Biochar and Carbon Credits

[Tom Goreau]

https://mcusercontent.com/ef20ae4c3fdc09fc772db39fa/files/b84cca94-1b81-419a-bb70-44ed6f530612/Newsletter_PNI_February_2021_1.pdf

[Ronal Larson]

Biochar list,  cc Tom, Guy (originator), and CDR list

Tom and Guy:  Thanks- some very surprising and welcome projection at : 

       https://mcusercontent.com/ef20ae4c3fdc09fc772db39fa/files/b84cca94-1b81-419a-bb70-44ed6f530612/Newsletter_PNI_February_2021_1.pdf

Lists: Here are first few lines  by Guy and Pro Natura:

   Biochar & Carbon Credits 2021 — 

The year of biochar 

     Biochar Biochar is a carbon-rich, charcoal-like powdery material. It is made from renewable biomass (e.g. unused agricultural or forestry residues) using a high-heat, low-oxygen burn process called pyrolysis. Biochar offers compelling agronomic, climate, and environmental benefits:

And 

Last line. - after about two pages:

Biochar’s time has finally arrived!

Ron

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>

Subject: [CDR] Biochar and Carbon Credits

Date: February 17, 2021 at 1:35:56 PM MST

To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>

https://mcusercontent.com/ef20ae4c3fdc09fc772db39fa/files/b84cca94-1b81-419a-bb70-44ed6f530612/Newsletter_PNI_February_2021_1.pdf

--
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/AC6D90BF-971B-4429-AC70-5854A017D164%40globalcoral.org.

[Ronal Larson]

John. et al

See inserts.

On Feb 17, 2021, at 3:38 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ron,

It has to be much bigger and much cheaper - scaling to remove x2 of emissions

[RWL1:  John - At first I took your “it” to mean ‘biochar” - but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean biochar alone (and unfortunately and unrealisticaally some CDR proponents do think in terms of a single  solution).   Biochar is financially worth doing at any global goal level (per Terra Preta use / experience).   Financially  CDR can be a no-cost added benefit - in addition to the soil benefit.  Forestry and soil CDR approaches can also be investments  but none of the other CDR approaches - they are all costs, not invesments)

, i.e. 20 GtC or 73 GtCO2 at a cost of $20-30 per tCO2. 

[RWL2:   Biochar is sometimes (not enough) listed with negative costs - over a LONG lifetime.  We might get to 20 Gt C/yr if someone can prove we can get clean and cheap enough ocean biomass.  There is no shortage of where to place charcoal.  And your projected cost will be weil worth it -with a lot more than biochar’s tripling (3.67) of your stated CO2 costs.

With a few decades at this removal rate, CO2 could be reduced to less than 300 ppm.

[RWL3:  I’ve recently been thinking about this transition - and have to disagree with your ‘could".  I believe biochar is already at or only a few years away from annual sequestration of 1 MT C/yr.  To get to 1 GT C/yr requires about 10 doublings (2^10. = 1024).   I figure biochar industrial supply and application is now seeing a doubling rate of about two years.  So we can talk about serious removal (1 GT C/y) for the first time in 2040.  By then the doubling time has to be longer than 2 years, so maybe by 2050 we might get to 4 Gt C/yr (doubling time of 5 years as you approach a flat plateau).

I think biochar can move faster (for technical and economic reasons) than ANY other CDR approach.   Biochar will also be better than the numbers just given because there must be a lot of tree planting and added (above biochar) soil carbon in new roots, fungi,  and microbes. (as proven by Terra Preta).

So, I urge not predicting 300 ppm by 2040 or even 2060 or another 20 years - unless you (anyone) provide more optimistic costs and doubling times.   

` But I am not giving up on 300 ppm this century - as long as the non-climate biochar benefits noted by Guy at this below new cite are accounted for - mostly in developing countries and middle income countries like Terra Preta’s ’Brazilian home - which has both the needed land area and soil that needs biochar..

Part of my optimism is that China has already discovered biochar.

I would like this ambition for endorsement by the COP26 in Glasgow this November.  Is there any chance of IBI or some other group taking this forward? 

[RWL4;  IBI is on board.  And within a few doublings more than 100 daughter groups (largest by far is USBI- but China might have more grad students).  And Guy already accompanied by hundreds of similar fellow business groups.  And maybe a thousand (?) like Tom Goreau and yourself.  Which CDR group is similar in any of these CDR statistics?

It would be a major step towards planet-wide soil fertility restoration and meeting the Sustainable Development Goals for food, water and biodiversity besides the CDR benefits.

`

` [RWL5:  My count on SDGs is 17 (all of them).   Bionergy and biochemicals (different / additional SDGs) can by themselves double the speed of closing the gap.

Ron

Cheers, John

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B167A24C-F2BB-49A2-9F93-32970E6993CC%40comcast.net.

[Dennis Amoroso]

Good Evening Everyone,

     When you speak of Biochar you should include rock powder and biomineral fertilizer which is a combination of the two.  In a practical sense THIS is the way to get the biochar into the farmlands of the world along with all the nutrients needed.  We may as well grow nutrient dense food while we are removing and sequestering carbon...and many other greenhouse gases as a result of replacing chemical fertilizers.

Dennis Amoroso

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/A74B87F8-8D2C-42D6-B80A-A1D95B5745B1%40comcast.net.

[Tom Goreau]

Biochar and rock powder should always be used together because they potentiate each other’s effects multiplicatively rather than additively.

 

http://www.soilcarbonalliance.org/2020/07/13/rock-powder-with-biorock-synergies-co-benefits/

 

The weathering of rock powder is around an order of magnitude faster with roots growing in it than if it is lying on dead ground. Dick Holland measured 3 times faster chemical weathering of vegetated than bare basalt in Iceland. In the tropics you get a much higher ratio. In Panama I grew trees about 7 times faster with basalt rock powder than on local soil, could have grown them even faster if I had biochar there. Note how the key nutritional elements were increased in the soil, while olivine would only increase one or two of them.

 

[Ronal Larson]

Tom and Dennis,  cc 7 others;

1.  Can you add anything on projected future costs and large scale availability of rock dust?  (Not now, but when scrap dust is less available,, and when we are at the Gt/yr application level.)

2.  Might adding rock dust to biochar minimize the costs of adding rock dust (and biochar if that is possible/).  Unexpected synergies?

3.  Any chance that there any appropriate dusts that also contains sufficient sulfur oxides that conversion to carbonates is an added CDR value?

4.  Is it possible or likely that adding a light colored rock dust to biochar might help with the albedo drawbacks of biochar?

5.  I aan fully aware of rock dust’s benefits - alone and with biochar.  Apologies for not mentioning rock dust and its multiple aadvantgrs in my response below.  Great further information at this organization (where Tom is active):  

 https://www.remineralize.org/2018/03/blending-biochar-with-rockdust-high-efficiency-mineral-delivery/

6.  Tom and I have known each other for many years.  We (lists and individuals) need to hear more from Dennis - who probably felt uncomfortable mentioning his company at:

https://www.plantnutritiontech.com/our-team/

Ron

On Feb 17, 2021, at 6:50 PM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:

Biochar and rock powder should always be used together because they potentiate each other’s effects multiplicatively rather than additively.

 

http://www.soilcarbonalliance.org/2020/07/13/rock-powder-with-biorock-synergies-co-benefits/

 

The weathering of rock powder is around an order of magnitude faster with roots growing in it than if it is lying on dead ground. Dick Holland measured 3 times faster chemical weathering of vegetated than bare basalt in Iceland. In the tropics you get a much higher ratio. In Panama I grew trees about 7 times faster with basalt rock powder than on local soil, could have grown them even faster if I had biochar there. Note how the key nutritional elements were increased in the soil, while olivine would only increase one or two of them.

 

<image001.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/24B332F5-06EA-4045-AE93-D8A70B62E40C%40globalcoral.org.

[Tom Goreau]

The best information about this can be found at

https://www.remineralize.org/

https://rockdustlocal.com/index.html

[Tom Goreau]

Thomas Vanacore at Rock Dust International has a database of sites, locations, composition, etc. for choosing the most chemically suitable rock dust from the nearest location.

