gone to Paris with a mandate for a 2C target but were forced to accommodate more ambitious demands from “the most exposed countries”, the bloc’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, said.

Several small island states could be swallowed by rising seas if the planet warms by 2C, scientists believe.

“For sure, 1.5C is a trajectory of full decarbonisation and will require accelerated strategies and pathways,” Cañete told a Brussels press conference. “About negative emissions, the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] will say when and how.”

Negative emissions can refer to geoengineering but usually means the mass deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies which bury CO2 in underground fissures. These would be fixed to power plants powered by “carbon neutral” bioenergy, which removes carbon from the air as it grows. More carbon would be saved than re-released into the atmosphere, the theory goes, so creating net zero emissions.

But the idea has proved controversial, with Kevin Anderson, the deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change branding negative emissions “highly speculative” over the weekend.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/eu-says-15c-global-warming-target-depends-on-negative-emissions-technology

It is noteworthy that even the über green Tyndall Centre thinks this is a daft idea.

Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians, who in the West usually have a legal rather than a scientific background, ran their ideas past a few engineers before announcing their latest inspiration?

Advertisements

124 thoughts on “"Negative Emissions": Burning trees, burying the CO2

  1. You want to capture carbon through trees?
    Stop recycling paper. Collect it and bury it deep.
    For example, put it in old strip mines and cover it with a bunch of dirt.
    Problem solved.

    • Biomass co-firing in coal plants is pretty well understood. If you’re displacing a small fraction of coal with biomass, there aren’t problems. A 20% biomass, 80% coal plant with 90% CO2 capture is a completely do-able negative emissions plant with today’s technology.
      It’d be expensive, but technology developers are working on that.

      • That’s nice, but what would be the point. There is still no connection between CO2 increase and global warming. If there was a connection historically, we have saved ourselves from freezing billions of us. Both CO2 and temperature rises have been beneficial and it appears that more of the same will be even more beneficial to life on the old girl.

      • but technology developers are working on that

        I do not mean to single you out, but I think this deserves a comment.
        I have seen very often the attitude that “technology will develop and solve the problem”. Not so fast.
        The thermodynamics of “carbon capture” are horrible. It has to be ferociously expensive no matter how you do it. All the technology in the world will not help. Before invoking technology as a fix, you must determine if the proposal is energetically reasonable or not.
        Fundamentally, this is why all the technology in the word will never deliver a working Perpetual Motion machine.
        Perpetual (Co)Motion: The quack inventor’s never ending quest for the mechanical equivalent of a free lunch. Been going on for a *long* time now, and no let up in sight.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • What do you want to speculate about thermodynamics of CO2? It is all about ratio of CO2 creating and CO2 consuming life – animals and plants. No technology will help you with that. And on the other way CO2 creation and consumption is not balanced. Life is overall using CO2 and storing to carbonates. So humanity has surplus production of CO2 which can use.
        Btw. there is absolutely no harm from higher level of CO2 anyway…
        And btw. if we would immediately burn all declared supplies of coal, oil, natural gas, content of CO2 in atmosphere would go from current 400ppm to 1000ppm only. That’s it. Of course we will never burn supplies at once, only continuously. So real maximum content of CO2 in atmosphere produced by humans can theoretically peak around harmless 600ppm.

      • When you all run this experiment, let me know where the sequestration is going to be so I can stay upwind and at least 50miles distant.
        When containment fails, all life withing 10 or 15 miles will asphyxiate.

      • I remember talking with an electric car enthusiast a few decades ago.
        When I pointed out that batteries were incapable of handling the loads demanded, his response was simple.
        We’ll just pass a law requiring battery manufacturers to build the type of batteries we will need.

      • ‘However, Mother Nature has overcome the “horribleness” via photosynthesis.’
        Yes and no. Photosynthesis aka burn wood, and fossils aka burn old wood, are energetically similar but the amount of wood is not high enough to fullfill our present needs for energy and electricity.
        Thus burning wood and hiding co2 is not a solution.

