Negative Carbon: Why is it not on the table?

With all the hoopla here in Copenhagen over a carbon deal, a major piece of the solution is not even part of the proposed framework- taking carbon out of the atmosphere - or negative carbon.

China sucked up the lion's share of the carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol since they pollute so much with inefficient power plants and factories.

Africa and Latin America outside Brazil, on the other hand, with much more modest GDP's have not been able to benefit since they do not have much emissions in the first place.

Enter the concept of Negative Carbon - giving credit to projects which take carbon out of the atmosphere. This is not merely preserving rainforests which are natural carbon sinks, but proactively taking carbon out of the air.

Dr. Graciela Chichilnisky is leading the charge here in Copenhagen on introducing this novel concept. http://www.chichilnisky.com/

Dr. Chichilnisky is one of the original architects of cap and trade and has been around these talks for well over a decade. She states that technology to take carbon out on large scales is now feasible and we must turn to such technology to maintain the 350 ppm goal of atmospheric CO2. We are already beyond that line and carbon dioxide stays up in the air for about 60 years. Even if we stopped all emissions now, it would still take decades to fall back to 350 ppm.

Let's see if this congent idea takes hold in the circus of negotiations....

 

Follow Jack Hidary on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jackhidary

Comments

[jeanrenoir]

08:18 AM on 12/13/2009

Fighters for slowing climate change had better look at the health care battle as a harbinger of much worse things to come. If you liked the health care tea-baggers, you'll love the gun-toting mobs fighting attempts to control carbon emissions. Maybe if you live in Cambridge, MA, or the Adirondacks, you can seriously believe that democratic majorities in the industrialized world are going to vote for measures which will harm them economically to "save the planet," but you really should get out more, and talk to all those "bitter" people accurately characterized by Obama. Fox and Rush will make the climate bill the Armageddon Bill for American jobs, the death of the "middle" class, etc. How in the world do fighters against global warming truly expect to get West Virginia voters, and working-class American voters in general, to support their "crusade"? The idea is preposterous on the face of it. I'm a liberal college professor, so I know how easy it is to sit around with the rest of the choir and preach to each other. As Congress discovered last August, it's all those pesky others who are the problem. I wish the masses were as idealistic as the elites, but the sad fact is they can't afford to be. They're under way too much immediate economic stress to worry about melting glaciers when they can hardly feed their families.

[peowlemeow]

02:08 AM on 12/13/2009

I like it.

[taiwanjohn]

01:41 AM on 12/13/2009

Pronouns: why are not in the headline? ;-)

Apart from that minor editing snafu, the article leaves a lot of questions unanswered:

First, why/how did "Negative Carbon" get left off the table? Was it pressure from lobbyists? Was it political wrangling between rich and poor nations?

Second, what do you mean by NC? Is it seeding iron particles in the Southern Ocean to fertilize plankton growth? Is it carbon capture and sequestration? Is it planting trees, or farming algae for bio-fuels? Your link to Dr. Chichilnisky's website doesn't even mention NC.

Third, what is the good doctor doing in Copenhagen to "lead the charge"? How are her efforts being received?

http://www.hopenhagen.org/blogEntry/144521

In the article linked above, Dr. C answers my second question: "carbon negative technologies. This includes reforestation and building power plants that suck carbon from air in Africa, Latin America and the Small Island Nations."

What on earth does she mean by "power plants that suck carbon from air"?? How?

--jrd

[Tom Beecroft]

11:52 PM on 12/12/2009

The good news is that there are now a number of technological solutions being proposed and discussed. It is encouraging to see the debate shifting away from economic growth vs the environment, and to more practical outcomes.

Although, since 43% of Americans do not believe global warming exists, getting political consensus in the US will be a struggle.

www.viewfromdownunder.com