The transportation costs determine the price.

Joanna Campe can add more on availability studies, several of which are on the RTE data resources.

[Tom Goreau]

You can make biochar from algae, or any form of carbon, but the quality of the biochar depends on the starting material. 

Algae biochar is very rich in nutrients, but because it lacks lignin it does not make much long lasting black carbon, and decomposes quickly.

So it makes a great fertilizer, but is not so good at long term carbon sequestration.

A blend of it with hardwood biochar might be an ideal marriage!

Plus rock dust, of course!

On Feb 18, 2021, at 7:37 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,

 

Ron Larson has responded to my brief email on this thread.  We could get the dominoes lined up [1] so that everyone is gunning for the “worldwide restoration of carbon and fertility to soils for nutrient-dense food” as a commitment from COP26.  (I add the “nutrient-dense food” because of what Dennis is saying.  If it can be done, “while we are about it”, it should be included in the commitment.)

 

The chief limitation on scaling up biochar to the level of 20 GtC removed per year seems to be the availability of biomass.  This is where biomass for ocean algae could come in.  Brian von Herzen could provide costing and the Australian government could take a lead at COP26 in this area.

 

There is lots on the web about Bill Gates’ solution to climate change, which seemed all about getting to net zero emissions.  So I googled on “Bill Gates biochar” and came up with this from the “Sustainable Sanitation Alliance”, written by Brian von Herzen and L. Talsma in 2014 about a project which Brian is/was leading [2].  Thus I think there is a chance to get Bill Gates behind a global initiative for soil restoration.

 

The UK treasury has commissioned a report about putting a value on nature [3].  If we can show that RA (regenerative agriculture with biochar, nutrients, etc) can restore biodiversity, then there is an opportunity to get the UK treasury behind it – feeding into the government’s drive to show leadership in addressing the climate crisis at COP26.  With financial support for RA at home and abroad, the UK could quickly offset its own CO2 emissions and start contributing to a lowering of the CO2 level.  This would be a much better way forward than aggressive decarbonisation costing $trillions.

 

However Ron has pointed out that I am being totally unrealistic to achieve 300 ppm by 2050.  The cooling value of this reduction will definitely come far too late to prevent dangerous global warming of over 2C, independent of what’s happening in the Arctic.

 

BTW, we need to think about a focus for our zoom meeting on Monday (8 pm GMT).  It could be on the above.  But the Arctic situation has become super-critical, while the Met Office and IPCC remain in denial of the danger this poses.

 

Cheers, John

 

[1] For your amusement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY-H2aUtrKI

 

[2] Conversion of human waste into biochar using pyrolysis at a community-scale facility in Kenya - Various documents on results from research grant

https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/resources-and-publications/library/details/1832

 

This library entry contains background documents for a grant that Brian Von Herzen is leading and which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review

[Dennis Amoroso]

Hello All,

     In the US the statistics for food consumption is that only 40% of what is grown actually gets consumed.  Therefore, 60% becomes food waste.  We have no problem whatsoever finding sources of biomass in the thousands of tons.  Dole Foods has production plants all over the US and the one here in our area generates 19M pounds per year, or 9500 tons per year.  We blend it at a ratio of 20% so that represents 47,500 tons of fertilizer.  At an application rate of 2 tons per acre that would be 23,750 acres per year.  We also have grocery store chains and distribution warehouses that all want to get rid of their food waste.  At this point, biomass does not seem to be a problem.  As a matter of fact it is a small revenue stream because they pay to have it taken away.  At the same time we are removing Methane from the atmosphere because the food waste is removed from landfills.

Dennis Amoroso

Plant Nutrition Technologies Inc.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:37 AM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,

 

Ron Larson has responded to my brief email on this thread.  We could get the dominoes lined up [1] so that everyone is gunning for the “worldwide restoration of carbon and fertility to soils for nutrient-dense food” as a commitment from COP26.  (I add the “nutrient-dense food” because of what Dennis is saying.  If it can be done, “while we are about it”, it should be included in the commitment.)

