Carbon Capture and Forests: Might We Co-Design and Co-Produce Research for Realistic Options?

I’ve been following climate science since the mid- 90’s with the inception of the US Global Change Research Program.  I remember one of my co-workers, Elvia Niebla, coming back from a meeting and telling us about this source of funding, and our saying “hey the climate affects everything; you could justify anything under climate.”  With the passage of time, researchers who, say, had formerly studied loblolly pine physiology in greenhouses started writing proposals called “effects of climate change on loblolly pine” from work in greenhouses. I don’t think we fully understand how that shading of funding for the last 20 years or so has affected not only what work has gotten done, but actually how we think about climate change- especially relative to less-studied and less-funded problems.

Needless to say, the US and other governments have spent beaucoup bucks attempting to describe future impacts, and not quite so much on fixes to the problem. This could be because it may make sense for all of it to go to DOE for practical fixes, and not be broadly distributed across agencies and disciplines. That’s why I think that former Energy Secretary Moniz’s effort is so interesting (and is in some current bipartisan bills), as it’s all about fixes. AS DOE and its Labs understand so well (yes, because they are “separate” the Labs are allowed to lobby Congress, unlike the other agencies), telling Reps that some funding will go to their district is a good way to get funding. You can tell this from Moniz’s presentation at this House Appropriations Hearing.

That’s why I think that former Energy Secretary Moniz’s effort is so interesting (and is in some current bipartisan bills), as it’s all about fixes.

He noted there are three main approaches to carbon removal: “natural techniques,” such as afforestation; “technologically enhanced natural processes,” such as the uptake of carbon in rocks through accelerated mineralization; and purely technological approaches, such as direct air capture, which uses chemical processes to absorb carbon from ambient air. Some removal techniques also require associated storage solutions, such as incorporating the carbon into new products or sequestering it underground. Justifying a broad approach, the EFI report argues it is “too soon to declare a ‘winner’” among the techniques.

In proposing a detailed funding profile for the initiative, Moniz noted EFI drew from a 2018 study by the National Academies that similarly charted a 10 year interagency research agenda for negative emission technologies. He said EFI’s plan is not “jarringly different” from the Academies study, though he said there are some divergences.

Moniz said the initiative would require an annual investment that would begin at about $300 million and peak at $1.4 billion. Of the $11 billion total, $2 billion would go toward large-scale demonstration projects in the latter phase of the initiative. Across agencies, DOE would spend about $5 billion in total, and the National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would spend about $900 million each…..

Moniz acknowledged the price tag for the initiative could be a tough sell in Congress and observed its inclusion of agencies spanning multiple appropriations subcommittees further increased the complexity of gaining the necessary support. He remarked, “The fact that we have 10 agencies involved and six appropriations bills does not make it easier from the process point of view. In other words, the program is not well matched to the silos in Congress.”

However, he noted the federal government has committed to other interagency initiatives costing more than $1 billion annually, such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Networking and Information Technology R&D Initiative.

IMHO forests and trees are mostly going to do what they’re going to do. Live, die, burn up, regenerate and so on. Our ability to change that on a mega scale (enough to affect large amount of carbon, with a high degree of certainty over time) tends to be both questionable and usually expensive. In general, drastically changing land use practices (afforestation where no trees are now) for carbon sequestration is 1) difficult to do and 2) runs into all kinds of social and environmental obstacles. Plus there are no guarantees that our carefully-tended carbon uptakers won’t just die due to climate change and/or invasives, or their interaction, in all kinds of unpredictable combos. I suspect what will happen is with more funding some people will dream up possible forest interventions, and other people will critique them, which is pretty much the cycle that research is already on; self-sustaining but not necessarily productive of useful policy options. I wonder whether there’s a way to design ourselves out of that cycle, perhaps by co-design and co-development of proposals with people who disagree about the existing proposed forest interventions?

13 thoughts on “Carbon Capture and Forests: Might We Co-Design and Co-Produce Research for Realistic Options?”

  1. Sharon, I like the idea of exploring more-realistic options, but….

    A new UN report says that “”There is no sign of [greenhouse gas] emissions peaking in the next few years.”

    https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/782586224/greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-still-rising-u-n-report-says

    Emissions in the US and the EU are declining — and have been for some time — due largely to the switch from coal to natural gas, while emissions are increasing sharply in China, India, and other developing nations.

    So, to have any meaningful impact, there have to practical solutions that will work in and be accepted by China, India, etc. For example, modular, much safer nuclear power.