      • @MarkW
        While he’s at it, why don’t they require the value of pi to be exactly 3. It would simplify so many calculations. /snark

    • Vboring, the costs involved with carbon capture are enormous. 1) Capture emissions, 2) Dehydrate 3) Separate out CO2, 3) compress to about 1800 psig 4) Inject into a “safe formation.” There are more steps, but those are the main ones. And, ironically, the only economic use for large volumes of CO2 is to increase oil production.

    • cirby
      December 16, 2015 at 5:27 am
      Problem solved.

      There is no problem, so do not spend everybody’s money, time and energy trying to solve a no-problem.

      • Mark
        Careful.
        Other people are spending money.
        How much of that is t h e I r money?
        And how much is your money – or my money??
        Auto – aware that government have no money, except that which is taken from others, not always with the threat of deadly force . . . .

    • I’ve been saying this for years. Use more paper! Trash it, and bury it. Also, the increased demand for paper will promote planting of more trees, and young trees absorb CO2 faster than old trees. Tree plantations make great habitat for all kinds of wildlife to thrive. Greenies should love this.

      • CO2 is the gas of life so in theory the greenies should love that too. No CO2 in the atmosphere no life. What am I missing here.

    • how about growing 2x4s and then building with them. Heck some houses last for hundreds of years.
      probably crazy idea

  2. So their cunning plan is to reduce CO2 emissions by felling trees that turn CO2 into wood and O2 so they can burn them then take the CO2 emitted out of the chimney stack and pump it into a hole in the ground and hope it doesn’t re-emerge.
    I think even Baldric could see the problems with that one.

      • Buried wood will eventually decompose and turn into CO2, which will be added to the atmosphere eventually.
        Seems there’s a lot of thinking being wasted on coming up with solutions to problems that end up being less than stellar solutions.
        Temporary fixes are just that–temporary. Thankfully, non-problems hold sway until people finally come to logical conclusions in the end.

      • Burn it first in large enough chunks to create solid charcoal. Then bury it. That is the way mother nature has been doing it for 360 million years.
        Extensive forest fires soon followed, however and we see widespread charcoal deposits throughout the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period 358-323 million years ago.” Professor Scott and Professor Rimmer made the discovery after analysing charcoal which was washed in to an ocean that lay across what is now part of present day North America.
        The team believes that it was not fuel availability that prevented widespread fire, or climate, but that the atmospheric oxygen levels were too low. It had been suggested that only when oxygen levels rose to above 17% (it is 21% today) that widespread fires would be found.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151021083352.htm
        Another form of black carbon is solid charcoal. Black carbon has been made by nature for some 400 million years in open vegetation fires. During each fire event a fraction of the carbon in the vegetation is released back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and a smaller fraction is transferred to the long-lived (hundreds to thousands of years) global black carbon reservoir, because fires always produce some charcoal and soot.
        In fact, conversion of waste biomass to charcoal in kilns and distribution of the charcoal in soils has been advocated as a method of removing and sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
        http://theconversation.com/the-charcoal-challenges-fire-and-climate-dynamics-6788
        Two years ago, a team led by Jenn Marlon (University of Oregon) and including scientists from Macquarie University, analysed sedimentary charcoal records of changing fire regimes during the past two thousand years. They showed that global biomass burning declined over this period until the Little Ice Age (ca 1750 AD), increased during the 19th century, and then decreased again during the 20th century. They found that biomass burning levels were lower today than at any previous time in the last two thousand years.
        http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?id=17601
        Waste of time and money though.
        As someone who worked on a coal/wood heating boiler project, dual fuel just doubles your material handling equipment and pure hardwood fire didn’t create the heat needed to keep the boiler hot enough. Government feel good project, so only taxpayer money was lost.

      • ‘Burn it first in large enough chunks to create solid charcoal. Then bury it. That is the way mother nature has been doing it for 360 million years.’
        I’m sure you are jesting. Please?
        Couldn’t you just leave it in ground and use flower power instead? Or perpetuum mobiles? /sarc

    • IN other news, they want to ban social media to under 16s.
      Now HTF are they going to do that?
      Chip everybody and ID their fingerprints on the touch screen?
      Hang on…that’s actually almost possible..

      • You might not even need to go that far. Apple Pay reads your credit card by having you hold it in front of the camera inside a rectangle. Reading finger prints held in front o it just requires some development.

      • Some models of laptops have included fingerprint scanners for a while now. The unit I’m using right now has one. I just don’t have a driver for it.

      • Ernest
        My new iphone purports to read my fingerprints when I wish to activate it . . . .
        I t h I n k I believe it. Mostly.
        Auto, still keeping up with the perpetual digital revolution, I think . . . . .

  3. They have a ‘plan’ for a 2.0c ‘ceiling’ but don’t have a clue what a 1.5c ‘cap’ would entail? If they can’t extrapolate a 0.5c gap I would simply read that as an admission that they have no idea how to get to the first target. FAIL.

  4. I’m going to lower my GHG emissions (in more ways than one) by eating bacon and not sprouts next week. I’m also going to breathe more slowly. Do I qualify for an EU grant? The odd €bn would do fine.
    This story somehow reminds me of some of the ludicrous things that come out of the EU’s agricultural policies, for example when, after a milk glut grew, farmers were paid for “not milking” their cows. No joke. As the Italian mafia continue to find to their delight, this sort of thing creates plenty of opportunity for multi-€m frauds, eg EU grants for olive groves that never existed. Watch out for the MSM being shocked when they find that €bns of taxpayers’ cash has been lost to “Not carbon-emitting” scams. The way the EU is run makes the IPCC look professional and independent.

      • “…leaders of the European Union have asked the UN for advice…”
        ——————
        Don’t you just love a good knee slapper in the morning?

    • There is no EU nation. There is no Europe as a political unit where political debates between well known politicians are held.
      We don’t have European elections. We have nation-wide elections where we sent a bunch of politicians to the European parliament. Every election is run in a local context. We don’t know what the European parliament (and we better not know as it’s often crap: outlaw porn, outlaw Google, outlaw prostitutions, these are the ideas “Europe” is concerned about).
      Europe has an uber-green agency even more incapable of tackling the method than EPA – read their pamphlet about early warnings and late actions, it’s hilarious (I guess), they manage to get almost everything backward.
      Europe has zero self-consciousness.

  5. Sea levels were 5.5m to 9m higher during the last Interglacial period. 21,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum sea levels were 125 METERS (410 feet) lower than today. The Human Species as well as millions of other species survived what Climate Scientist would call Armageddon.
    If you look at the data the Earth is right damn smack in the middle of the current Interglacial. It seems to me that ‘scientists’, climate or not, could conceive that the Earth has a high probability of experiencing something similar within a few hundred years naturally.
    Without the need of the Climate Scientists crystal ball (models) leaders of Coastal areas SHOULD EXPECT the sea level to rise as least 6 meters at some time in the future.
    http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/glaciers_sea_level.asp

    • “If you look at the data the Earth is right damn smack in the middle of the current Interglacial.”
      Uh, if you look at the data, the Earth is near the end of the current Interglacial. Good points otherwise. 🙂

      • …look at the data sea levels were higher in this interglacial! We are past our peak, and cooling is the rational concern. CAGW is not even rational.

    • “SHOULD EXPECT the sea level to rise as least 6 meters at some time in the future”
      but it would not happen over night. So let’s use the precious land until then.

  6. Biofuels are the definition of insanity; doing something that is actually harmful, not beneficial, for absolutely no reason. Then, they want to ramp up the insanity by scrubbing. at great cost, and possibly great danger, life-giving CO2 from the exhaust. Insanity on steroids.

  7. What is this stupid 2.0c or 1.5c “target” they keep talking about???
    There is uncertainty about exactly how much CO2 is directly responsible for warming.
    They have no idea what, if any, exact correlation exists between CO2 and exact amount of extra heat. There is no “direct” formula.
    NOBODY has EVER been able to accurately predict X amount of CO2 == Y amout of heat.
    NEVER!
    They are also uncertain about how much influence other known factors have on temperatures.
    They KNOW there are other unknown factors, and they do NOT know exactly how much influence those unknowns have on temperatures (up or down).
    Yet for some reason, they miraculously know for sure that limiting or eliminating X amount of CO2 will “limit” temperature rise below 2.0c????
    REALLY???
    WTF!?

    • Oh yes, they do have a way to extrapolate from CO2 reductions to temperature reductions.
      It is (maybe a poor choice of names) the MAGICC model.
      Bjorn Lomborg tallied all the Paris pledges of CO2 reduction (INDCs) and covered here on WUWT a few weeks back. All of Paris if carried out (doubtful) and sustained until year 2100, will avert , yes….0.2C of warming !
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/10/lomborg-paris-climate-pact-will-reduce-temperature-increase-by-the-end-of-the-century-by-a-whopping-0-05c/

    • There was an article here on WUWT a couple years back (I can’t find it) in which the German who headed the committee that came up, with the 2C limit explained how they arrived at that number. One version of the story says that, under time pressure from the German Government, they finally just picked the 2C number. Another version says that they reviewed all the temperature data for the last x thousand years and determined that the Earth’s temperature had only varied by +/- 2C, so they picked that number. I have no idea where the 1.5C number suddenly came from.

      • That German is HJ Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute fuer Klimafolgenforschung (that’s “research on climate consequences,” all in one word). AFAIK he admitted that he just pulled it out of his … err … hat.
        I can only guess that the 1.5 degrees were invented because our fearless leaders feared the worst, in case Earth would come down on the wrong side of 2 degrees, and decided to give us all a safety cushion by lowering the target to 1.5 degrees instead. Whew, what a lucky escape. Let’s all thank our fearless leaders.
        There is this nice quote by HL Mencken, which appears quite frequently here:

        The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

        When he wrote that, it may have been a fitting description of how the populace was managed by the political class. Nowadays, it seems at least as fitting when applied to the climateers (but also other academic and business elites) and their handling of the deplorably uneducated and gullible political class.

    • This should tell you there is a hidden agenda running that has nothing to do with CO2, whatsoever. CO2 and temperature rise are simply propaganda devices.

  8. If all these liberal GreenFreaks actually believed all their own ” Save the Planet ” garbage that they spew out every day, they would IMMEDIATELY stop breathing out all that CO2 that is created as they rant and rave about various imaginary doomsday scenarios ! I wonder how long they can hold their breath ???

  9. I really do wonder what world these people live on sometimes…
    But moving past that, a genuine question… I was wondering if anyone could explain to me an issue that could not be more relevant to this process but is a consideration usually glossed over, even in reports such as those linked below that take a fairly realistic viewpoint on the costs of CCS installations.
    https://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
    http://www.co2crc.com.au/dls/pubs/regional/perth/Appendix10_PerthBasins.pdf
    Can someone who actually knows please explain to us, or provide a few links to papers that go into the details, how exactly the CO2 is supposed to ‘be sequestered’?
    Being a Geologist myself I just can’t buy the glib ‘..and then it’s pumped underground” simplicity with which this supposed destructor of our world is dealt with.
    Pumped down fissures? It’ll flow straight back out.
    Pumped into oil wells within aquifers? It’ll flow out of those too, more slowly but eventually. Most hydrocarbon traps leak naturally anyway.
    At a geochemistry conference I attended a few years ago with around 100 of the top Chemists and Geochemists in the world (each with 20-30 years specialising in their fields), the few times ‘carbon sequestration’ was mentioned it triggered howls of laughter from the room. Something to do with the entropy of the reactions that might assimilate the gas into the mineral composition of potential host rocks and thereby actually lock it away semi-permanently, requiring ludicrous amounts of energy that rendered the process next to impossible. So that concept is ruled out as well.
    It seems wierd to me that the proposed mechanism for this part of CCS is not significantly expanded on. Without doubt the most important step in the entire process. And for a concept that could definitely be disproven to work inside the length of a career!
    So I would be most grateful if someone would kindly take the time to respond with an explanation

    • Many hydrocarbon traps do not leak unless they are breeched. In Wyoming we have gas wells, very deep, under enormous pressure that contain Helium, which leaks out of just about anything. The strategic Helium repository at the Cliffside field in Texas is the same. So these reservoirs must be very well capped, and could trap CO2. There is also an idea that supercritical fluid CO2 will enter into some solid reactions with rock matrix, or aqueous reactions in brine and become fixed as a result. Who knows how this will all work out underground? We have some demonstration projects on going; expensive, murky results, etc. In my humble opinion, it seems completely daft to bury the availability in fuels underground this way–thermodynamically stupid; but there is no way to ever stop a bad idea whose time has come.

      • I can’t help but describe some of the foggy thinking that goes on in this CCS business by way of a project at a U.S. university that will remain unnamed. Some guys in the College of Ag (Non engineers) looked at reactions between CO2 and coal fly-ash and “found” they could convert quite a lot of some minerals in the fly ash to carbonates as a sort of CCS method. Now, their results are pretty ambiguous and maybe do not work to sequester CO2 at all; but nevertheless even if the chemistry worked as hypothesized the amount of fly ash in Western coal is minuscule and could never be a significant repository of CO2. It’s Engineering 101–mass balance alone would tell them the scheme is not worth pursuing, but the State poured money into it anyway.
        Hell, delivering money in the form of one-dollar bills to these projects, and burying the money directly would be a better CCS method.

      • Excellent Kevin, print our trillions in Debt and bury it.
        Beyond parody? No wait, consider it a deposit, and our debt paid off.

    • I’m certainly no expert on this but I live in Western Canada, in Southern Saskatchewan where we have recently added carbon capture technology to a refurbished 200MW unit on a coal plant. (It’s not working to well so far). The CO2 captured by this unit is shipped by pipeline to a nearby oilfield where it is injected into producing formations which I believe are approx. 3000ft. below surface with the additional pressure intended to enhance oil recovery. To the best of my knowledge the geology says that there should be little to virtually no leakage of CO2 from this but since the intent is to enhance oil recovery- moreso than to sequester the CO2, they may not be concerned too much with that. Attitudes toward CO2 in oil country tend to be a little more “sceptical”. Interestingly, the plant has to burn much more coal ( 140 MW worth?) to run the carbon capture tech. The whole thing is a dead loss (government idea) to save the local coal industry in my humble opinion.

  10. Why not just lock up the carbon? Industrial scale charcoal production which can be buried would solve the problem. No energy input.

  11. Should first point out. That I don’t think that this is required. But if you would so choose it’s really quite simple. Plant bamboo. Grows on poor ground has a growth rate that’s more of a speed. No native European species. But it’s happy to grow here. Once harvested. Pyrolysis. Use excess heat for small scale energy production or to heat homes. Then simply Bury the charcoal in agricultural land. Improving the soil quality and productivity which in turn persuades some other atmospheric carbon to hang around a little longer. Simples as a certain meerkat would say. Problem is the people in charge are congenital idiots as is shown by the fact that they are excessively worried in the first place….. but hey ho…. The education system is obviously lacking these days and environmental science PhD are being handed out like candy. Failing that as suggested above. Bury or pyrolyse your waste paper….