 

The chief limitation on scaling up biochar to the level of 20 GtC removed per year seems to be the availability of biomass.  This is where biomass for ocean algae could come in.  Brian von Herzen could provide costing and the Australian government could take a lead at COP26 in this area.

 

There is lots on the web about Bill Gates’ solution to climate change, which seemed all about getting to net zero emissions.  So I googled on “Bill Gates biochar” and came up with this from the “Sustainable Sanitation Alliance”, written by Brian von Herzen and L. Talsma in 2014 about a project which Brian is/was leading [2].  Thus I think there is a chance to get Bill Gates behind a global initiative for soil restoration.

 

The UK treasury has commissioned a report about putting a value on nature [3].  If we can show that RA (regenerative agriculture with biochar, nutrients, etc) can restore biodiversity, then there is an opportunity to get the UK treasury behind it – feeding into the government’s drive to show leadership in addressing the climate crisis at COP26.  With financial support for RA at home and abroad, the UK could quickly offset its own CO2 emissions and start contributing to a lowering of the CO2 level.  This would be a much better way forward than aggressive decarbonisation costing $trillions.

 

However Ron has pointed out that I am being totally unrealistic to achieve 300 ppm by 2050.  The cooling value of this reduction will definitely come far too late to prevent dangerous global warming of over 2C, independent of what’s happening in the Arctic.

 

BTW, we need to think about a focus for our zoom meeting on Monday (8 pm GMT).  It could be on the above.  But the Arctic situation has become super-critical, while the Met Office and IPCC remain in denial of the danger this poses.

 

Cheers, John

 

[1] For your amusement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY-H2aUtrKI

 

[2] Conversion of human waste into biochar using pyrolysis at a community-scale facility in Kenya - Various documents on results from research grant

https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/resources-and-publications/library/details/1832

 

This library entry contains background documents for a grant that Brian Von Herzen is leading and which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:38 AM Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:

[Dennis Amoroso]

Ronal,

     Please see my responses below

Dennis Amoroso

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:38 PM Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:

Tom and Dennis,  cc 7 others;

1.  Can you add anything on projected future costs and large scale availability of rock dust?  (Not now, but when scrap dust is less available,, and when we are at the Gt/yr application level.)

After 28 years of researching the availability of rock dust or rather the availability of mine waste and quarry waste which is converted into rock dust, we have concluded that the supply that is currently available on the planet would supply the entire agricultural industry for the next 200 years by which time billions of more tons would have been generated such that the supply is essentially endless until we no longer need mining to supply our needs.  However, by that time we will be mining asteroids from which we will be receiving mine waste for agriculture on several planets.

2.  Might adding rock dust to biochar minimize the costs of adding rock dust (and biochar if that is possible/).  Unexpected synergies?

Tom Goreau would be the expert on the synergies.  The correct way to accomplish this is to add the biochar to the blended rock powder such that we optimize the nutrients in the material as well as bring the benefits of the biochar to the ground.  The practical aspects of this is that the farmers don't like to deal with biochar because of the dust and blowing in the wind.  When blended with rock powder it becomes very heavy and drops directly onto the soil.  It also reacts very quickly with the food waste and grows fungi and bacterial communities in a matter of a few days.

3.  Any chance that there any appropriate dusts that also contains sufficient sulfur oxides that conversion to carbonates is an added CDR value?

Coal mine waste is very high in sulfur as are many other regions and geologies.  They are also rich in magnesium and potassium as well as iron, calcium, silica, etc. etc.  We presently have 350M tons of this material under contract and 1.8B tons of copper mine waste in British Columbia.  We have just entered into negotiations with Vulcan for almost 1B tons of mine waste from their quarries in the SouthEast US.  This gives you an idea of the tonnage available at this time.  However, when supplying the US market this becomes a significant value.

4.  Is it possible or likely that adding a light colored rock dust to biochar might help with the albedo drawbacks of biochar? 

We actually add zeolite at a 10% blend which is pure white.  Not sure about the answer to your question.

