Topics

[CDR] Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review | SpringerLink #CDR #climate


Ron Larson
 

List:

The following was written with the intent to send to this list.  Mainly recommending the recent review paper in my item #4.  But also asking about word frequency studies - and what happens with and without the word “biochar”.

Ron


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review | SpringerLink
Date: August 4, 2020 at 1:42:02 PM MDT
To: Greg Rau <ghrau@...>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@...>

Greg and list:

1.   Thanks for this alert on what we might call the “Fawzy” paper.    Below a few comments from a biochar perspective - after a few hours of review.   Overall I think biochar was treated fairly - with one exception given next.  I have only skimmed the other sections of the paper.

2.   I enjoyed the word density charts of their Figure 4 - but believe it deficient as they didn’t perform their search using the word “biochar”.  Their roughly 4000 cites for the years 2015-2020 would probably have been more than doubled had “biochar” been an included search term - so I can understand not including “biochar".  But I think the resultant chart still must be missing the important CDR trends that involve biochar.
  I remember seeing a similar word char with biochar - can anyone gives a cite for other such bibliometric searches?

3.   Their cite for the biochar paper by Semida is not free but is available through ResearchGate and is worth reading. 

4.   I was especially impressed by their reference to a paper by T.J. Purakayastha et al:  "A review on biochar modulated soil condition improvements and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: pathways to climate change mitigation and global food security.”  
Still behind a pay way, but Google Scholar gave this early version:  http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/144976/1/accepted%20version.pdf.  Section 3 of the paper is on the climate aspects of biochar - but mostly this (like most biochar papers) is on soils.  Well over 150 cites I think - and several good summary figures that were new to me.

5.  Anyone have similar comments on this paper’s treatment of the other CDR approaches?

Ron


On Aug 3, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Greg Rau <ghrau@...> wrote:


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w


"Climate change is defined as the shift in climate patterns mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions from natural systems and human activities. So far, anthropogenic activities have caused about 1.0 °C of global warming above the pre-industrial level and this is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 if the current emission rates persist. In 2018, the world encountered 315 cases of natural disasters which are mainly related to the climate. Approximately 68.5 million people were affected, and economic losses amounted to $131.7 billion, of which storms, floods, wildfires and droughts accounted for approximately 93%. Economic losses attributed to wildfires in 2018 alone are almost equal to the collective losses from wildfires incurred over the past decade, which is quite alarming. Furthermore, food, water, health, ecosystem, human habitat and infrastructure have been identified as the most vulnerable sectors under climate attack. In 2015, the Paris agreement was introduced with the main objective of limiting global temperature increase to 2 °C by 2100 and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. This article reviews the main strategies for climate change abatement, namely conventional mitigation, negative emissions and radiative forcing geoengineering. Conventional mitigation technologies focus on reducing fossil-based CO2 emissions. Negative emissions technologies are aiming to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Finally, geoengineering techniques of radiative forcing alter the earth’s radiative energy budget to stabilize or reduce global temperatures. It is evident that conventional mitigation efforts alone are not sufficient to meet the targets stipulated by the Paris agreement; therefore, the utilization of alternative routes appears inevitable. While various technologies presented may still be at an early stage of development, biogenic-based sequestration techniques are to a certain extent mature and can be deployed immediately."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2918671A-AC27-4B1A-8D23-87C6468EA2FF%40sbcglobal.net.