[geo] Arctic Council Strategy

[Josh]

Is anyone aware of organized efforts to place geoengineering on the
agenda of the Arctic Council? Several commentators have raised this
possibility, but I am unaware of any systematic effort to accomplish
this. Focusing on the Arctic Council offers a number of advantages:

- The Arctic Council is much less politicized than bodies like
UNFCCC. Indeed, the AC is unknown to the general public. The AC
would provide a forum that is less heated, less confrontational, and
less burdened by the weight of history.

- Membership in the AC is relatively small and manageable. It is
composed of relatively developed countries with the resources to
pursue geoengineering. Most of those countries that have indicated
some degree of openness to intervention belong to the AC.

- Given that the Arctic is disproportionately affected by climate
change, the AC and its member states would be more likely to consider
climate interventions. In the Arctic, climate is changing and people
know it. Native peoples may be supportive of geoengineering.

- Arctic climate change is an urgent issue, so geoengineering in the
Arctic is a logical place to begin. A limited geographic focus would
diminish opposition and give the science a chance to prove itself.

For these and other reasons, the AC offers a promising venue for field
tests and possible deployment. Nature has also provided us with a
potential public relations coup - the current Iceland volcano. If
this eruption could be shown to result in reduced temperatures,
thicker sea ice, more polar bear cubs, etc., the argument for
stratospheric injections would look much more compelling.

Josh Horton

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[Alan Robock]

Dear Josh,

You forget one thing.  The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over global climate.  And you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic.  These were clear conclusions from the Asilomar Conference.  You are jumping the gun.

The Icelandic volcano so far has put out very little SO2, and will have no climatic impact.  Yet it shut down air traffic over Europe.

Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences        Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University                                  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA      http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Alan et al—Just a note that the Asilomar Conference was focused on issues relating to guidelines for research, not to issues that need investigation through research, as does the question of how much of an influence in one region it might take to have a significant effect in another region.

Mike MacCracken

[Alan Robock]

Dear Mike,

Yes, but it was clear at the conference that there is a void in global governance on this issue, and that new institutions need to be created to deal with this issue.

Certainly the issue of Arctic influence needs to be investigated with climate models, but the size of in situ experimentation that could be deemed safe and not needing consultation with others, was also not decided.  People discussed various parameters in time and space, but there was no consensus.  So until the governance of the research is in hand, it is certainly premature for a group of gung-ho engineers to ask the Arctic Council about anything.

Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences        Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University                                  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA      http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

[xben...@aol.com]

All:

Which should come first, governance mechanisms or research?

It seems clear that this utterly new form of research must emerge, with
governance, in an evolving manner. The assumption at Asilomar of a
one-size-fits-all governance rule system, which we work out well in
advance, is naive. This entire field will evolve in the dance between
policy, science/engineering, and nation-state needs.

Part of that is spotting opportune areas that demand attention, and
from which we can learn. The Arctic is plainly a critical case, which
promises some degree of isolation from global issues -- and the degree
of isolation, as Mike says, needs thought.

But surely it is foolish to avoid talking to the Arctic Council while
all else goes forward. They are well aware of the problems, have worked
out mechanisms of governance, and the most at risk.

Gregory Benford

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
To: Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
Cc: joshuah...@gmail.com; Geoengineering
<Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 15, 2010 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic Council Strategy

Dear Mike,

Yes, but it was clear at the conference that there is a void in

globalgovernance on this issue, and that new institutions need to be
createdto deal with this issue.

Certainly the issue of Arctic influence needs to be investigated

withclimate models, but the size of in situ experimentation that could
bedeemed safe and not needing consultation with others, was also
notdecided.  People discussed various parameters in time and space,
butthere was no consensus.  So until the governance of the research is
inhand, it is certainly premature for a group of gung-ho engineers to

askthe Arctic Council about anything.

AlanAlan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate

Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental

PredictionDepartment of Environmental Sciences Phone:

+1-732-932-9800 x6222Rutgers University
Fax: +1-732-932-864414 College Farm Road E-mail:

rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduNew Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
On 4/15/2010 8:47 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Dear Alanet al—Just a
note that the Asilomar Conference was focused on issuesrelating to
guidelines for research, not to issues that needinvestigation through
research, as does the question of how much of aninfluence in one region
it might take to have a significant effect inanother region.