5.  I aan fully aware of rock dust’s benefits - alone and with biochar.  Apologies for not mentioning rock dust and its multiple aadvantgrs in my response below.  Great further information at this organization (where Tom is active):  

 https://www.remineralize.org/2018/03/blending-biochar-with-rockdust-high-efficiency-mineral-delivery/

6.  Tom and I have known each other for many years.  We (lists and individuals) need to hear more from Dennis - who probably felt uncomfortable mentioning his company at:

https://www.plantnutritiontech.com/our-team/

Thank you Ron for your cordial invite to hear more from me.  We have found that the use of our biomineral fertilizer has controlled diseases and insect pests as a very nice plus to the nutrient value, the increased quality of the food, and the savings of water consumption.  Some of these diseases are Clubroot in Canola, Phylloxera and Red Blotch in vineyards, Citrus Greening in oranges.  None of our results have been academically managed or observed since these have all been anecdotal observations.  We will soon be working on the serious testing.  At this time we are in field trials with ShoEi Foods on 90 acres of new almond trees.  They want to see that we can grow almonds without Nitrogen and with a water savings of 10% minimum.  With these results the product will be in very great demand.

All our best to all of you and your families!

Cordially

Dennis Amoroso

[rob...@rtulip.net]

John

 

Thanks for your question about Australia’s role.  As it happens, last night I attended a public talk by Jamie Isbister, Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment, on Australia’s approach to COP26 at Glasgow.  I thought he spoke very well, answering many of the unfounded political attacks that the green movement has made because of Australia’s commitment to coal exports.

 

Ambassador Isbister is Australia’s lead negotiator on climate. He provided an update to the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture on progress toward COP 26 in Glasgow in November. Here are some of my personal notes and comments on Ambassador Isbister’s remarks.

 

My view is that issues here indicate potential for Australia to lead on technology innovation in climate policy, especially with soil carbon and oceans.

 

Australia supports the expectation of a net zero future, but this has been politically controversial, with the government refusing to agree to a 2050 target and instead saying the focus needs to be on technology to achieve progress.  Australia’s role as a leading fossil fuel exporter (coal and gas) has led to it being strongly criticised by the environmental lobbies.

 

My view is that this criticism of Australia is unfounded, since it is based on the vacuous idea that decarbonisation of the economy can be the dominant factor to stabilise the climate, and the ridiculous ‘moral hazard’ hostility toward carbon removal and planetary brightening technology. 

 

Isbister said the COVID virus has had big impact on momentum of climate negotiations but has placed focus on the critical centrality of science. The tiny cut in 2020 of 6.7% in emission growth is only temporary. The CSIRO 2020 report on state of the climate illustrates how strongly Australia’s science community is engaging on climate analysis.

 

Systemic changes require technology to meet net zero ambitions.  It is not enough to stay below 2C.  The Paris ratchet mechanism replaced former climate policies with a bottom up system.  Isbister claimed that peer pressure is proven to bring best results, but I would dispute that given the failure of IPCC to engage on key issues around the Arctic and geoengineering.

 

Business commitments and energy transition investment reflect how COVID has increased climate concern to accelerate adaptation and resilience. Climate is dominating world political engagement.  Australia emitted 600 mt co2e in 2010. This has fallen now to 500mt, with expectation of 480mt by 2030, meeting the national Paris commitment, which if achieved will deliver a world-leading 65% per capita cut in emissions. Australia’s energy transformation is reflected in 12 coal fired power stations ceasing operation since 2010 and an 850-fold increase in renewables on grid since 2000.  Storage technology is essential to enable grid stability with renewables.

 

Australia’s Technology Investment Roadmap issued its First Low Emissions Technology Statement in 2020.  It sets the national strategy for COP26, based on analysis of 140 technologies, with the top 5 targets being

1. Hydrogen <$2/kg
2. Energy storage <$100 mwh 
3. CCS <$20/t
4. Low emission steel & aluminium production
5. Soil carbon measurement <$3/t/h/y as an offset incentive

 

The Moral Hazard debate has made some of these goals contentious.  Isbister endorsed the (in my view wrong) IPCC view that the purpose of negative emissions is to compensate hard to abate sectors, rather than to set a path to climate restoration.