    Reply
    • To me that’s a problem with the IPCC assuming BECCS and CCS in its scenarios. There is no link between their scenarios and any actual country doing actual BECCS activities. And we don’t have the technology yet to do CCS. However, technological CCS would conceivably be able to work everywhere there is carbon to suck out of the atmosphere, that is, everywhere. And if somehow someone were to try to control the intellectual property, I’m sure that other countries would be able to access it, legally or not.

      Reply
  2. Sharon,
    No, we must not co-opt reason, and ethics and the precautionary principle, advancing absurd claims that we actually have time to “co-design and co-produce research for realistic options.”
    Its well-known it’s far too late for your “moonshot” of CCS to make a whit of a difference in your so-called “path forward.”

    The risks posed by our Climate Emergency threatening ecocide as a direct result of Cold War mentalities is not a “path forward”(as you’ve recently claimed.) Not in my book, nor the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ clock signifying it’s 2 minutes to midnight, nor the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization’s Emissions Gap report released today:
    https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019

    “There has never been a more important time to listen to the science,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement Tuesday. “Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms, and pollution.”
    (snip)
    “It is evident that incremental changes will not be enough and there is a need for rapid and transformational action,” the report states. “By necessity, this will see profound change in how energy, food, and other material-intensive services are demanded and provided by governments, businesses, and markets.”
    (snip)
    “Anderson added that only “major transformations of economies and societies” will be enough.” “We need to catch up on the years in which we procrastinated,” Anderson said. “If we don’t do this, the 1.5°C goal will be out of reach before 2030.”

    So really Sharon, you can’t actually believe your denialism is an ethical choice… can you?

    Reply
    • David, I absolutely do think it’s useful to try to solve the problem as framed “too much CO2 in the air.” I will try to address that in another post.

      Reply
  3. Sharon says “forests and trees are mostly going to do what they’re going to do. Live, die, burn up, regenerate and so on. Our ability to change that on a mega scale (enough to affect large amount of carbon, with a high degree of certainty over time) tends to be both questionable and usually expensive.”

    I think we have a lot of power to make things worse. As evidenced by the vast amounts of missing carbon from our forests.

    Natural processes could greatly increase carbon storage on the landscape, but the biggest impediment to that outcome is our inability to get out of the way.

    Reply
    • An actual climate scientist has a very different perspective from Sharon’s “following” of climate science:

      “ We need to have a conversation about which forests are most capable of sequestering carbon in the near term. And those are forests that are generally in the age range of 70 to 125 years — they are the ones that are going to add the most carbon in the coming decades. Unfortunately, 70 years, for many species, is the perfect size for the sawmill. So it is going to mean saying ,well, we’re going to not cut these. ” (William Moomaw author of 5 AR papers for IPCC)

      Reply
      • 2nd- what you see as “vast amounts of missing carbon”, if you’re talking West Side forests, I see as tables, chairs, wood frames for houses, panels for siding, and so on. If no one bought trees, people wouldn’t cut them.

        David- I think the idea of “actual climate scientists” is more contested than you might think.

        Here’s his expertise: “His research interests include sustainable development, trade and environment, technology and policy implications for climate change, water and climate change, economics and geochemistry of the nitrogen cycle, biodiversity, and negotiation strategies for environmental agreements. ”

        I didn’t see the word “forests” there. I’d guess that I know as much about climate change as he knows about forests.

        Reply
        • Sharon,
          Thanks for this surprising selection and synopsis of William Moomaw’s qualifications compared to those of your own. Your stunning expose’ of the man as an unqualified hobbyist and dilettante whom lacks your level of expertise on forestry and climate science speaks volumes…

          IPCC consensus however, has been misappropriated for what is actually at stake here. If anything, the IPCC has sadly ignored the importance of the precautionary principle and failed to provide us with an accurate prediction of the timing and scale of catastrophic events.

          Those future “predictions” are our present catastrophic realities with climate forcing feedbacks already occurring. Their gravest errors have been in failures of admissions of ignorance around infinitely complex systems.

          I do not pretend that politics have not interfered with climate science, otherwise we would’ve acted 20 years ago and possibly enacted the grand scale policy changes necessary to leave a habitable, thriving biosphere for future generations.

          But alas that did not happen. That political interference in necessary paradigm shifts is perhaps the greatest opportunity cost of all time.

          Your unrestrained contempt for climate scientists and peer reviewed research which contradicts your worldview is a lamentable personal predicament.
          I am truly sorry for you.

          Your contempt though, must even be heaped on the corporate coal and petroleum scientists’ 60’s era (and beyond) research findings.

          Of course “what did they know and when did they know it” is why they are in court having to explain their fraud around their shareholders’ financial risks.

          Nonetheless their predictions of a half century ago are remarkably accurate as to what we are currently experiencing today.

          Here’s more information on Moomaw
          (From Wiki)

          Moomaw graduated from Williams College in 1959, and in 1965 earning a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[7][8] Moomaw was director of the climate, energy and pollution program for the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C.[9] Later on he joined the faculty of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where he was appointed Professor of International Environmental Policy.[1][10][11][12][2] In 1992 he founded the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, within the Fletcher School, and remained the director of the center for 22 years, until his retirement in 2013.[13]

          Moomaw has conducted research in areas including sustainable development, renewable energy, trade and environment, technology and policy implications for climate change, water and climate change, economics and geochemistry of the nitrogen cycle, biodiversity, and negotiation strategies for environmental agreements.[3][4][7]

          Moomaw has been a lead author for several Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports,[5][6][7][14] including being the coordinating lead author of the 2001 chapter on greenhouse gas emissions reduction and a lead author for the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Chapter 4: Energy Supply in Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III).[15]

          As an American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Science Fellow, he worked on energy and forestry legislation and on legislation that eliminated American use of CFCs in spray cans to protect the ozone layer.[14] Moomaw also founded the Tufts Climate Initiative and co-founded the Global Development and Environment Institute, and has served on the boards of The Climate Group, Clean Air-Cool Planet, Earthwatch Institute, Center for Ecological Technologies, Woods Hole Research Center,[16] and the Consensus Building Institute.[17] He remains an active advocate and commentator.[18]

          Moomaw has also given expert testimony in the U.S. Congress,[19] and written reports for the United Nations.[7]

          Reply
          • David, I didn’t question that Moomaw knows a lot of stuff. I am just saying that I know stuff too. But your original comment was that he should be listened to more than I because he is a “real climate scientist” and I am not. That is an argument by authority. Lots of “real climate scientists” however defined disagree about things, so arguments by authority don’t really work IMHO.

            I don’t have contempt for anyone. But I can disagree with their points of view. “We need to have a conversation about which forests are most capable of sequestering carbon in the near term. And those are forests that are generally in the age range of 70 to 125 years — they are the ones that are going to add the most carbon in the coming decades. Unfortunately, 70 years, for many species, is the perfect size for the sawmill. So it is going to mean saying , well, we’re going to not cut these. ”

            A rational approach would be to say “of all the carbon interventions we could do, which ones are the best policy choices?” Certainly there is a scientific component to that (physical, are they feasible, social, will people accept doing them) but just because scientists have opinions about policy doesn’t make those opinions “science.” Because of course, scientists disagree about policy options.

            I stick a pin (see my other post) in the overall question of “which carbon interventions”? He picks one (forests) and says what he thinks should be done policy-wise. Pin sticking, or choosing a frame, is a personal predilection, not a scientific judgment.

            Reply
            • “Lots of “real climate scientists” however defined disagree about things, so arguments by authority don’t really work IMHO.“
              Thanks for this lesson.
              Gotta smile at your outlier opinion though and its rendition of how international scientific consensus gets reframed by you (”That is an argument by authority.“) as mere “opinion” and “authority” Sharon.

              It helps to explain why you have such a similar problem with fundamental notions of democratic process and separation of powers when your former employer deliberately violates laws; gets sued by the citizenry; and the courts agree it has deliberately violated laws.

              Our tragedy is the outlier position you support has been effectively accomplished through the corporate capture of academia, media, agencies and most scientific research — effectively enough to create the predicament we face today and it is why millions of people across the planet are protesting; and why there are now millions of climate refugees.

              Reply
  4. (Oh, and I forgot to add Sharon, William Moomaw’s likely in charge of compiling consensus results of multiple peer reviewed research on forest carbon accounting rather than doing the actual research himself, and given his environmental background, he may have acquired (and certainly accessed) quite a bit of firsthand research on forest science.)

    Reply
  5. Hmm. I have been in the trenches of forest science since 1977. I have been reading research on carbon accounting in forests (peer reviewed) since the inception of those studies. The main thing I’ve learned is that scientists disagree on the numbers, the assumptions about those numbers, and what should be accounted for.

    Mostly I have followed the “forest biomass for energy” debates, which seem to focus on which assumptions different scientists make. But in real world cases it seems clearer, e.g. NAU and chips to Korea.

    This idea of “let’s not cut trees at all, or only cut them in some places” I haven’t seen that much of outside Oregon. I have never seen an analysis of where it would still be OK to cut them, and why, or how to cut demand for wood products without substitution of more carbon or fossil fuel intensive products.

    Reply
    • Thanks Sharon,
      It has always been what you’ve chosen to NOT respond to (many among my most salient and central points) which have been the most telling takeaways for me.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to 2ndLaw Cancel reply