[Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

[Duane Pendergast]

Hi Kevin,

Kevin,

The IPCC authorship is so huge that I don't think we could expect a
scientist dedicated to his own narrow part of the report to have a good
overview of the international political machinations and financial motives
lying behind the IPCC.

In spite of some  cynicism about the overall goals of IPCC which I share
with you, I don't doubt there are many dedicated scientists contributing to
it. They probably don't have time to look up and see the incongruities.  

As to suggesting some of you contribute to the IPCC, I had in mind the fifth
review which might take place in another 5 or so years. Actually there are
some special reports commissioned by them which would serve the purpose of
an addendum as you suggest. There is one on carbon dioxide sequestration for
example. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pd
f

Looking at the title, "Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage" I'm wondering if
that one word in it "Dioxide", was enough to blind the authors to the
possibility of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Carbon Storage.  

Perhaps the IPCC could be encouraged to do another "special report" on the
basis of the title modification suggested.

Duane

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net] 
Sent: November 18, 2007 12:41 PM
To: still.thinking at computare.org
Cc: Shengar at aol.com; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

Dear Duane and Erich

I am getting increasingly cynical about the IPCC. They seem bent on 
grasping anything to blame Man for the Global Climate Change that is 
upon us, and proposing "status quo solutions" involving Big Business and 
capital intensive solutions.

Duane Pendergast wrote:
> Dear Erich, Kevin,
>
> The IPCC Mitigation report does discuss the concept that biomaterial could
> be burned completely for energy, the resultant CO2 could be captured,
> recompressed using some form of energy, and injected into the ground a la
> schemes to sequester carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants.  That gets
the
> IPCC into the carbon negative concept. 
>   
That is a big stretch. Nobody can agree that nuclear waste dissolved in 
glass can be stored safely, yet they blithely seem to assume that CO2 
can be stores safely (ie, no leakage.) They seem to overlook teh extra 
carbon that will have to be burned to make teh power to compress the CO2 
to hide it.
> It is inexplicable, that with all the expertise they have mustered, they
> don't even mention the concept of partial combustion leaving some char for
> sequestration. Sure some energy production would be foregone - but the
> energy consumptive steps of CO2 separation/compression would also be
> avoided. I would bet it would be easier to demonstrate lasting
sequestration
> with a solid product than a gas too. 
>   
They are certainly not stupid, but they certainly seem to be obtuse, in 
"overlooking" charcoal sequestering. One wonders why they would make 
this oversight.
> I spoke to a local agricultural/climate mitigation expert about the fact
> terra preta is missing from the IPCC a couple of months ago. (That expert
is
> now a Nobel Prize winner by the way.)
Can your Friend give you any insights into what the IPCC people are 
really up to? I have heard of some resignations from the Panel... would 
he know teh total extent of qualified people who resigned, and why they 
resigned?
>  He is interested and he charitably
> suggested the IPCC is possibly just not sure enough of it's efficacy to
> bring the concept forward to their grab-bag of potential solutions. I find
> it hard to buy that, as there are plenty of other proposed solutions in
> their arsenal that are far from proven - indeed some are counterproductive
> re atmospheric greenhouse gas reduction.