 

Key issues for COP include carbon markets rules and global finance goals, as well as >50 other issues. Key campaigns are on adaptation, energy, transport, nature and finance.

 

Nature includes blue carbon as a key solution, with 25% of emissions stored in oceans.  Protection is key, with mangroves sequestering five times the amount of carbon per area as land forests. 

 

Faith perspectives have an important role in promoting dialogue and empathy, building trust and bridges.

 

Soil carbon storage needs global rules to give farmers incentives and markets for long term sinks.  Land offsets are not yet defined, but geospatial mapping is developing this.

 

In the Q&A section I asked how Australia addresses the climate stability problem that stopping sea level rise and tipping points requires CO2e to fall toward the Holocene 280 ppm CO2 level from its current 506 ppm.  Ambassador Isbister said the goal of Net Zero by 2050 is critical to stop tipping points, and will require new technology for negative emissions, but caution is needed on risk of ‘balloon ideas’ to reduce temperature, considering ecological mistakes made with introduced species. Net Zero is a new language emerging in the last five years, with the 2050 target now endorsed by 130 countries.  Net negative emissions will be essential, but interim steps with net zero goals are needed to ensure technology will deliver, with targets driving action for new technology. 

 

Several other issues were discussed in questions, including how indigenous voices have been partially included, the Warsaw Mechanism for loss and damage including for forced migration and compensation for past emissions, and the role of population.

 

I would like to follow up by writing to the government to support its focus on the Technology Road Map, emphasising the great potential of biochar and ocean-based solutions.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2021 11:38 PM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>
Cc: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Dennis Amoroso <dennis....@gmail.com>; Bio...@groups.io; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; Guy Reinaud <guy.r...@pronatura.org>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Tom Forward <tmfo...@googlemail.com>; Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>; Brian von Herzen <br...@climatefoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Biochar and Carbon Credits

 

Hi Robert,

 

Ron Larson has responded to my brief email on this thread.  We could get the dominoes lined up [1] so that everyone is gunning for the “worldwide restoration of carbon and fertility to soils for nutrient-dense food” as a commitment from COP26.  (I add the “nutrient-dense food” because of what Dennis is saying.  If it can be done, “while we are about it”, it should be included in the commitment.)

 

The chief limitation on scaling up biochar to the level of 20 GtC removed per year seems to be the availability of biomass.  This is where biomass for ocean algae could come in.  Brian von Herzen could provide costing and the Australian government could take a lead at COP26 in this area.

 

There is lots on the web about Bill Gates’ solution to climate change, which seemed all about getting to net zero emissions.  So I googled on “Bill Gates biochar” and came up with this from the “Sustainable Sanitation Alliance”, written by Brian von Herzen and L. Talsma in 2014 about a project which Brian is/was leading [2].  Thus I think there is a chance to get Bill Gates behind a global initiative for soil restoration.

 

The UK treasury has commissioned a report about putting a value on nature [3].  If we can show that RA (regenerative agriculture with biochar, nutrients, etc) can restore biodiversity, then there is an opportunity to get the UK treasury behind it – feeding into the government’s drive to show leadership in addressing the climate crisis at COP26.  With financial support for RA at home and abroad, the UK could quickly offset its own CO2 emissions and start contributing to a lowering of the CO2 level.  This would be a much better way forward than aggressive decarbonisation costing $trillions.

 

However Ron has pointed out that I am being totally unrealistic to achieve 300 ppm by 2050.  The cooling value of this reduction will definitely come far too late to prevent dangerous global warming of over 2C, independent of what’s happening in the Arctic.

 

BTW, we need to think about a focus for our zoom meeting on Monday (8 pm GMT).  It could be on the above.  But the Arctic situation has become super-critical, while the Met Office and IPCC remain in denial of the danger this poses.

 

Cheers, John

 

[1] For your amusement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY-H2aUtrKI

 

[2] Conversion of human waste into biochar using pyrolysis at a community-scale facility in Kenya - Various documents on results from research grant

https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/resources-and-publications/library/details/1832

 

This library entry contains background documents for a grant that Brian Von Herzen is leading and which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review

 

 

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:38 AM Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote: