[Stoves] CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock)

[Traveller]

Jock:

I fully agree with the first, just that CDM doesn't care (yet).

I don't know enough about agriculture and food system dynamics, but I tend
to agree with the second too, about regenerative agriculture.

I am afraid biochar as GHG drawdown ought to and will be compared with all
other options, given that technocrats are in the habit of generating
incentives that may have perverse consequences.

You don't happen to have been in biomass business from 1970s on, do you?

Nikhil


---------
(India +91) 909 995 2080


On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Jock Gill <jock at jockgill.com> wrote:

> Nikhil,
>
> If the captured carbon has an economic benefit, better and increased crop
> yields, then it is a benefit to all farmers, regardless of their local
> economy. That it has a draw benefit is an added bonus.
>
> All of us who want to avoid the worst of climate disruption need to
> support as many forms of draw down as we can, where ever were can. Global
> agriculture needs to become regenerative agriculture. Best if we can find
> low tech solution we can implement today, rather than wait for large
> centralized government sponsored moonshots.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jock
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 28, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jock:
>
> Why should poor people's stoves have to worry about CO2 drawdown?
>
> The White House just put out a United States Mid-Century Strategy FOR
> DEEP DECARBONIZATION
> <https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mid_century_strategy_report-final_red.pdf> (November
> 2016).
>
> I wish the White House all success and note that the document has no
> reference to BIOCHAR, brother Ron's favorite goal. It does, however,
> advocate the development and deployment of BECCS -Carbon-Beneficial Biomass
> Energy plus Carbon Capture and Sequestration: "Any facility that combusts
> biomass for electricity or converts biomass to fuel and captures resulting
> CO2 for utilization (e.g., enhanced oil recovery) or storage in underground
> reservoirs."
>
> When biomass stove designers come up with "storage in underground
> reservoirs" rather than just soil, perhaps CDM will grant them the credits
> they deserve.
>
> I am fortunately old enough to remember the late 1970s and early 1980s
> when irrational exuberance led IIASA to advocate uranium ore extraction
> from seawater to keep on fueling a breeder world. Other things that appear
> crazy in retrospect were also advocated.
>
> The more the world changes...
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ---------
> (India +91) 909 995 2080
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Jock Gill <jock at jockgill.com> wrote:
>
>> A interesting post. It fails, however, to address the issues of the
>> imperative for CO2 drawdown.  The pyrolysis of biomass provides one method
>> of drawdown.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jock
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170128/15ad3f7b/attachment.html>