Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:02 pm
I have been shifting my view on the balance between emission reduction and carbon removal. This question is not just about economics and science but is deeply political, with implications for who can be the most useful allies in the task of fixing the climate, and what the likely political reaction is to various scenarios. I have probably myself been fumbling around in exploratory thinking too, as it seems to me essential to mobilise the resources, skills and contacts of the fossil fuel industry for climate restoration. All such political analysis is speculating in the absence of hard data, so should be seen in that light of scenario comparison.DWill wrote:I don't know why you thought the statement was extreme; it could be that the way I put it wasn't clear. I'm less an economist than you are, so please excuse any fumbling.Robert Tulip wrote:You are citing extreme situations, where the reality I was discussing is about defining choices at the margin where two options have similar price.
What I reacted to as extreme was your “no need to work toward emissions reduction” example. I may have given the impression I supported that position, but I don’t. There is no question emission reduction is essential for pollution control and economic efficiency, since there are many activities where renewables are better than fossil fuels.
Politically, emission reduction is even more important as a way to pressure the fossil fuel industries to cooperate in carbon removal. There is an uneasy compromise involved here in negotiating a path forward. The only way fossil fuel companies can protect their business model will be to invest in research and development of carbon removal technology, shifting into the new economy. Business As Usual (BAU) is not feasible, given the security and humanitarian implications of conflict from climate change in a world that is adding 60 GT of CO2e to the air every year. The only thing to incentivise private investment in carbon removal is the threat of heavy carbon taxes, so this threat should be on the table.
Looking again at the numbers, the ‘net zero emissions’ goal promoted by the UN would require chopping 60 gigatons (GT) of CO2 equivalent emissions per year by 2030, but would still cause dangerous heating due to the committed warming from past emissions.
The goal for climate stability in my view should be to reduce the amount of CO2e in the air by 100 GT every year. That would reduce the risk that committed warming could suddenly cause the planet to cross an unforeseen dangerous tipping point into a hothouse earth. Only large net negative emissions at this scale can enable return over the next century to the carbon level that has given us stable sea level for all human history since the stone age, while also giving some hope to end the current biocide of the sixth extinction. The overall goal is to remove 6000 GT, which at this rate would take 60 years.
One scenario for a net -100 GT annual target for climate stability is 140 GT of carbon removal (CR) balancing 40 GT of ongoing emissions. That involves emission reductions (ER) of 20 GT compared to the BAU plan of 60 GT. That number is triple the commitments agreed at Paris, which are already politically difficult and unlikely. A compromise target might be to aim for the Paris goal of 54 GT ongoing emissions balanced by 154 GT of carbon removal.
Where the political alarm comes from in these scenarios, feeding the tactic of climate denial, is the unrealistic idea that net zero could result from say 50 GT emissions reduction and only 10 GT carbon removal. That mix, cutting annual emissions by 80% to only 10 GT, would generate heavy economic damage and political conflict, and is prompted by the false but highly popular idea that maximising emission reduction is key to climate stability.
The unrealistic nature of such large emission reductions is illustrated by marginal cost analysis. Compare marginal cases for net zero emissions such as 50GT ER + 10 GT CR against 49 GT ER + 11 GT CR. It is likely in this case to cost less overall to increase removal by one GT using carbon removal rather than emission reduction.
The optimal mix is where the marginal costs of a gigaton of ER and CR are equal. My view is that the likely balance will prove to be nowhere near the current 50 ER + 10 CR scenario, but is likely to be more like 10 ER + 50 CR. Of course, the underlying problem is whether 50 CR, let alone 150 CR, will be feasible.
If the carbon emitted by fossil fuels is mined to grow algae, it could be possible to develop a circular economy where the algae is burnt as fuel and the emitted carbon is again used as algae feedstock, together with nutrients from the deep ocean. That could make the existing fossil fuel infrastructure including internal combustion engines and coal fired power stations completely sustainable.DWill wrote: having sustainable energy after fossil fuels have either run out (as they will before very long) or have been shut off due to their polluting.
That is excellent analysis, but the ‘eggs in one basket’ problem at the moment is a sole reliance on emission reduction. UN policy expressed in the Paris Accord restricts carbon removal to a possible contribution many decades in the future. That restriction seems to be due mainly to politics, and an undue scepticism about the potential for technological innovation to make carbon removal safe and cheap.DWill wrote: By turning to every type of sustainable available, we take care of two priorities--having enough energy to avoid slipping into economic depression and putting brakes on warming. I accept that emissions reductions alone will not let us stay below 1.5 C increase, and I also accept that algae biofuel has the remarkable benefit of removing carbon while providing energy for industry, etc. But it would be very risky to put all the eggs in that one basket. Perhaps after 100 years or so, one source such as algae will have emerged as dominant, just as fossils fuels did at the start of the industrial revolution, but until that time we have to throw everything we have at the problem.
An energy lurch is unlikely. Large scale carbon removal will only happen as part of a broad shift to new thinking, which would necessarily include recognition of the immense social and economic benefits of abundant secure low cost energy supply, within a well-regulated climate and a market economy.DWill wrote:If removing 100 GT were economically feasible, we should certainly do it, but we'd still be left in an energy lurch if we did only that.
Looking at the history of aviation over the last century for comparison, we are now at Kitty Hawk stage for carbon removal. We can expect carbon removal to rapidly grow to the equivalent of today’s mass transit aviation system, recognising the centrality of regulating atmospheric carbon for economic stability and political security.