<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:04:01 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Lewis</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-23092</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-23092</guid>
		<description>A professor Keith at the University of Calgary has a pilot plant that removes CO2 from ordinary university air that costs 100 kwhr of electricity to remove one tonne of CO2.  100 kwhr of electricity where I live, retail, costs $7.  

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/september2008/keith-carboncapture

But I think we should all run around like chickens with our heads cut off proclaiming James Hansen is a jerk because he can&#039;t flesh out to Romm&#039;s satisfaction how it is that civilization could possibly stabilize the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at 325- 350 ppm.  No new technology will ever be developed, no new political will will ever develop, no one cares, and nothing will be done, other than exactly what Romm thinks is possible in today&#039;s political environment.  So make sure you don&#039;t read about the prof in Calgary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A professor Keith at the University of Calgary has a pilot plant that removes CO2 from ordinary university air that costs 100 kwhr of electricity to remove one tonne of CO2.  100 kwhr of electricity where I live, retail, costs $7.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/september2008/keith-carboncapture" rel="nofollow">http://www.ucalgary.ca/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>news/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>september2008/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>keith-carboncapture</a></p>
<p>But I think we should all run around like chickens with our heads cut off proclaiming James Hansen is a jerk because he can&#8217;t flesh out to Romm&#8217;s satisfaction how it is that civilization could possibly stabilize the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at 325- 350 ppm.  No new technology will ever be developed, no new political will will ever develop, no one cares, and nothing will be done, other than exactly what Romm thinks is possible in today&#8217;s political environment.  So make sure you don&#8217;t read about the prof in Calgary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark in MN</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-22578</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark in MN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-22578</guid>
		<description>What a load of BS!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a load of BS!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21988</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21988</guid>
		<description>Jonas --- I&#039;m all in favor of biochar sequestration, but suggest assisting by enhanced mineral weathering.  I posted some links in this thread earlier.  My cost estimates start at $140 per tonne of carbon removed and then drop (for several reasons) to about half that.  Others think that it can be done for only $35 per tonne of carbon removed.  I hope so, but am dubious.

In any case, this appears much less expensive, eventually, than even the most optimistic estimates for coal-based CCS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jonas &#8212; I&#8217;m all in favor of biochar sequestration, but suggest assisting by enhanced mineral weathering.  I posted some links in this thread earlier.  My cost estimates start at $140 per tonne of carbon removed and then drop (for several reasons) to about half that.  Others think that it can be done for only $35 per tonne of carbon removed.  I hope so, but am dubious.</p>
<p>In any case, this appears much less expensive, eventually, than even the most optimistic estimates for coal-based CCS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonas</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21982</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21982</guid>
		<description>The reason why Romm (and others at Gristmill) are afraid of the 350 number, is because it means a massive investment in carbon-negative bioenergy, that is: biomass electricity coupled to CCS, biohydrogen coupled to CCS, and biochar. All bio that is, and not so much wind or solar or geothermal.

This is so because these bioenergy technologies can yield carbon-negative energy, whereas the weak renewables only yield carbon-neutral energy and thus won&#039;t do (they won&#039;t do because we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and wind, solar and geothermal don&#039;t do that; negative emissions bioenergy does.)

Read Hansen&#039;s text, page 227 (the key passage of the text, called &quot;Policy Relevance&quot; of this article - not mentioned by Romm, because it&#039;s all &quot;bio&quot;).

    Desire to reduce airborne CO2 raises the question of whether CO2 could be drawn from the air artificially. There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, but with strong research and development support and industrial scale pilot projects sustained over decades it may be possible to achieve costs ~$200/tC or perhaps less. At $200/tC, the cost of removing 50 ppm of CO2 is ~$20 trillion.

    Improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2. Deforestation contributed a net emission of 60±30 ppm over the past few hundred years, of which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today.

    Reforestation could absorb a substantial fraction of the 60±30 ppm net deforestation emission.

    Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing carbon for centuries to millennia. Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N2O. Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2 drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century.

    [In the Supplementary Material Section] we define a forest/ soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150. This scenario returns CO2 below 350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level.

    More rapid drawdown could be provided by CO2 capture at power plants fueled by gas and biofuels [that is: carbon-negative bioenergy - biomass power plants coupled to CCS]. Low-input high-diversity biofuels grown on degraded or marginal lands, with associated biochar production, could accelerate CO2 drawdown, but the nature of a biofuel approach must be carefully designed.

    A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality. A 50 ppm drawdown via agricultural and forestry practices seems plausible. But if most of the CO2 in coal is put into the air, no such &quot;natural&quot; drawdown of CO2 to 350 ppm is feasible. Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim.

Romm is uncomfortable with Hansen&#039;s message, because it implies a massive investment in bioenergy - the type of renewable that Romm, for some bizarre reason, can&#039;t stand.

Anything less than a 350 aim means you&#039;re a fake green.

Check the guys who take Hansen&#039;s message serious: November 10, 2008:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://biopact.com/2008/11/scientis-suggest-carbon-dioxide-levels.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scientists suggest carbon dioxide levels already in danger zone - urge investments in carbon-negative energy, biochar&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason why Romm (and others at Gristmill) are afraid of the 350 number, is because it means a massive investment in carbon-negative bioenergy, that is: biomass electricity coupled to CCS, biohydrogen coupled to CCS, and biochar. All bio that is, and not so much wind or solar or geothermal.</p>
<p>This is so because these bioenergy technologies can yield carbon-negative energy, whereas the weak renewables only yield carbon-neutral energy and thus won&#8217;t do (they won&#8217;t do because we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and wind, solar and geothermal don&#8217;t do that; negative emissions bioenergy does.)</p>
<p>Read Hansen&#8217;s text, page 227 (the key passage of the text, called &#8220;Policy Relevance&#8221; of this article &#8211; not mentioned by Romm, because it&#8217;s all &#8220;bio&#8221;).</p>
<p>    Desire to reduce airborne CO2 raises the question of whether CO2 could be drawn from the air artificially. There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, but with strong research and development support and industrial scale pilot projects sustained over decades it may be possible to achieve costs ~$200/tC or perhaps less. At $200/tC, the cost of removing 50 ppm of CO2 is ~$20 trillion.</p>
<p>    Improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2. Deforestation contributed a net emission of 60±30 ppm over the past few hundred years, of which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today.</p>
<p>    Reforestation could absorb a substantial fraction of the 60±30 ppm net deforestation emission.</p>
<p>    Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing carbon for centuries to millennia. Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N2O. Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2 drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century.</p>
<p>    [In the Supplementary Material Section] we define a forest/ soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150. This scenario returns CO2 below 350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level.</p>
<p>    More rapid drawdown could be provided by CO2 capture at power plants fueled by gas and biofuels [that is: carbon-negative bioenergy - biomass power plants coupled to CCS]. Low-input high-diversity biofuels grown on degraded or marginal lands, with associated biochar production, could accelerate CO2 drawdown, but the nature of a biofuel approach must be carefully designed.</p>
<p>    A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality. A 50 ppm drawdown via agricultural and forestry practices seems plausible. But if most of the CO2 in coal is put into the air, no such &#8220;natural&#8221; drawdown of CO2 to 350 ppm is feasible. Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim.</p>
<p>Romm is uncomfortable with Hansen&#8217;s message, because it implies a massive investment in bioenergy &#8211; the type of renewable that Romm, for some bizarre reason, can&#8217;t stand.</p>
<p>Anything less than a 350 aim means you&#8217;re a fake green.</p>
<p>Check the guys who take Hansen&#8217;s message serious: November 10, 2008:<br />
<a href="http://biopact.com/2008/11/scientis-suggest-carbon-dioxide-levels.html" rel="nofollow">Scientists suggest carbon dioxide levels already in danger zone &#8211; urge investments in carbon-negative energy, biochar</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EcoSapiens</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21960</link>
		<dc:creator>EcoSapiens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21960</guid>
		<description>Amidst the scale of the challenges and inadequate political and social response, there are a few encouraging signs of change in Wales, UK that indicate what might just be possible with a fair wind.

We now have the first few public sector organisations looking at the implications of a 9% annual reduction in CO2 levels, and Jane Davidson, Wales&#039; minister for Envt Sustainability &amp; Housing has asked all National Parks (which represent 20% of our land area) to work through 3, 6 &amp; 9% reduction sceanrios. Discussions have also started around the potential for a country-wide shift to Cradle to Cradle production and to ways of embedding national food security within ten to fifteen years.  This small country was the crucible of the first industrial revolution - let&#039;s hope it can provide a low carbon, zero landfill template for the next one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amidst the scale of the challenges and inadequate political and social response, there are a few encouraging signs of change in Wales, UK that indicate what might just be possible with a fair wind.</p>
<p>We now have the first few public sector organisations looking at the implications of a 9% annual reduction in CO2 levels, and Jane Davidson, Wales&#8217; minister for Envt Sustainability &amp; Housing has asked all National Parks (which represent 20% of our land area) to work through 3, 6 &amp; 9% reduction sceanrios. Discussions have also started around the potential for a country-wide shift to Cradle to Cradle production and to ways of embedding national food security within ten to fifteen years.  This small country was the crucible of the first industrial revolution &#8211; let&#8217;s hope it can provide a low carbon, zero landfill template for the next one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Merkel</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21951</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Merkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21951</guid>
		<description>John: I have a little bet on &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/27/lp-betting-agency-will-we-be-richer-in-2030/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;just this topic&lt;/A&gt;.  I&#039;m aware of the view that without fossil fuels our economy will just dry up, but I just don&#039;t buy it, myself.

Joe: fair enough, but fraction of GDP isn&#039;t a terrible proxy for the amount of intellectual and physical effort we put into.  

David: I certainly hope I&#039;ve overestimated.  But I was trying to take a very conservative approach to how much the kind of change Joe thinks (and I agree) is necessary, might possibly cost, and show that the effort won&#039;t necessitate anything like the privations endured during WWII.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John: I have a little bet on <a HREF="http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/27/lp-betting-agency-will-we-be-richer-in-2030/" rel="nofollow">just this topic</a>.  I&#8217;m aware of the view that without fossil fuels our economy will just dry up, but I just don&#8217;t buy it, myself.</p>
<p>Joe: fair enough, but fraction of GDP isn&#8217;t a terrible proxy for the amount of intellectual and physical effort we put into.  </p>
<p>David: I certainly hope I&#8217;ve overestimated.  But I was trying to take a very conservative approach to how much the kind of change Joe thinks (and I agree) is necessary, might possibly cost, and show that the effort won&#8217;t necessitate anything like the privations endured during WWII.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erich J. Knight</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21950</link>
		<dc:creator>Erich J. Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21950</guid>
		<description>The Rest of the Biochar Story:

Charles Mann (&quot;1491&quot;)in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which  places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
I think Biochar has climbed the pinnacle, the Combined English and other language circulation of NGM is nearly nine million monthly with more than fifty million readers monthly!
We need to encourage more coverage now, to ride Mann&#039;s coattails to public critical mass.

Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague&#039;s ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text

I love the &quot;MEGO&quot; factor theme Mann built the story around. Lord... how I KNOW that reaction.

I like his characterization concerning the pot shards found in Terra Preta soils;

so filled with pottery - &quot;It was as if the river&#039;s first inhabitants had
thrown a huge, rowdy frat party, smashing every plate in sight, then
buried the evidence.&quot;

A couple of researchers I was not aware of were quoted, and I&#039;ll be sending them posts about our Biochar group:    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/b...guid=122501696

 and data base;
 http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node



I also have been trying to convince Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story, with pleading emails to him


Since the NGM cover reads &quot;WHERE FOOD BEGINS&quot; , I thought this would be right down his alley and focus more attention on Mann&#039;s work.

I&#039;ve admiried his ability since &quot;Botany of Desire&quot; to over come the &quot;MEGO&quot; factor (My Eyes Glaze Over) and make food &amp; agriculture into page turners.

It&#039;s what Mann hasn&#039;t covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article.

The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar in the 07 farm bill,

Dr, James Hansen&#039;s Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference last month, and coming article in Science,
 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

The many new university programs &amp; field studies, in temperate soils

Glomalin&#039;s role in soil tilth &amp; Terra Preta,

The International Biochar Initiative Conference Sept 8 in New Castle;
http://www.biochar-international.org/ibi2008conference/aboutibi2008conference.html


Given the current &quot;Crisis&quot; atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!

This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane &amp; N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration.


Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Erich
540 289 9750</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Rest of the Biochar Story:</p>
<p>Charles Mann (&#8221;1491&#8243;)in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which  places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.<br />
I think Biochar has climbed the pinnacle, the Combined English and other language circulation of NGM is nearly nine million monthly with more than fifty million readers monthly!<br />
We need to encourage more coverage now, to ride Mann&#8217;s coattails to public critical mass.</p>
<p>Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague&#8217;s ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire.<br />
<a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text" rel="nofollow">http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text</a></p>
<p>I love the &#8220;MEGO&#8221; factor theme Mann built the story around. Lord&#8230; how I KNOW that reaction.</p>
<p>I like his characterization concerning the pot shards found in Terra Preta soils;</p>
<p>so filled with pottery &#8211; &#8220;It was as if the river&#8217;s first inhabitants had<br />
thrown a huge, rowdy frat party, smashing every plate in sight, then<br />
buried the evidence.&#8221;</p>
<p>A couple of researchers I was not aware of were quoted, and I&#8217;ll be sending them posts about our Biochar group:    <a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/b...guid=122501696" rel="nofollow">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/b&#8230;guid=122501696</a></p>
<p> and data base;<br />
 <a href="http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node" rel="nofollow">http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node</a></p>
<p>I also have been trying to convince Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story, with pleading emails to him</p>
<p>Since the NGM cover reads &#8220;WHERE FOOD BEGINS&#8221; , I thought this would be right down his alley and focus more attention on Mann&#8217;s work.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve admiried his ability since &#8220;Botany of Desire&#8221; to over come the &#8220;MEGO&#8221; factor (My Eyes Glaze Over) and make food &amp; agriculture into page turners.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s what Mann hasn&#8217;t covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article.</p>
<p>The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar in the 07 farm bill,</p>
<p>Dr, James Hansen&#8217;s Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference last month, and coming article in Science,<br />
 <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>ftp/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>arxiv/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>papers/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>0804/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>0804.1126.pdf</a></p>
<p>The many new university programs &amp; field studies, in temperate soils</p>
<p>Glomalin&#8217;s role in soil tilth &amp; Terra Preta,</p>
<p>The International Biochar Initiative Conference Sept 8 in New Castle;<br />
<a href="http://www.biochar-international.org/ibi2008conference/aboutibi2008conference.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.biochar-international.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>ibi2008conference/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>aboutibi2008conference.html</a></p>
<p>Given the current &#8220;Crisis&#8221; atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?<br />
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!</p>
<p>This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.<br />
Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane &amp; N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration.</p>
<p>Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.</p>
<p>Erich<br />
540 289 9750</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21934</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21934</guid>
		<description>Because if we don&#039;t, the bogs will do us in:

&quot;Global Warming Predicted To Hasten Carbon Release From Peat Bogs&quot;:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106122249.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because if we don&#8217;t, the bogs will do us in:</p>
<p>&#8220;Global Warming Predicted To Hasten Carbon Release From Peat Bogs&#8221;:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106122249.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>releases/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2008/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>11/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>081106122249.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21925</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21925</guid>
		<description>Robert Merkel --- Your estimate of the cost of removing carbon dioxide is about a factor of ten too high.  Enhanced weathering of (certain) minerals permanently removes the carbon dioxide, is completely natural and safe.

