FW: Survey Invitation | Research on Negative Emission Technologies #emissions

Tom Miles

This Negative Emission Technology survey should be of interest



From: Tabea Josephine Dorndorf <jfk674@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 7:59 AM
To: open

Subject: Survey Invitation | Research on Negative Emission Technologies


Dear Mr Miles,

I would like to invite you to participate in a 6 minute survey on negative emission technologies (link) seeking your opinions on the role of negative emissions in climate policy, implementation options, and uncertainties. It is directed at people working on or engaging in policy discussions on climate change, negative emissions technologies, CCUS, and enhanced oil recovery.

The survey is part of my master’s thesis at the University of Copenhagen and connected to a larger research project on negative emissions. I would highly appreciate if you took the time to participate in the survey! Please also share with colleagues and on social media if you like.

I thank you for your time and send you best regards

Tabea Dorndorf

M.Sc. Candidate in Global Development, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
+49 157 3617 3971

twitter with survey post: @tabea_dorn



Albert Bates

Thanks Tom, I took the survey and found it interesting.

The only mention of biochar as a NET option was in the section where they ask you to check areas of interest.

My comments in the sections where they allowed comments were these:

  • Please briefly explain why you agree or disagree with the idea of separate targets (for reductions and drawdown).

The two are not interchangeable. In the 1930s countries needed to stop sending arms and technology to Germany and Italy AND to start building capacity to defend against them with technologies like code-breaking, radar and sonar. Having those two separate goals was essential. We need to stop spending >$600/tC to subsidize fossil extraction AND start spending >$600/tC on drawdown.

  • Missing all reference to enhanced weathering, biochar, holistic management, mariculture, and ecosystem regeneration.
  • The survey has a very large logical gap in that it concerns itself entirely with the most significant problem of CO2-CCS for BECCS and DACCS, which is how to safely and securely dispose of labile carbon, which is typically a molecule and thus either a liquid or a gas, while ignoring completely PyCCS, which produces recalcitrant C in chains and rings and hence as solid C.
  • I would have preferred to give separate answers for BECCS and DACCS because while they share some challenges, they also have different negative aspects.
  • I disagree with the premise that we have not ALREADY passed tipping points into irreversible climate change, just as we have already committed to exceeding 2 degrees as a global surface average increase. Those conditions nonetheless do not prevent us from curtailing current emissions or accelerating negative emissions.

Thanks again for posting this,


On 9/30/20 11:40 AM, Tom Miles wrote:

This Negative Emission Technology survey should be of interest



Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México

I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned. - Richard Feynman