Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them?
John Nissen
Hello Peter,
Thanks for this proposal. It fits neatly with the simple idea to "tax carbon out of the ground to put it back".
Interestingly, Prof Jim Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has proposed a carbon tax on fossil fuels, which would be ramped up over a number of years [1]. His objective is to dampen demand, so that, for example, by the time the levy reaches $115, it would add $1 to the price of gasoline, and eventually the CO2 would fall below a safe level, which he puts at 350 ppm. To quote:
"The fee needs to increase gradually and be large enough to affect purchasing decisions. By the
time the fee reaches a level of $115 per ton of CO2 it will add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline.
Given United States fossil fuel use of 2007, $115 per ton of CO2 would yield $670 billion, enough to
provide a dividend (rebate) for each legal adult resident of almost $3000 per year. With half a share per
child for a maximum of two children per family, the rebate would be $9000 per year for a family with two
or more children. The carbon fee would provide a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It
would spur the economy. It would spur innovation."
I have written to him to suggest that the money from the levy, rather than providing a rebate, should be put into "carbon air capture" investment and deployment. The growing of trees would be one of the most effective ways of using the money. If the levy were ramped up at $10-15 per year, it could pay for maximum afforestation (according to Sreeman Mishu Barua's plan) while reducing CO2 emissions, thus allowing an overall reduction in atmospheric CO2 level.
However some of the money must go towards saving the Arctic sea ice, otherwise we could lose the Greenland ice sheet (with disastrous consequences on sea level) and we could trigger massive discharge of methane from frozen structures (with disastrous consequences on global warming). Unfortunately reducing CO2 level alone cannot save the Arctic sea ice, so we have to resort to solar radiation management. The techniques favoured in the Royal Society report [2] involve stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.
Would you support this idea concerning raising money through a tax on carbon out the ground? If adopted internationally, it would be very equitable among nations, since essentially the polluter is paying, and countries would automatically become effectively carbon neutral after a time - i.e. when the atmospheric CO2 level begins to fall.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
[1] A post "Strategies to Address Global Warming & Is Sundance Kid a Criminal?" is available at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf
[2] royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151
Peter Hale, Climate Concern UK wrote:
Following may be of interest. A proposal from Bangladesh - seems thought out
in some detail.
Peter Hale
----- Original Message -----
From: "sreeman barua" <sanitarian@inbox.com>
To: <my-climate@sustainabletravel.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:00 AM
Subject: A Plan on tackling global CO2 rise & Global Carbon Trade;
(dissemination, research & Action needed)
Dear Sir,
A CO2 reduction plan was envisaged during my M.Sc. in Environmental
Technology, as a class-assignment in 1999-2000. It was a low tech plan which
could easily be put into practice where the whole world could come to play.
The plan offered a new dimension to carbon trade for businesses. The outline
was as below-
Fast-growing trees assimilate CO2 out of air fast (4 times faster than
natural forests). We need to harvest these trees for their fast growing
period in selected areas around the world. The harvest (dry hard wood is
>50% carbon and very slow degrading; about 25% of fresh wood is carbon) will
be put away into caves, empty mines and natural faults- thus putting away
atmospheric CO2 safely and cheaply for a very long time. After all,
thousands of years old similar fossilized trees we use (oil, coal and gas)
cause air CO2 to rise. Why not put back some?
A Chinese saying is “Catastrophe = Opportunity”. Could we not witness the
CO2 rise as an opportunity to store some energized Carbon (similar to
currency?) for foreseeable future use? Businesses may choose to ‘grow & bury’
calculated numbers of trees each year to compensate for their extra carbon
emission need. This plan will help developing countries come to terms with
the world’s Carbon Trade agreement where they can even keep the harvest for
themselves. The plan allows a proportionate trade between businesses and the
earth, which is only apt.
This act means no offense to tree-lovers, forest-lovers or nature lovers.
Only newly grown, purposefully, commercially harvested trees will be used,
leaving natural forests alone. Scientists will calculate the numbers of
trees required each year and decide types of trees to harvest for total
sustainability.
