7 "Wedges" for Flattening Carbon Emissions Growth?

[Pangloss]

Ok, maybe my Google skills just suck, but I can't seem to bring this up. I saw it in a news story last week and it blasted itself back into my skull when I woke up this morning in a strange, Dok Gonzo-like episode. (Ok, don't draw any funny ideas about Pangloss' lifestyle from that.....)

 

Anyway, I was just wondering if someone could tell me more about this. I believe the idea is that scientists (?) have come up with 14 or 15 singular instances of things that can be done to flatten carbon emissions down to zero growth. I think each of them represents a billion tons (tonnes?) per year of carbon emission. If I remember right, only seven have to be completed in order to accomplish the goal. Each one represents a "wedge" in the arc of the growth line, and if removed would flatten the curve.

 

I think one was nuclear and another was wind power, but to what degree I don't recall -- that's what I was interested in learning more about. Any assistance in terms of papers/articles would be appreciated.

 

(Edit: Was this something from Al Gore's movie? I still haven't watched that.)

[Reaper]

You mean this: http://www.google.com/search?q=7+%22Wedges%22+for+Flattening+Carbon+Emissions+Growth&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

 

On this page, there are a few good articles that might be what you are looking for. I didn't post any individual links because they all require PDF format and downloading. So, I'll leave it up to you to look them up!

[Pangloss]

Well like I said I was hoping for something a little more informative than what my mostly-random Googlings were giving me. But I do appreciate the reply.

 

At any rate I played around with some more keywords and eventually something caused me to think to use the word "stabilization" (I think one of the articles I read that mentioned it briefly). That lead to this Wikipedia article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Wedge_Game

 

This appears to be what I was looking for. Socolow is mentioned by Gore fairly often and one of his papers came up in my earlier searches (which is probably where I thought of using that other keyword), so I probably should have found this sooner. Oh well.

 

Anyway the general idea of this is pretty interesting. The idea seems to be that if we look at forecasted carbon emissions growth, it's a climbing line on the graph, which ideally you would like to see become a downward-trending line. What these guys did was mark off the space formed between that rising line and a FLAT line and point out that achieving that goal can be accomplished by any number of means. They then divided the apparent wedge into 7 smaller wedges, each accounting for around a billion tons of carbon emissions per year (i.e. cut out 7 billion tons of carbon emissions per year and you've achieved zero growth -- a good start).

 

They went on to identify 13 or 14 areas that each account for a 1-billion-ton reduction in emissions. Any combination 7 of those could be used to accomplish the immediate goal.

 

They developed this into a game, in which players combine various identified wedges, playing off the various pros and cons. A full description of the game in PDF format from Princeton University can be found at the URL below. It includes a full description of each wedge and what it means, and handy cut-outs for use in a classroom.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Wedge_Game_Jan_2007.pdf

[michael]

One possible "wedge" is the production of charcoal from waste by pyrolysis and the widespread use of this charcoal as a soil amendment.

see the web on "terra preta".

This has the potential to dramatically slow or even stop rising atmospheric/ocean CO2 levels if taken up in a large enough way.

[Erich]

Biochar also allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, (living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

Once a full accounting of this additional recalcitrant organic carbon in addition to the CO2e value of the 90% reductions of soil GHGs (N2O & CH4)

the wedge may total 30% or more.

 

Biochar Soil Technology.....Husbandry of whole new orders of life

 

Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

 

We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.

 

It's hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel.

 

Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

 

 

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth, TP), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!

Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.

Every 1 ton of Biomass yields; 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= 1 ton CO2e) Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels (=1 MWh exported electricity) so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

 

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;

"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;

"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".

Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.

Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.

As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat".

By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

 

This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of pertinence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.

 

Dr. Scherr's report includes biochar. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6124

 

I think we will be seeing much greater media attention for land management & biochar as reports like her's come out linking the roll of agriculture and climate.

 

Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

 

Another significant aspect of bichar and aerosols are the low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease. http://terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems http://biocharfund.org/ with the Congo Basin Forest

Fund (CBFF). The Biochar Fund recently won $300K for these systems citing these priorities;

(1) Hunger amongst the world's poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,

(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,

(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and

(4) Climate change.

 

This ordering of priorities is a compelling mantra against the Biofuel Watch UK group who have consistently misrepresented Biochar research work.

 

Major Endorsements:

 

Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html

 

NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

 

Dr. James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) says Biochar is "The only hope for mankind"

 

Charles Mann ("1491") in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text

Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards Committee. Hosted by Monsanto, this group of diverse interests has been hammering out issues of definition, validation and protocol. The past week, this group have been pressing soil sequestration's roll for climate legislation to congress.

http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standard.pdf

 

Along these lines internationally, the work of the IBI fostering the application by 20 countries for UN recognition of soil carbon as a sink with biochar as a clean development mechanism will open the door for programs across the globe.

http://www.biochar-international.org/biocharpolicy.html.

 

 

Reports:

This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .

 

This is the single most comprehensive report to date, covering more of the Asian and Australian work;

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf

 

Biochar data base;

TP-REPP

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node

 

 

Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?

 

This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.

 

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Cheers,

Erich

 

 

Erich J. Knight

Eco Technologies Group Technical Adviser

University of California Riverside advisory board member

Shenandoah Gardens (Owner)

1047 Dave Barry Rd.

McGaheysville, VA. 22840

540 289 9750

Co-Administrator, Biochar Data base & Discussion list TP-REPP

 

 

I will be speaking at the first North American Biochar Conference, at CU in Boulder , about my efforts to network the many disciplines and organizations researching and implementing biochar systems.

Keynote speaker Secretary Tom Vilsack & Dr. Susan Solomon (NOAA's head atmospheric scientist) at.

http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?eventid=684390

 

My attendence is thanks to the folks at EcoTechnologies Group .

( http://www.ecotechnologies.com/index.html , they have also fully funded my field trials with the Rodale Institute & JMU)

 

There is real magic coming out of the Asian Biochar conference.

15 ear per stalk corn with 250% yield increase,

Sacred Trees and chickens raised from near death

Multiple confirmations of 80% - 90% reduction of soil GHG emissions

 

The abstracts of the conference are at

http://www.anzbiochar.org/2009presentations.html

[jeskill]

I thought the concept of using albedo change as a wedge was interesting. The concept is that if we lighten the colour of roofs and pavement, the albedo, or reflectivity of the planet will increase. This will reduce the ability of the planet to absorb solar radiation, and hence, decrease warming.

 

This made me think: why are many roofs dark? Is it to capture heat during the winter? Or is it just that the material is cheaper and more sturdy?

 

Another option is to create green roofs -- roofs with vegetation cover. Toronto has a green roof policy now.

 

I think both albedo change and green roofs together would be a useful wedge, but just from a pure numbers standpoint, which of the two do you think would be more effective in terms of reducing atmospheric carbon?

[SH3RL0CK]

The surface area of roofs and streets is, IMO, going to be a negligible for an albedo change. However, by making the roofs white, less heating occurs within the house and therefore there will be less use of the airconditioner. This will result in less electricity, and therefore less CO2. So white roofs, by reducing the greenhouse gases, indirectly help solve this problem. I assume a similar argument can be made regarding roads in that cars burn more gas when the airconditioner is running.

 

As far as green roofs, its basically the same thing. By shading the building, there is less heat inside and therefore less use of the airconditioner.

 

I think the cheapest materials for roofing (and roads) are dark, it costs more to make them light color. And therein lies the biggest potential problem, the cost. If the price was the same, builders would be fine to install white roofs. The building owner would prefer this as it would save on the electricity bill. But you're not going to get many people to do this if the cost is too high, unless it is mandated in the building codes. And even then, if the cost is too high, there will be less new construction resulting in more environmental damage as old, inefficient buildings are kept longer.

[jeskill]

As far as green roofs, its basically the same thing. By shading the building, there is less heat inside and therefore less use of the airconditioner.

 

Wouldn't green roofs also increase carbon sequestration to a degree, given that they're, well, made of plants?

 

Are you sure that white roofs are more expensive? How much more expensive? I agree that with this kind of wedge, there would need to be a public policy that's written in the building code in order it to occur.

[dainfort]

Does anyone know why we are trying to sequester CO2 instead of trying to sequester waste products that will turn into CO2? It costs money to capture CO2 and to compress it to the point that it can be stored. Would it not be easier to sequester something with a high BOD or COD that will soon decompose into CO2?

[vampares]

Acid rain is primarily a result of dissolved CO2. I think the best way to ensure the CO2 is biologically utilized would be for aquatic vegetation to photo-synthetically assimilate the carbon. This would occur in a variety of bodies of water.

 

Two factors are involved:

1. which species of aquatic vegetation and how does it get there

2. what sort of planning and control mechanism need to be in place

 

Fact is most human occupied watersheds (that would be virtually every viable ecosystem) has little, or no, aquatic vegetation. Aquatic vegetation provides dissolved oxygen to the water. Dissolved oxygen promotes the aerobic digestion of waste (humus, detritus, etc.), which tends to produce completed recycling of such.

 

 

 

Greatest issue facing humanity is the economic benefit in fossil fuels. Policy wise it is asking for the depression of industrialized nations when asking for reduction of carbon emissions. Doing "more with more" could prevent the ultimate depression in years to come.

 

Weather or not increased CO2 will really bring about things like desertification (as Bill Gates said there are many paths leading to a mistake): you really have to ask if there is anything "wrong" with what is in place as it is. Everything else is just a little boost to system.