Olivine weathering:

ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/pub/posters/2008/Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_the_earth-Schuiling_June2008.pdf
http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2003/c03016.pdf

&quot;Rocks Could Be Harnessed To Sponge Vast Amounts Of Carbon Dioxide From Air&quot;:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081105180813.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert Merkel &#8212; Your estimate of the cost of removing carbon dioxide is about a factor of ten too high.  Enhanced weathering of (certain) minerals permanently removes the carbon dioxide, is completely natural and safe.</p>
<p>Olivine weathering:</p>
<p><a href="ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/pub/posters/2008/Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_the_earth-Schuiling_June2008.pdf" rel="nofollow">ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>pub/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>posters/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2008/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_the_earth-Schuiling_June2008.pdf</a><br />
<a href="http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2003/c03016.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecn.nl/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>docs/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>library/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>report/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2003/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>c03016.pdf</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Rocks Could Be Harnessed To Sponge Vast Amounts Of Carbon Dioxide From Air&#8221;:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081105180813.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>releases/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2008/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>11/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>081105180813.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21911</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/09/stabilize-at-350-ppm-or-risk-ice-free-planet-warn-nasa-yale-sheffield-versailles-boston-et-al/#comment-21911</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;JR: No. The inland glaciers are not the sole source of water for those 2.5 billion people. 
True enough, but the glaciers feed the main rivers in the region, which &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; an important part of the other source of water. And they are using up their aquifers at an alarming rate, although there have been some beginning efforts to harness the monsoons with rainwater harvesting in some provinces (see &lt;i&gt;When the Rivers Run Dry&lt;/i&gt; by Fred Pearce for one recent source on all of this). And they are also polluting existing sources of water at an alarming rate.
&gt;&gt;Also, remember, part of their function is to act as a reservoir, to store Precipitation in the form of snow.
Yes, that is one reason why they are so useful. but what happens when there is no--or too little--snow? If the glaciers disappear, it will be because it will rain rather than snow (to the extent that there is precipitation at all--and who knows how precipitation will be affected?). I don&#039;t know what is happening in the Himilayas w/r/t snow (I can guess), but snowmelt has been diminishing in the Rockies, as well as coming earlier. And of course, dams to store the water won&#039;t be much help if it continues to warm--evaporation will see to that (cf. the predictions about Lake Mead effectively going dry by 2020).

I know, I need to get in touch with my inherited Jewish belief in miracles rather than--or at least in addition to--our deep-seated sense of imminent doom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;JR: No. The inland glaciers are not the sole source of water for those 2.5 billion people.<br />
True enough, but the glaciers feed the main rivers in the region, which <i>are</i> an important part of the other source of water. And they are using up their aquifers at an alarming rate, although there have been some beginning efforts to harness the monsoons with rainwater harvesting in some provinces (see <i>When the Rivers Run Dry</i> by Fred Pearce for one recent source on all of this). And they are also polluting existing sources of water at an alarming rate.<br />
&gt;&gt;Also, remember, part of their function is to act as a reservoir, to store Precipitation in the form of snow.<br />
Yes, that is one reason why they are so useful. but what happens when there is no&#8211;or too little&#8211;snow? If the glaciers disappear, it will be because it will rain rather than snow (to the extent that there is precipitation at all&#8211;and who knows how precipitation will be affected?). I don&#8217;t know what is happening in the Himilayas w/r/t snow (I can guess), but snowmelt has been diminishing in the Rockies, as well as coming earlier. And of course, dams to store the water won&#8217;t be much help if it continues to warm&#8211;evaporation will see to that (cf. the predictions about Lake Mead effectively going dry by 2020).</p>
<p>I know, I need to get in touch with my inherited Jewish belief in miracles rather than&#8211;or at least in addition to&#8211;our deep-seated sense of imminent doom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