Desperate time calls for desperate measures. I know this is not ‘The’
solution, but as an Environmental Technologist I believe it has the
signature of being a substantial part of it.
Here I urge all Environmental Action Groups and scientists to commission the
plan as good enough to counter any other CO2 reduction plan (if not better),
and press world’s policymakers to acknowledge the same so that carbon
traders may get this plan as a choice.
Unique Advantages of the Plan:
=======================
• Fast growing trees assimilate Carbon out of air 4 times more than regular
grown up forest trees. More than 2 tons of carbon can be assimilated per
acre per year with such trees. It is estimated that 6 million sq. miles of
world’s cultivable but not cultivated land can sequestrate 7.8 billion tons
of carbon per year whereas total fossil fuel & cement production account for
5.5 billion tons. Yet, this plan is proposed only to be a part solution.
• Commercially harvesting of fast growing tree means new business throughout
the world and support from Nature activists (no antagonism socially).
Presently a ton of carbon is being traded for ~$15.00 (so, money is there!).
• Industries/ businesses may choose to ‘grow & bury’ required No.s of trees
(a carbon mass) as direct carbon trade (for the excess carbon emission they
may do each year; can be seen as ‘secondary allowance’?). Governments
throughout the world can ‘grow & bury’ against their ‘primary allowances’ to
businesses/ industries for their ‘right to emit a specific amount’. Direct,
proportionate carbon trade between businesses and the earth is seen as the
best here. The plan will keep a cap on totally undesirable secondary,
tertiary profit-selling of carbon credits in the trade market.
• Energy cost (financial burden) to execute the plan is minimal. Monitoring
is easy.
• Bigger, fast developing countries who are unwilling to sign an
International Carbon Trade Agreement may find this plan most suitable.
• Same land can be used over and over again to harvest fast growing trees on
a 10 -12 year basis (since our cultivable land is limited and we cannot
create unlimited forest). The cost to keep the land fertile comes into
account.
• Caves, empty mines, natural faults are there to store huge quantities of
logs & chips- without interfering into any other natural & human activity.
• With Safest & longest storable way and an energy source, the opportunity
to use logs when in desperate need is always there (or when sustainable
environmental friendly ways of energy extraction from wood will be invented
in future).
• No shortages of micro & macro nutrients needed to harvest such vast
quantities of wood.
• Easily calculable, executable and easy to monitor.
• Biotechnology may invent trees of even higher CO2 assimilation capacity
(harvest can be grown in isolation, no interference with natural progeny).
Why Policy makers and decision-making, implementation centrally?
=================================================
There are influential players in the market who are trying to impose their
kind of solutions- defective and costly, which will only benefit them at the
expense of everyone's misery. Do we not find the idea of carbon
sequestration through burial of wood is a simple enough & reliable enough
idea to propose to the topmost level (UN & World leaders)? Maths are all
there; the plan is viable and simple! Only a unified action from a country
(or From the World) can make a plan as big as this a success. You will never
get it done (forget doing it in time!) disseminating the idea up for grabs
at grass-root level. It is the vision, willingness and understanding of the
policymakers we need to pursue. Our present vision has ended at growing more
trees but cannot dread to think what we are going to do with those trees,
especially when we need long-term carbon-sequestration and our arable land
is limited?
We need to focus the world’s vision towards this plan and research along if
needed. Each Log/ Wood/ Chip is to be seen as a cell of stored carbon &
Energy. And ‘Grow & Bury’ wood in every sense is ‘the single best way’ to
put away enough carbon to save our planet. Some would argue (those who see
burying wood is a waste), let’s use the wood as energy and bury the char it
produces. There could be a debate on it and if found totally sustainable,
and does not backstab our primary goal (Long term carbon sequestration) -
then by all means let’s do it!
Let me tell you of a Bangladeshi Multi-million dollar MLM (multi-level
marketing) company, the only product of which is tree plantation. About 2.5
million Bangladeshi national invested into it (it is popular!). The company
is a lease-holder of thousands of acres of land (giving no heed to social
antagonism against its own ideologies & involvements, often misusing legal &
poor governmental administrative systems; because the more it grows, further
it needs to grow). It plans to grow & sell trees on a 12 year cycle & profit
its investors 4 times more then national banks. And it’s getting government
support because it’s helping create green!(??) Country basis/ community
basis plans as such (one which is bound to economic profit or has its own
agenda) to grow forests will never work. Our prime goal will have to be
long-term CO2 reduction.
We know what will happen to those trees within a quarter of a century. All
may be acting as temporary sequesters today but ultimately will be thrown to
the nature as CO2. You do not keep using 10-15 year old wooden furniture/
materials, do you? In good’s disguise this is a bad making worse scenario.
What we need is a unified plan from world’s governments keeping the end goal
in mind. We are getting rid of harm from 6 billion people- that should be
beneficial enough for us. Let’s not complicate the plan with seeking
economic gain out of it further.
A Related Issue:
=============
Now, so far we taxed the players at the outskirts of the carbon problem
(those who are using carbon minerals). What about those who are at the
centre; who are producing them? I believe countries unearthing carbon
minerals must be ‘environment-taxed’ for the amount they take out yearly.
Since the ill-effects of carbon mineral’s use are global and the producers
benefit financially at the cost of those ill effects, however necessary the
commodity may be, they cannot deny environmental responsibility.
Since buyer’s demand cause producers to unearth in vast amount;
hypothetically, producers could share the proposed environment tax with
primary buyers in proportion to their demand. Never the less, there has to
be adequate taxation, the amount needed to reverse the incurring ill-effects
in the environment.
Sreeman Mishu Barua, MSc(UK), REHS(USA)
Plot: X-50, Block: A,
Chandgaon R/A,
4212 CTG,
Bangladesh.
+88 (0)31 672678
+88 (0)183 0183 777
sanitarian@inbox.com
======================================
__________________________________________________________
.
__,_._,___
Mike MacCracken
Mike
On 10/19/09 11:31 AM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Peter,
Thanks for this proposal. It fits neatly with the simple idea to "tax carbon out of the ground to put it back".
Interestingly, Prof Jim Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has proposed a carbon tax on fossil fuels, which would be ramped up over a number of years [1]. His objective is to dampen demand, so that, for example, by the time the levy reaches $115, it would add $1 to the price of gasoline, and eventually the CO2 would fall below a safe level, which he puts at 350 ppm. To quote:
"The fee needs to increase gradually and be large enough to affect purchasing decisions. By the
time the fee reaches a level of $115 per ton of CO2 it will add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline.
Given United States fossil fuel use of 2007, $115 per ton of CO2 would yield $670 billion, enough to
provide a dividend (rebate) for each legal adult resident of almost $3000 per year. With half a share per
child for a maximum of two children per family, the rebate would be $9000 per year for a family with two
or more children. The carbon fee would provide a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It
would spur the economy. It would spur innovation."
I have written to him to suggest that the money from the levy, rather than providing a rebate, should be put into "carbon air capture" investment and deployment. The growing of trees would be one of the most effective ways of using the money. If the levy were ramped up at $10-15 per year, it could pay for maximum afforestation (according to Sreeman Mishu Barua's plan) while reducing CO2 emissions, thus allowing an overall reduction in atmospheric CO2 level.
However some of the money must go towards saving the Arctic sea ice, otherwise we could lose the Greenland ice sheet (with disastrous consequences on sea level) and we could trigger massive discharge of methane from frozen structures (with disastrous consequences on global warming). Unfortunately reducing CO2 level alone cannot save the Arctic sea ice, so we have to resort to solar radiation management. The techniques favoured in the Royal Society report [2] involve stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.
Would you support this idea concerning raising money through a tax on carbon out the ground? If adopted internationally, it would be very equitable among nations, since essentially the polluter is paying, and countries would automatically become effectively carbon neutral after a time - i.e. when the atmospheric CO2 level begins to fall.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
[1]
A post "Strategies to Address Global Warming & Is Sundance Kid a Criminal?" is available at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf <http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf>
sanit...@inbox.com <mailto:sanitarian%40inbox.com>
======================================
__________________________________________________________
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbHAzOWV1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1ODU3NDU0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMjU1OTQxMzg5>
<mailto:climatechangepol...@yahoogroups.com?subject=>
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOGhsbTVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1ODU3NDU0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTU5NDEzODk->
Yahoo! News
Fashion News <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hnlip3m/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IMKZB0PDhC8-/J=1255941389789349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=3848621/R=0/SIG=12u6o6g3h/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/1597;_ylt=A9FJqa5Gxa5E2jgAYQKVEhkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MnU4czRtBHNlYwNzbg-->
What's the word on
fashion and style?
Reach customers
searching for you.
Weight Management Group
on Yahoo! Groups <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14ibpkgb8/M=493064.12016300.12445692.11323196/D=groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IsKZB0PDhC8-/J=1255941389789349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=5170420/R=0/SIG=11b5gu1oe/*http://new.groups.yahoo.com/specialKgroup>
Join the challenge
and lose weight.
.
__,_._,___
Bonnelle Denis
Hello,
Giving the CO2 a price may be implemented in two ways, which operate differently:
- As concerns everybody as a consumer of gasoline for his/her car, natural gas or fuel oil for house heating, etc., a real-size feasibility experiment is going on in France, where the government tries to pass a bill for a new tax, which should be 17 €/ton of CO2 (25 $) at once, and with a final goal of 100 €/ton (in quite any other country, it should also be paid for electrical power, but not in the French project, due to the high rate of nuclear and hydro power). Previously, only smaller Scandinavian countries had introduced such a CO2 tax. One of the most prominent member of the commission who designed this tax (and proposed a 32 €/t price at once) is former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, who is also Nicolas Sarkozy's ambassador for Arctic climatic issues. What the current political debate shows is that it would have been absolutely impossible to create such a tax without granting every individual with a rebate. The reasons for this is that the people who live in distant suburbs (in France, there are fewer of them than in the US, but they are often the poorest) can't do without driving a car and using fuel oil to heat their home, and can't be blamed for it.
- Another hot issue is that the businesses should be taxed as well, and some opponents to the carbon tax raise the fact that, due to excess initial CO2 emission authorizations (allowances ?), the existing European cap and trade mechanism generates an "industrial process CO2 price" which is currently lower than 17 €/t, which individuals deem as unfair. So, these Kyoto-related European quotas will have to be restricted so that this industrial CO2 price rise above 17 €/t, otherwise no CO2 tax can be passed.
- For our debate, I think that a clear conclusion can be drawn : a 100 % rebate is absolutely needed for individuals, and very little money can be granted for carbon burying projects from a CO2 tax financing ; but businesses could rather easily be authorized to compensate their CO2 emissions (this is the true rationale and principle of a "cap and trade" scheme) through such projects, so that any technology which would eliminate CO2 at a lower price than, today, 17 €/t, and, tomorrow, 50 or 100 €/t, will become economically sustainable.
Best regards from France,
Denis Bonnelle.
De :
geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] De
la part de Mike MacCracken
Envoyé : mardi 20 octobre 2009 04:46
À : John Nissen; climatecha...@yahoogroups.com; Geoengineering
Objet : [geo] Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them?
Eugene I. Gordon
Do not ignore the fact that such taxes followed by rebates will give cap and traders strong arguments for such practice. And guess who makes out like a bandit with cap and trade practice? The likes of Al Gore, who is forcefully pushing this direction. Don’t get suckered into this tax direction and hurt the lower end of the economic spectrum.. Better for countries to establish massive campaigns to reduce use of fossil fuels by keeping homes substantially cooler, wearing warmer clothes, reducing use of A/C during summer, driving less or buying more fuel efficient cars, etc. Although by and large humans are inherently selfish, and such a campaign will take time to be effective, in the end it will work just as campaigns to end cigarette smoking have been effective.