Mike MacCracken


On 4/15/10 8:28 PM, "Alan Robock"

&lt;rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu&gt;wrote:

Dear Josh,

You forget one thing.  The Arctic Council has absolutely nojurisdiction

over global climate.  And you cannot confinegeoengineering to the
Arctic.  These were clear conclusions from theAsilomar Conference.  You

are jumping the gun.

The Icelandic volcano so far has put out very little SO2, and will

haveno climatic impact.  Yet it shut down air traffic over Europe.

[Joshua Horton]

Alan,

Let me address a few of your statements:

"The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over global climate." - No one says it does, but a strong case can be made that it has jurisdiction over Arctic climate.  Two Arctic Council Working Groups, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) and Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) are focused explicitly on the regional environment.  Climate change is a "priority" issue for AMAP.

"you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic." - I am not a scientist, but my understanding is that this is far from settled, as Mike indicates.

"You are jumping the gun." - It seems to me that dismissing this strategy out of hand reflects "jumping the gun" more than suggesting one possible way forward.

Josh

[Bjornar Egede-Nissen]

There is, in fact, a preliminary paper about issues surrounding
geoengineering and the Arctic Council, published by IISD, available at
http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=1162

Cheers,
Bjornar

> > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA      http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock>

[Alan Robock]

This is an excellent paper.  And it says, "It makes little sense that only eight countries—even if they include both the largest country on the planet, and the most powerful one—should dictate the climate of our planet. Quite the contrary: we argue that these countries have a fundamental responsibility to address the biophysical foundations of climate change through mitigation." and "If there are benefits to placing aerosol injection in an Arctic country, the Council has good reason to become involved. But atmospheric particles know no bounds: they habitually and indiscriminately violate other countries’ airspace, so geoengineering anywhere in the northern hemisphere will have a direct bearing on the Arctic."

Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences        Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University                                  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA      http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

[William Fulkerson]

Dear Alan:
The Iceland volcano seems to be an excellent example of your point that, “who knows where particles will go,” but shouldn’t the impacts of the volcano for the cooling of the Arctic be carefully monitored, or is it too late?
With best regards,
Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
wf...@utk.edu
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771

 


On 4/16/10 4:33 PM, "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote:

This is an excellent paper.  And it says, "It makes little sense that only eight countries—even if they include both the largest country on the planet, and the most powerful one—should dictate the climate of our planet. Quite the contrary: we argue that these countries have a fundamental responsibility to address the biophysical foundations of climate change through mitigation." and "If there are benefits to placing aerosol injection in an Arctic country, the Council has good reason to become involved. But atmospheric particles know no bounds: they habitually and indiscriminately violate other countries’ airspace, so geoengineering anywhere in the northern hemisphere will have a direct bearing on the Arctic."
Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences        Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University                                  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA      http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

On 4/16/2010 3:31 PM, Bjornar Egede-Nissen wrote:

There is, in fact, a preliminary paper about issues surrounding
geoengineering and the Arctic Council, published by IISD, available at
http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=1162

Cheers,
Bjornar

On Apr 15, 9:56 pm, Joshua Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>  wrote:
  
 

Alan,

Let me address a few of your statements:

"The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over global climate." -
No one says it does, but a strong case can be made that it has jurisdiction
over Arctic climate.  Two Arctic Council Working Groups, Arctic Monitoring
and Assessment Program (AMAP) and Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and
Response (EPPR) are focused explicitly on the regional environment.  Climate
change is a "priority" issue for AMAP.

"you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic." - I am not a scientist,
but my understanding is that this is far from settled, as Mike indicates.

"You are jumping the gun." - It seems to me that dismissing this strategy
out of hand reflects "jumping the gun" more than suggesting one possible way
forward.

Josh

On 4/15/10 8:28 PM, "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>  wrote:
      
 

[Alan Robock]

Dear Bill,

Simon Carn reports only 3-4 kt (0.003-0.004 Mt) of SO2 from the Icelandic
eruption, as compared to 5 Mt from Katmai in 1912 and 20 Mt from Pinatubo.
Furthermore, it only went into the troposphere, with a lifetime of a week
or so. So I expect absolutely no climatic effect based on emissions so
far.

Kasatochi in 2008 and Sarychev in 2009 each injected about 1.5 Mt of SO2
into the lower stratosphere, and we have not been able to detect any
climate response. That is why a much larger injection for a period of
years (essentially geoengineering implementation) would be needed to
detect a climate response.

Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

[Josh]

I agree, this is an excellent paper. I would draw your attention to
its conclusion:

"the Arctic Eight must be prepared to respond to the consequences of
failure in the mitigation strategy. It is therefore time that the
Arctic Council placed all facets of geoengineering high on its
research agenda. Only through comprehensive, candid and rigorous
research can we close the knowledge gaps and reduce the uncertainty
surrounding geoengineering, which is a significant source of current
skepticism."

Josh

[Ron Larson]

List with three ccs

This is to again raise the topic of geoengineering nomenclature

1. From the middle of p 7 of the IISD paper (which I agree was generally
well done):
/ "We can generally categorize geoengineering efforts into two types:
those that seek to regulate the temperature, and those that seek to
regulate the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This paper
will focus only on the first type. In more technical terms, this type is
often referred to as --*_solar radiation management (SRM)_*,......"
/
*[RWL: This is fine by me, but I wonder how consistent this definition
is. See few questionable items below. The "second" named type seems to
have recently emerged by consensus as CDR - carbon dioxide removal.
Unfortunately this can readily be confused with CCS - Carbon Capture and
Storage [sometimes Sequestration]). My question is whether the authors
ever slipped anywhere in the following and ever meant for Geoengineering
to include CDR. I hope so.]*.


2. From p 11 (emphasis added)
/"A climate emergency seems to satisfy all the criteria; adaptation and
geoengineering being the _*only rapid*_ responses possible./"

*[RWL: I wonder if Biochar, being in both camps by some definitions (if
not this article) should have special consideration on rapidity. I
reject the implicit idea here that tree planting or Biochar will go
slower than the fastest of the (adaptation) renewables (half the world
being farmers, biomass already the largest renewable resource, and the
huge plant-soil sink is many times larger than the atmosphere). Where do
the IISD authors put Biochar? Agreed that it has come to be in both
categories?]


*3. From the top of p14 (17/29), where "it" must refer to SRM (used in
previous sentence, it makes no sense to apply to the CDR "half" of
geoengineering.): (Emphasis added.)
/ "Although only supposed to be temporary, it would have to be sustained
for years, _*all the while doing nothing*_ to alleviate the real problem
and allowing the oceans to become increasingly acidic."
/
*[RWL: I don't see why the authors assume this "/all the while doing
nothing/". That seems to be making a big assumption very damaging to a
discourse on SRM Do the authors know that the Council will be in this
either-or position with respect to SRM and mitigation? If they are
correct here, no one could possibly be in favor of geoengineering - or
at least of their SRM portion.]


*4. from middle of p 18 (and below quoted by Josh):/
It is therefore time that the Arctic Council placed _*all facets of*_
geoengineering high on its research agenda./
*
[RWL: Here is one place that I hope the IISD slipped up and
intentionally meant to include CDR Why else say "/all facets of"/.
Biochar enthusiasts would strongly support the interpretation that the
Council should also look at Biochar. There are some huge carbon stores
in the trees of most of the Council members and that amount could be
increased.]
**

5. p 19. *The last two sentences (just beyond those quoted by Josh):*
/ "/*/Meanwhile, as the risks and implications of geoengineering become
more apparent, the attention and dialogue ensuing from the Arctic
Council’s engagement with geoengineering might actually stimulate a
_*re-doubling of mitigation*_ efforts. That would be the best possible
outcome of the geoengineering debate."
//
/*[RWL: I of course am delighted with this - as long as the authors and
their readers have understood that CDR is (an intersection in a
Venn-diagram sense) also a mitigation technology. Unfortunately, I
expect to see this sentence taken alone by those who are detractors of
Biochar and want always to label Biochar as geoengineering.


6. [RWL6: My conclusion is that if anyone wants to talk only about the
SRM side of geoengineering, it would be much preferable to just replace
the word "geoengineering" by "SRM". I am still not sure that "SRM" was
meant to apply to EVERY use of the word "geoengineering" by the authors .

One way out of this dilemma is to break the present
"geoengineering"world up into three (rather than two) parts:
"geoengineering-SRM", "geoengineering-CDR" and "geoengineering-Bio" -
with Biochar and tree planting in the new third group. Air capture and
some others would stay as part of "geoengineering-CDR ", as they have no
"bio" component. (Bio is short for "biosequestration"; the word
"bioengineering" was spoken for long ago.) In the Venn diagram sense,
Biochar and tree planting retain the "mitigation" meaning. Fortunately,
they also are solution-parts of other major Venn development "circles"
such as food/hunger, jobs/rural economic development, national security,
etc - most of which are potential problem areas for SRM.