  12. Let’s look at this with a sharp pencil.
    A tree buried in the ground rots to methane if it is moist enough so burying wood (or ‘mechanical paper’) doesn’t help by 2100 because methane hangs around a long enough time to out-perform CO2 in the GHG department by a factor of about 25 fold over 20-30 years.
    Burying charcoal has a chance, in that charcoal is pretty much inert which is why we find evidence of caveman fireplaces. Those promoting the magic of biochar are marketing this approach hard.
    But it is the trees that worry me. Trees make wood out of CO2, water and a few minerals, and sunlight of course. They produce oxygen in the daytime. During the night they produce CO2 which apparently was a big surprise to NASA even though Indian farmers in India have for years been building five foot high plastic checker-board walls around their little veggie gardens to trap the nocturnal CO2, resulting in enhanced growth in the morning.
    A tree is not completely efficient. People produce CO2 as we all know, but people also produce 1.6% CO (16 parts per 1000 parts CO2). Trees are like people except they produce methane as an incomplete process of trying to make wood out of CO2 and sunlight.
    The GHG forcing value of CO2 is 1; the forcing value of methane is about 25. That means the GHG forcing of CO2 absorbed (96% of 100) is more than offset by the 4% methane (4 x 25 = 100). So for 20 years at least, a tree produces no net ‘cooling’ through the absorption of CO2. Further, the activity of bacteria in the roots (wrapped around the rootlets like a sock of jellybeans) liberates CO2 and methane from the soil that would have otherwise remained trapped there. All said and done, there is no ‘cooling’ to be had from growing trees for at least 20-30 years, and by the year 2100, nearly no real gain.
    Why is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rising then? We cut down a heck of a lot of forests and burned them, we burned a lot of coal, oil and methane from underground. We also planted billions of trees in places where there were none before (people forget colonial African forestry, the New Deal and the work done under the guidance of Dr St Barbe Baker). We have been growing billions of tons of food drops which we eat, poop and sequester in the ground, even in the ocean. As the earth warmed 0.8 deg over the past 150 years, the forests in the NH have been marching slowly north and every tree south of (what was) the tree line grows a little more and a little faster than it used to (and that is one heck of a lot of extra tree mass).
    It seems that the only direct attributable cause of a sustained increase in CO2 is the evidence that such a rise follows a significant atmospheric warming 800 years before. It appears this evidence was being ignored in Paris. Contemporary proof exists in the monotonic rise in CO2 concentration (diatonic, if you include seasonal variation) through economic upswings and downturns. During these huge changes in AG emissions there has been no detectable impact at all on the slope of the rise in concentration.
    It’s the oceans. Burying trees, burned, half-burned or whole, will make no meaningful difference to the average global temperature by the year 2100. Why? Because it will take 70 years to grow it, and during that time there will be no net GHG forcing change as a direct result, because trees are just about GHG forcing neutral, and the methane will still be 15 years later.
    Lest anyone fret that ‘thereafter’ there will be a net benefit in CO2 concentration, the difference will be lost in the 3rd decimal place. Proof? Current emissions are undetectable, undiscernible from natural fluctuations, therefore how detectable will be our efforts from putting a tiny fraction of it into the ground? Not at all.

    • “Burying charcoal has a chance, in that charcoal is pretty much inert which is why we find evidence of caveman fireplaces. Those promoting the magic of biochar are marketing this approach hard.”
      ——————
      That promotion isn’t hard to miss. While “nutrient charged” biochar might have a positive effect on long- term soil fertility (see: terra preta soils,) almost all information about biochar’s agricultural benefits comes with a lot of accompanying noise about biochar as a means of carbon sequestration.

  13. It’s amazing how these bozos believe that they have original ideas. If this whole notion were practical and cost-effective someone with a bit more ambition and brains would already have it up and running. Where’s Chuck Barris? We need a GONG!

  14. Eric Worrall:
    You say The Guardian reports

    EU says 1.5C global warming target depends on ‘negative emissions’ technology

    As I explained in the thread of your other current Guest Essay, the IPCC says it is not known what – if any – activities are needed to stop “global temperatures” rising by more than 1.5°C or 2.0°C from pre-industrial values.
    Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”, and no subsequent IPCC Report has amended that because there is still no published systematic analysis of the “relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.
    So, the IPCC says that at present the likely success – if any – of any activity aimed at avoiding a 1.5°C or 2.0°C rise is not known.
    Richard

  15. The danger in advocating biomass as fuel is that market forces will go after the the easiest targets first, existing forests, smaller stands and individual trees, then, when that is exhausted, they might turn to “sustainable” farmed sources — but by the time that happens, the hysteria will have passed and we will be left with a barren global ecological disaster, shaded by windmills and solar panels. An apocalyptic scenario resulting from Greens run amok,and not the nuclear holocaust we all feared and the Union of Concerned Scientists (ucks) promised they would save us from.
    There are a lot of very sincere and very determined biochar advocates in the world who are convinced that we can save ourselves from global climate catastrophe by, as was so aptly pointed out by notfubar. making new coal. Many of them will refuse to call it charcoal because coal is evil. Biochar, it sounds so much more acceptable, doesn’t it?

    • It’s Arthur C. Clark’s “Childhoods End”; sort of, without the happy ending where the Earth disintegrates completely.

    • Gina McCarthy, head of the US EPA, did get at least one thing right when she stated before Congress that underground CO2 sequestration isn’t considered feasible by EPA, due to high costs involved.

  16. Well, CCS has one positive point worth considering. If it ever comes to pass that we face an approaching ice age, truly disastrous climate change, maybe we can simply open these reservoirs and turn the tide.

      • Quite possibly you are correct that feedbacks would prevent the increase, but that is why I said worth considering rather than worth doing.

  17. Having mostly failed to get they hoped would be a huge money maker of ‘carbon credits’ off the ground they have moved on to see if they cannot use ‘carbon capture ‘ has a means to make big bucks for little effort .

  18. On one hand we are supposed to reduce carbon emissions. On the other hand we should recycle paper products.
    Wouldn’t it be better to use lots of paper products and bury them in a very deep landfill to after they are used. This would reduce atmospheric carbon.

    • The CO2 humanity has supposedly added to the atmosphere now contributes an additional 15% (considered to be worth $1.5 Trillion per year) in foodstuff production world-wide since it acts as a plant fertilizer.
      Conversely, if you remove it, that benefit from our CO2 will also be eliminated.
      So no, it wouldn’t be better to use any method to reduce CO2 because it would have a negative impact on humanity.
      But then, I believe such plans are designed to be. Look at the people driving this meme.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Of course it does, Buster. But any farmer worth his salt can eliminate the weeds. Besides, if you’re a cattleman, weed lots turn into grass lots with proper management. Without the CO2, there would be less of all plants and, by projection, animals, including us.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
        You having disrupted another thread with nonsense, I see have now come here to do the same.
        RockyRoad said

        Of course it does {i.e. extra CO2 fertilizes weed growth}, Buster. But any farmer worth his salt can eliminate the weeds. Besides, if you’re a cattleman, weed lots turn into grass lots with proper management. Without the CO2, there would be less of all plants and, by projection, animals, including us

        and you replied

        I see your point RockyRoad. What you are saying is that it’s the effort of the farmer, and not the increased CO2 that enhances the yield.

        Your reply is a non sequitur .
        RockyRoad, did NOT say, suggest or imply that ” it’s the effort of the farmer, and not the increased CO2 that enhances the yield”. He said the exact opposite of what you claim he did.
        RockyRoad said “Without the CO2, there would be less of all plants” including both crops and weeds and “any farmer worth his salt can eliminate the weeds” while “weed lots turn into grass lots with proper management”. In other words, there is a great net benefit with very little additional effort required to eliminate the additional weeds and to harvest the additional crops.
        BusterBrown, your disruptive, irrational behaviour is annoying.

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

        Richard

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
        Please “ignore” everybody. That way threads will not be disrupted with your tripe.
        Richard

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
        Given a choice between
        (a) ignoring me applauding your claim that you would ignore me
        or
        (b) posting more tripe
        you predictably posted more tripe (sigh).
        Richard

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Richard,…
        (Reply: You seem to be the one threadbombing here. -mod)

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
        As in the other thread, I explained that you had posted untrue nonsense. Your response was to pretend to be offended. And also as in the other thread, your behaviour demonstrates you know you know you posted untrue nonsense (I suspect deliberately and to be disruptive).
        Pointing out that you have posted tripe is NOT disruption. Your tripe IS disruption and it is clearly intended to be.
        Please try to write something constructive or write nothing.
        Richard

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

    • Yep, if the paper comes from a sustainable resource… this would sequester carbon. Also, some one raised the issue of decomposition and methane. Solutions to this are also simple, either pyrolyse before burial or cap the landfill and then burn-off any methane produced, again this can be used to heat homes or for small scale energy production.
      One of the worst things you can do, environmentally speaking, is to use recycled paper in the office. Much better to use it from sustainable resources and either then bury or burn it. Still that’s what you get when you start listening to idiots. Not all recycling is good and most people really, really don’t grasp that. Recycling glass for instance, borders on insanity. Yet it’s one of the most commonly recycled materials. Recycling aluminium and plastics on the other hand are excellent ideas and should be encouraged… still what do I know…. if you don’t subscribe to catastrophic global warming you’re apparently in league with the devil and not allowed to be interested in the planet or indeed looking after it…. Ho hum…

  19. The EU has admitted it has not yet looked into the polices needed to hold global warming to 1.5C

    Do these people not see the level of arrogance and hubris they are displaying in assuming they can legislate the climate????? In any other walk of life these people would be sectioned for being off their trolleys.

  20. I recommend running the turbofan engines on Air Force One in reverse. There’s no denying that that is, by far, the most massive corporate or private jet the universe has ever seen. If you run the engines in reverse they’ll be sucking in all that CO2 they’d otherwise blow out the rear, and instead, they’ll be blowing out the front nice, clean air with no CO2 in it. Granted, Air Force One will be stuck running in reverse, but that won’t be any different than the direction the US is running with Obama at the helm.

    • A couple days ago we read that melting glaciers is causing the earth’s rate of rotation to slow down.
      If that’s a problem we could solve it by taking all of the world’s planes, point them east and tie them down.
      Then let them all crank up their engines to max for a day or so. That should speed up the planet’s spin enough to compensate. Problem solved.
      Hat tip to Rube Goldberg.

  21. I’d love to conduct a little thought experiment with an average, guy-off-the- street greenie. Tell him/her/it that there are 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere right now but they have three big red buttons in front of them. If they press button number one they’ll cut that in half, 200ppm; button two halves that, 100ppm; button three gets rid of all of it. Those that press button one learn that they’ve just starved billions of people to death by seriously reducing agricultural productivity. They might shrug that off so I’d be sure to add that the reduction also applies to all the vegetation wildlife depends on. Button number two will let them initiate one of the most extensive extinctions the planet has ever known. Button number three is wipeout.

  22. Burning trees and injecting the CO2 into the ground to reduce CO2 will only work if the plan includes replacing the trees with some of those artificial trees.
    A side benefit would be that every fall we can harvest the aluminum foilage!

  23. If they bury CO2 they also bury O2. All life on Earth will be wiped out.
    [No, there is too much O2 present for the removal of the oxygen molecules with the little bit of CO2 being removed is non-measurable. .mod]

  24. “Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians, who in the West usually have a legal rather than a scientific background, ran their ideas past a few engineers before announcing their latest inspiration?”
    This last sentence is incredible. Does anyone reasonably expect politicians/lawyers, who are trained that lying is acceptable, to actually let engineering and scientific facts get in the way of their preordained conclusions?

  25. I’m confused, if CO2 generated by power stations is such a problem then surely the warming activists would be happy if we started building more nuclear power stations?

    • Don’t you realise that its not just Nuclear Power that’s evil but ALL Industrial civilization. These bozos wont be happy until everyone (but them) is shivering in a cave. They of course as self appointed guardians of the environment will force themselves to live with air conditioning, central heating, cars and air travel. Welcome to Feudalism Mk 2.

  26. Dig up brown coal, sell it to EU that will bury it again together with tree coal. At least you create a lot of jobs. Fantastic.

  27. The Green Endsieg:
    google
    ‘serious consideration should be given to the desirability and feasability of reducing Germany to an agrarian economy wherein Germany would be a land of small farms, without large-scale
    industrial enterprises.’ .
    ____
    King Canute dared the Sea; Emperor Xerxes punished the Sea. The EU sieges reason – finally under German Leadership.
    Sad* – Hans
    * to tired to fall lazy.

  28. eric clapton, jack bruce, ginger baker:
    Who wants the worry, the hurry
    of city life?
    Money, nothing funny, wasting the best of our life.
    Sweet wine, haymaking,
    sunshine day breaking
    We can wait ’til tomorrow
    Car speed, road calling, bird freed, leaf falling
    We can bide time
    Sweet wine, haymaking,
    sunshine day breaking
    We can wait ’til tomorrow
    Car speed, road calling, bird freed, leaf falling
    We can bide time
    Who wants the worry, the hurry of city life?
    Hans

Comments are closed.