Sorry, having had my say I am not interested in debating. Take it for whatever it is worth to you.
Eugene I. Gordon
John Nissen
Thanks for the news of French activity. It is good to hear that people are seriously considering a tax on carbon. I would want it as close to source as possible - ideally at the well or mineshaft! The important thing is that it should apply to all fossil fuel - whoever uses it - so that all the carbon that goes into the atmosphere gets taken out again (and preferably a bit more taken out, so that the CO2 level is forced down).
I am afraid that the tax has to hit consumers, in order that they pay for the environmental damage to be undone, and reduce their fuel consumption. But the levy would be ramped up over at least ten years, by say 10 Euros per year, so that people can change their habits while technology changes (electric cars come in, etc.).
Of course, some of the money raised can go into a hardship fund. But importantly, much of the money should go into third world countries for forest management, planting trees, biochar, etc.
Who are the key people to persuade, in all this? Is there somebody at the commission? If there is already movement, it is good to press in the same direction!
BTW, is there any movement away from cap and trade for COP15, in Copenhagen? As you say, cap and trade does not seem to be working - because it gives a low and unpredictable price for carbon, and it doesn't deal with the total of fossil fuel consumption.
Cheers,
John
---
Peter Read
1999. “Comparative Static Analysis of Proportionate Abatement Obligations (PAO’s) – A Market Based Instrument for Responding to Global Warming”, NZ Econ Papers, 33(1), 137-147. (google NZEP)
1999 . “Tradeable Abatement Obligations (TAO’s)”. Discussion Paper No. 99.09, Department of Applied and International Economics, Massey University, Palmerston North. (Google Massey Uni DAIE papers)
1999 “Allocating Permits Usefully (APU)”: Joint Implementation Quarterly, 5/3. (google JIQ)
2000 “An Information Perspective on Dynamic Efficiency in Environmental Policy” Information Economics and Policy, 12, March, 47-68 (google IEP)
2000 “Asymmetric Learning by Doing and Dynamically Efficient Policy: Implications for Domestic and International Emissions Permit Trading of Allocating Permits Usefully”, Energy and Environment, 11/6, 665-679 .(not available electronically)
2006 “Reconciling emissions trading with a technology based response to potential abrupt climate change” Special Issue of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol 11/2, 501-519 Google MITI)
2007 “Policy Instruments for a Sustainable Future” , Policy Quarterly, IPS, Victoria University of Wellington (Google IPS, VUW)
----- Original Message -----From: Bonnelle Denis
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:28 PMSubject: [geo] Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them?
Hello,
Giving the CO2 a price may be implemented in two ways, which operate differently:
- As concerns everybody as a consumer of gasoline for his/her car, natural gas or fuel oil for house heating, etc., a real-size feasibility experiment is going on in France, where the government tries to pass a bill for a new tax, which should be 17 €/ton of CO2 (25 $) at once, and with a final goal of 100 €/ton (in quite any other country, it should also be paid for electrical power, but not in the French project, due to the high rate of nuclear and hydro power). Previously, only smaller Scandinavian countries had introduced such a CO2 tax. One of the most prominent member of the commission who designed this tax (and proposed a 32 €/t price at once) is former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, who is also Nicolas Sarkozy's ambassador for Arctic climatic issues. What the current political debate shows is that it would have been absolutely impossible to create such a tax without granting every individual with a rebate. The reasons for this is that the people who live in distant suburbs (in France, there are fewer of them than in the US, but they are often the poorest) can't do without driving a car and using fuel oil to heat their home, and can't be blamed for it.
- Another hot issue is that the businesses should be taxed as well, and some opponents to the carbon tax raise the fact that, due to excess initial CO2 emission authorizations (allowances ?), the existing European cap and trade mechanism generates an "industrial process CO2 price" which is currently lower than 17 €/t, which individuals deem as unfair. So, these Kyoto-related European quotas will have to be restricted so that this industrial CO2 price rise above 17 €/t, otherwise no CO2 tax can be passed.
- For our debate, I think that a clear conclusion can be drawn : a 100 % rebate is absolutely needed for individuals, and very little money can be granted for carbon burying projects from a CO2 tax financing ; but businesses could rather easily be authorized to compensate their CO2 emissions (this is the true rationale and principle of a "cap and trade" scheme) through such projects, so that any technology which would eliminate CO2 at a lower price than, today, 17 €/t, and, tomorrow, 50 or 100 €/t, will become economically sustainable.
Best regards from France,
Denis Bonnelle.
De : geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Mike MacCracken
Envoyé : mardi 20 octobre 2009 04:46
À : John Nissen; climatecha...@yahoogroups.com; Geoengineering
Objet : [geo] Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them?
Just a note that I believe some of the bills in Congress tend in these directions. Congressman Van Hollen has a proposal much like the Hansen one and I understand that a senator has one that gets income from cap and trade system and then distributes most of money as suggested by Hansen, but holes back something like a quarter to work on non-CO2 greenhouse gases (just to note that CO2 only contributes about half of the 21st century warming influence of 21st century emissions—of course CO2 warming influence goes much longer due to long lifetime). At some point, it is going to be understood that geoengineering is also something to be considered, and I understand some government sponsored planning activities are underway. Thus, things have gone a good way beyond Jim Hansen’s proposal (that is, it has led to some legislative proposals, and some do keep some back for various purposes—some for R&D, some for help to developing nations, some for dealing with other gases, etc.--and it is for this reason, that is, the dilution of the signal to the consumer, that Jim has seemed to be holding fast to a 100% rebate).
Mike
On 10/19/09 11:31 AM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
[snipped, PR]
kangarooistan
On Oct 22, 7:07 am, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> Thanks for the news of French activity. It is good to hear that people are seriously considering ataxoncarbon. I would want it as close to source as possible - ideally at the well or mineshaft! The important thing is that it should apply to all fossil fuel - whoever uses it - so that all thecarbonthat goes into the atmosphere gets taken out again (and preferably a bit more taken out, so that the CO2 level is forced down).
> I am afraid that thetaxhas to hit consumers, in order that they pay for the environmental damage to be undone, and reduce their fuel consumption. But the levy would be ramped up over at least ten years, by say 10 Euros per year,
Why not simply add used tin cans to the ocean and CURE global warming
for FREE
Why not grow most of our food in the ocean , it has 97% of the earths
water , its now clear that increased irrigation has led to reduced run
off of iron rich water into the oceans , this has led to a collapse of
algae and plankton that eat algae and a complete collapse of life in
oceans except near those few rivers still able to fertilize the nearby
oceans with iron
the recent dust storms off eastern Australia will PROVE that adding
small amounts of Iron can restore health to vast areas of barren ocean
seas , and the massive increase in sea life seen near old metal ships
sunken as artificial reefs , can be created using any waste iron even
used tin cans are EXACTLY the same as tiny battle ships to fish and
algae
at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgk9t7p_168gvc7dzg8
Why try and live off the 1 % that is available as fresh water
why not simply add used tin cans to the sea and grow 10 times the food
we could ever eat for free and stop wasting the little fresh water we
have trying to feed the world on the scarce 1% of fresh water and
hardly touching the 97% in the oceans
the oceans have been starved of iron since we stopped the rivers from
naturally adding / fertilizing the oceans with dissolved iron like
nature planned
We stopped iron fertilization by irrigation
we can fertilize the oceans with used tin cans for free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#The_role_of_iron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Carbon_sequestration
Once the public discover that all they need to do is add used tin cans
to the sea and it will grow enough algae to cure global warming as
well as feed 100 billion people all at NIL cost the experts living off
the carbon tax scam will all be out of work where they all belong
Used tin cans will save the world , from global warming and food
shortages for FREE
population control , or carbon tax or emission controls wont cure
global warming , its too late now to even think
control , we need a "fix" in weeks not decades , tin cans added to the
sea would cure global arming in weeks and food security in months ,
its that simple , add your tin cans to the sea NOW , it costs nothing
