“the potential of bioenergy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions inherently depends on the source of the biomass and its net land-use effects.”

They write that “the accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbon limits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation contains a far reaching but fixable flaw that will severely undermine greenhouse gas reduction goals.”

Not that people wouldn’t notice before this happened and do something about it, but that is the point the authors are bringing up, its time to notice and do something about it.

“This accounting erroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral regardless of the source of the biomass, which may cause large differences in net emissions.”.

They note that one recent study found that under some scenarios there would be incentives strong enough to make it financially the best thing to do to level the entire world’s forests in favor of biofuel crops.

“the potential of bioenergy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions inherently depends on the source of the biomass and its net landuse effects.”

They write that “the accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbon limits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation contains a far reaching but fixable flaw that iwll severely undermine greenhouse gas reduction goals.”

“This accounting erroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral regardless of the source of the biomass, which may cause large differences in net emissions.”.

They note that one recent study found that under some scenarios there would be incentives strong enough to make it financially the best thing to do to level the entire world’s forests in favor of biofuel crops.

Carbon storage is actually quite practical, and has been done at small to medium scales by the oil industry for several decades, for secondary oil recovery, without much fuss or controversy.

Some projects include the Sleipner and Australian Otway Basin project, Germany’s
CO2SINK project, the Algerian In Salah gas field storage project, and Canada’s Weyburn-Midale CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery project.

Regarding Secretary Chu, his position on CO2 storage is actually both reasonable and scientific, as you would expect coming from a well motivated Nobel prize winner in physics.

I invite you all to check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage

Really, without BECCS, reversing the damage done by the industrial revolution will continue to be extremely difficult and expensive. Only with BECCS can actual CO2 reductions in the atmosphere become practical.

The crucial issue of whether replacing coal with biomass will result in a net decrease in the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is,

1. Whether the the bio-resource (e.g., forest) is managed so that after harvesting the biomass (e.g.,wood), the net amount of carbon stored in NEW growth, ON THE SAME LAND, is equal to, or GREATER than that of the harvest, and

2. that the energy resources (e.g., fossil fuel) used to harvest and transport the biomass is equal to or LESS than that for the coal it replaces.

Unfortunately, these DETAILS are almost never discussed. So many biomass proposals (like corn ethanol) get hyped, out of all proportions – but are basically losers, as mitigation strategies.

I’ve discussed this problem in:

“Replacing coal with wood: sustainable, eco-neutral, conservation harvest of natural tree-fall in old-growth forests”, a FREE download at:

http://www.springerlink.com/ openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/ s10584-009-9625-z

Oil and gas firms accused of failing to address physical climate risks
BusinessGreen, November 3 – Oil and gas companies are not only major contributors to climate change, they are also uniquely at risk from the impacts of global warming. But despite the dual legislative and operational risks they face, many are burying their heads in the sand and failing to properly assess climate change risks. That is the stark conclusion of a major report from environmental consultancy Acclimatise, which assessed oil and gas companies’ responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change.
Lester Brown in The Guardian, November 3 – International agreements take too long, we need a swift mobilisation not seen since the second world war.

1,147 fish species threatened with extinction: IUCN
AFP, November 3 – Overall, this year’s survey found that over a third, or 17,291 species out of 47,677 assessed are now threatened with extinction.

CO2 from forest destruction overestimated – study
The Guardian, November 3 – The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the destruction of tropical forests have been significantly overestimated, according to a new study. The work could undermine attempts to pay poor countries to protect forests as a cost-effective way to tackle global warming. The loss of forests in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia is widely assumed to account for about 20% of all carbon dioxide produced by human activity (…) But researchers led by Guido van der Werf, an earth scientist at VU University in Amsterdam, say that figure is an overestimate and that the true figure is closer to 12%.

Climate change threatens lives of millions of children, says charity
The Guardian, November 2 – A quarter of a million children could die next year due to the effects of climate change, Save the Children warned today. The charity said the figure could rise to more than 400,000 per year by 2030.

Higher temperatures will harm many crops, report says
Miami Herald, November 2 – Global warming would be bad news for all those amber waves of grain, and for the corn and soybeans that are plentiful throughout the Midwest.

Stephen Chu had an editorial in Science, 25 September 2009, p. 1599. A few quotes:

“public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US DOE in CCS R&D”

“There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency”.

People should dump on Chu directly. Take his arguments on. Tell him the whole notion is too complex for him to understand. Tell him the technology couldn’t possibly be implemented at full scale in time to make a bit of difference to the problems we face. Why does Chu get a free pass? What about the guy who appointed him?

Or is it the case that people want everyone to pay attention to scientists like Chu when they call for prompt action to address climate change, but when it comes to what those scientists, like Chu, recommend in the way of specific action, people believe it is reasonable to suddenly pretend he doesn’t exist? We’re supposed to pretend Chu suddenly doesn’t know what he is talking about? What is going on? If Chu is too stupid to get it that CCS is nowhere near reality, is going to be too expensive to be usefully employed, will have to be conducted on such a large scale the task is physically impossible, or whatever other gibberish people spout out that they actually believe that people like Chu must be unaware of, why not ask the obvious question, what the hell is this moron doing running the DOE, or perhaps we should turn to the other obvious question, why do so called “progressives” calling for action on climate dump on CCS?

PS. Chu’s words on nuclear power, quote from his Senate confirmation hearing:

Dr. Chu: “… But it – you know, but there is certainly a changing mood in the country because nuclear is carbon free…

Sen Corker: Right.

Dr. Chu: … that we should look at it with new eyes.

Now lets see, should we invest our research and focus on using non-sustainable (expensive, dirty, dangerous) nuclear to meet our future energy requirements or should we use this to find a sustainable solution using solar energy?

Al Gore Explains How Call For Climate Change Action Is Similar To Civil Rights Movement (Video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2009/ 11/ 02/ al-gore-explains-how-call_n_343170.html