Any votes for the proposed new third term "bio=biosequestration" to help
clarify what "geoengineering" means? I am afraid it is too late to
remove the biosequestration aspect from the geoengineering umbrella and
CDR just doesn't capture the carbon-negativity facets that are possible
within the broader "geoengineering".
*
Ron

<snip>

[Bjornar Egede-Nissen]

Thanks for the feedback.

Let me address Ron's list of concerns. These comments are on behalf of
myself only:

1. Yes, geoengineering as used by us does include CDR, but we should
have devoted more than one sentence to explain that. Geoengineering,
unfortunately, is often used to describe only SRM. It's unfortunate
that both have been conflated under the label geoengineering. It
seems we should have taken more care to make it clear that we were
addressing only SRM, and perhaps used that moniker throughout the
paper.

2. “Rapid” should have been defined here: sudden and disruptive
climate change over the course of a few months to a couple of years.
Biochar and SRM are rapid on different time scales, I believe.
Clearly, in the case of a climate emergency, we need to rapidly ramp
down emission levels, and if possible, ramp up CDR. Mitigation and CDR
are the only sustainable ways of remediating climate change. Biochar
is good in that respect because of its high carbon content, but it is
not quick enough to counter the immediate climate effects of rapid
global warming. For that, SRM may be the only option, and let me
assure you, I have no love of it.

3. Agreed. We should have taken more care to make sure that we meant
only SRM. Instead we used geoengineering as shorthand for SRM. While I
do not excuse that slip, it _is_ common to conflate the two. As to it
doing nothing to alleviate the real problem, SRM in itself only
addresses the symptom (warming) while allowing the oceans to acidify.
It could, however, buy time, and could arrest the thawing of
permafrost, glaciers and ocean ice. That should be attractive to the
Arctic Council (and the world at large). But without vigorous
mitigation, it is worth nothing.

4. Absolutely. “All facets” of geoengineering includes CDR and we
could have been more explicit.

5. We understand that CDR is a mitigation technology. It was certainly
not our wish to give fuel (metaphorically speaking) to biochar
detractors.

6. Agreed, apologies for the confusion. I hope we can separate the
debate about SRM from CDR; they are very different, and will require
different governance and decision making mechanisms. SRM was all this
paper was about (p 14), as it addressed geoengineering (SRM) as a
response tool for abrupt climate change.

So clearly we need to talk more about nomenclature. It’s become a bit
fudged up, and there are more terms beside SRM (albedo enhancement,
shortwave climate engineering). Biosequestration rests very
uncomfortably in the geoengineering camp. I shall use this term
explicitly in my future work. But bioseq. (I hesitate to shorten it to
BS...) is a form of CDR, so I’m not sure if a third group is
warranted. Ocean fertilisation too is a form of bioseq (in theory,
when it works), only by more dramatic and artificial means. Should we
instead make a distinction between artificial and natural (albeit on
an industrialised scale) CDR?

Thank you very much for your response, I hope I cleared up a few
things. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.


Regards,
Bjornar

[Ron Larson]

* Bjornar. I agree with what you have written.

Re rapidity in my question #2, I will report a preliminary more-detailed
personal estimate at a Biochar conference in Ames late June. I hope to
show it possible to have at least one tenth of a US-only 1 GtC/yr (a US
"wedge") carbon sequestration capability by maybe 2040 About ten time
this goal worldwide and one-tenth as much by 2010. Not easy, not likely,
but not impossible. I don't think any other CDR or mitigation approach
can match that schedule, **and would love to hear thoughts of others*

*Re categorization in topic #6: I am glad you like the possible
**"biosequestration" term within the CDR portion of geoengineering **.
But that term misses the cost-beneficial soils and energy aspects of
Biochar. I think we will have to use different descriptors in different
policy arenas, ** but would love to hear of a single descriptor that
covers the three main Biochar monetary flows. "Bioremediation" implies
soil improvement maybe - but nothing about energy. Probably no one
descriptive term is possible. It is not entirely positive to have these
multiple attributes.

Your last query is on using the terms "artificial" and "natural". This
is perhaps an appropriate and useful distinction, but I'd rather focus
on characteristics like economics, timing, and risks. I presume Biochar
falls in your "natural" category, while the word "artificial" carries
negative connotations that some technology proponents presumably will
not like.
**
** Thanks for the full reply.*
*
Ron
*

[xben...@aol.com]

Ron:

Your comment:

"Not easy, not likely, but not impossible. I don't think any other CDR
or mitigation approach can match that schedule, **and would love to
hear thoughts of others* "

--prompts me to circulate again the attached paper, which argues that
we could right now capture about 15% of global CO2 emitted each year.
Very little research needed -- and indeed, there's a field trial going
on now off Monterey Bay.