and it works , fish numbers explode in days and live inside the old
tin cans till
they get bigger , rather than getting eaten as eggs by other fish
Prawns like many fish have over a million babies each , most get
eaten as day old
micro plankton before they grow , unless they can hide inside an old
tin
can where the algae grows , in a free prawn nursery , YUM prawn
plagues
sound great to me , Ill lite the BBQ , you toss out the tinnies
the world population WILL almost certainly increase 4 fold in the
next 100 years as it did in the last 100 years , fish will be cheaper
than rice to grow
100 years ago they laughed at the possibility of feeding 6 billion
people , adding tin cans to the oceans could feed100 billion people
easily
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
The public will sooner or later discover the cure to both global
warming and future food supply is Algae and tin cans
its far far too simple for the experts to discover , or ADMIT
try it yourself , why pay carbon tax to the ruling elites when used
tin cans will remove all the excess carbon for FREE in months
it works
its free
"Tincanistan "
kangarooistan
=============
1] Saltwater oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice
caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and
ponds 0.6%. Some of the Earth's water is contained within water
towers, biological bodies, manufactured products, and food stores.
Other water is trapped in ice caps, glaciers, aquifers, or in lakes,
sometimes providing fresh water for life on land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
You only need examine where iron run off enters the ocean to prove it
increases fish 100 fold
Port lincoln is Australias largest fishing fleet , wall to wall
millionaires working a few weeks a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Lincoln,_South_Australia
they get the run off from Whyalla iron works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyalla,_South_Australia
The Colorado River enters the Gulf California and dies exactly as
predicted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_California
Any test with tin cans will always increase fish 100 fold
It really is that simple
: "Tincanistan " adding used tin cans to the sea will cure global
warming and feed the world for free on prawns and sea food ten times
over , all by simply adding used tin cans to the oceans as slow
release iron fertilizer and zooplankton nursery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp_farm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#The_role_of_iron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Carbon_sequestration
Even if I don't get many votes, they will flow on to the green left
It will help save 16,000 babies from dying every day from starvation
using your old empty tin food cans , once the experts try and demolish
my platform they will be forced to at least examine it , I know it
works , and nothing else comes close
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
And save you billions in wasted "carbon taxes" that will never ever
help global warming , and then we will need less meat so saving lots
of water , a kg of red meat takes vast amounts of fresh water and
adds vast amounts of greenhouse gas
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:hHz3xv-YcpYJ:www.vegsoc.org.au/do...
Seafood uses nil fresh water , why keep trying to feed the world on
less than 1% of earths water that is fresh , 97% is oceans
http://www.austmus.gov.au/factSheets/water_use.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
global warming will be cured in 4 weeks once everybody adds one kg of
used tin food cans to the oceans , and starvation will end a few
months later as the prawns grow in a few months
lite the BBQ , free prawns all round , just BYO empty tinnies, for
the baby prawn nursery and slow release iron fertilization
Peter Read
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.21/2445 - Release Date: 10/19/09 06:40:00
John Nissen
Just a few comments.
Gordon Brown is advocating that the UN takes a working figure of $100 billion per year by 2020:
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1627
Wouldn't it be fantastic to spend, say 10% of that on a mix of techniques including CCS, afforestation, other carbon stock management methods and solar radiation management? The spending could be ramped up in ten $10 billion steps over ten years. Initial spending would be on the most critical things - probably halting retreat of Arctic sea ice and saving the Amazon rainforest.
BTW, I'm not sure where reducing carbon soot comes. But I believe it is a byproduct of CCS applied to coal-fuelled power generation. It is a key element in halting the retreat of Arctic sea ice, according to Tim Lenton (in a conversation John Gorman and I had with him at the Royal Society geoengineering report launch).
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
Peter Read
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.28/2454 - Release Date: 10/23/09 14:09:00