Gregory Benford

[Ron Larson]

Professor Benford and geoengineering list:

1. Thanks for including a copy of your ocean sequestration paper and
keeping this conversation going. I found nothing really to object to in
your excellent paper. I found numerous valuable citations that I will
certainly use and pass on to others. There is a big overlap in our areas
of interest. I agree with what you said about all of Biochar's and ocean
sequestration competitors. (We might add BECs in there as another option
that didn't get your full attention).

2. My only negative remark is that the several Biochar technologies I
have been bringing to this list's attention were not in the list of
competing technologies that you and Professor Strand analyzed.

3. Were you to cover Biochar in the same way, I think you/we will find
Biochar to be the preferred alternative. The only one of your criteria
where ocean sequestration might have an edge is that of longevity. I say
"might" because I guess there has not been much experimental data yet on
either your proposed approach or that of Biochar. The lifetime of char
seems to have a consensus number of only a millenium. I have seen
shorter and longer times, but the real experimental data is not apt to
be available for centuries. The best reference I know re char
recalcitrance is at:
http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_RS_recalcitrance12-09.pdf

4. You raised for ocean sequestration several hurdles that Biochar
overcomes:
a. Travel distance; apt to be a few kilometers on average for both
Biochar and its resource base.
b. Removal of soil nutrients; apt to be almost totally retained at or
near the source point, while also both raising soil productivity and
reducing fertilizer requirements
c. Competition with those desiring to use ag residues for energy;
biochar production can (not necessarily will) have a useful energy
co-product. I believe we will see an almost equal amount of
carbon-neutral energy as the claimed sequestered 10 GtC/yr. So I believe
a total of 20 GtC/yr of carbon mitigation will be available - allowing
for considerable growth in energy consumption in developing countries
even as we go back pretty rapidly to 350, 280, etc ppm. This carbon
neutral energy will provide the necessary backup for solar and wind -
thereby allowing a 100% renewable energy supply.
d. Biochar producers will need and are apt to be growing the trees in
your second (forestry) option; a short term forest solution is part of a
longterm biochar solution.
e. You put an upper ocean sequestration limit (I believe) of 0.5 pg/yr;
I am postulating a factor of twenty higher by virtue of biomass
plantations, use of manures, forest and urban wastes, conversion of idle
and pasture land, improved ag and forest productivity because of both
Biochar and biotechnology (not relying on GE and GMO), etc. Repeat - not
easy - but possible.
f. Limited availability of stover; appreciably more can be removed with
a Biochar platform because of the returned nutrients, but also because
Biochar encourages a looser, but still more erosion-resistant soil.

5. No much proof yet, but I think the economics strongly favor Biochar -
not only for the above reasons involving waste streams that you could
not accept, and the much reduced transportation cost, but also because
the energy co-product (of all types) will have substantial market, but
because the producing ag and forest producing communities will also want
to use it (pay for it). I hear production numbers around $200 per ton -
and people are paying a lot more for the little that is being produced.

6. Just today there has been a lively first discussion on the Yahoo list
called "biochar-policy" about a new lower temperature approach to
"biochar" that converts any (??) form of biomass (but especially those
with high moisture content) into a humus or humic acid form with about
97% efficiency. The "waste" stream is 200 degree C water or steam. Three
websites (all in Germany, all new to me in the last few days) you might
find of interest are at:
http://www.cs-carbonsolutions.de/
http://www.suncoal.de/en/home/
http://www.hydrocarb.de/Seiten/Englisch/index.html
.
7. Neither of us are yet addressing what might be fastest - but the SRM
approaches satisfy virtually none of your specifications - so I am still
holding to my belief you repeated below about a possible rapid schedule
for Biochar. I believe the farmers and foresters of the world are ready
to go. I have not touched the other advantages of jobs, national
security, improved food supply, etc.

Ron

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2835 - Release Date: 04/25/10 12:31:00

[David Schnare]

If we need any carbon sequestration at all, sequestration which also provides an economic benefit would be most desirable, if still cost efficient.  This is the major value of biochar.  When used on crop lands, including reforestation, nutrients remain fixed within the soil structure instead of becoming non-point sources of pollution; and water remains within the soil longer instead of causing bank erosion and subsequent harm to water quality.

 

d.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship