Michael and list
See inserts below.
On Nov 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron et al,
>
> One way to work around the upcoming dismantlement of climate mitigation work
> is to couch the work as a form of economic expansion, which is a cornerstone
> of the Rep. party platform. Fortunately, biochar, olivine, industrial agro
> improvements in general as well as marine BECCS can all be rightfully couched
> as economic expansion projects. This is a realpolitik approach which will
> allow those in the party, who actually do understand the science of climate
> change, to support climate change mitigation while not outing themselves to
> the extreme (simple minded) faction within their party.
[RWL: All true, but few of “those in the party” are going to be
willing to seem to be supporting anything related to mitigation. After all,
the person (Sen. James Inhofe) with the most possible legislative power to
support mitigation is adamant that there is no problem. And if there was, God
would take care of it anyway.
>
> The profit potential of the above mentioned mitigation concepts is
> substantial and thus the profit motivation can potentially attract support
> from the extreme faction much like a hungry predator is attracted to rotten
> meat hung in a tree. Viewed from this perspective, this election outcome is
> not as bleak as one might first imagine.
[RWL: Agreed there may be some of that, but ny hope is that a few
countries (or citizens of those countries) will say they are thinking of a
boycott of all US manufactured goods. There might be a few R’s that would
worry about that. Past boycotts have helped change a few beliefs.
>
> Also, I would highly recommend that any and all mitigation project not be
> designed to be reliant on governmental money for long term operations simply
> due to the unpredictable nature of politics. As such, those mitigation
> projects which can become economically self supporting, from the start, may
> actually have a substantial advantage over those mitigation projects which
> can not find a market niche which will support the work over the long run.
> This economic self reliance factor was a strong influence on the initial
> IMBECS Protocol work. I’m confidant that the work on biochar can also adapt
> to these political whims.
[RWL: Thanks for a chance to make a plug. Save for a few being
helped by small voluntary credits, most biochar companies are already now
operating in that non-governmental-funding manner. I am afraid I don’t know of
any other “geo” approach with existing and growing sales. That is happening
because biochar seems to be the only geo approach that can be viewed as a long
term investment with energy output, not energy input, and with income from
continuing out-year soil improvements. Both those advantages are independent
of non-conflicting atmospheric improvement. To add to the recent BECCS
comments by yourself and Drs. Rau and Schulling, BECCS’ claimed advantage of
larger energy output and first year carbon sequestration potential fails to
take account of these out-year atmospheric and non-atmospheric-financial
attributes. And if BECCS somehow takes off, biochar can precede it for at
least some of the electrical and thermal markets.
Going back to the main changed-politics theme of this short thread:
the good news could be that many R votes are from farmers and rural America.
They are beginning to understand the importance to their pocketbooks of the ASE
(Atmospheric, Soil, and Energy) advantages of biochar as a whole new way to
think about Ag and Forest land. The US ethanol program has had bi-partisan
support.
Still talking to non-US list members, I can also report that several
pundits have noted that we are now in a situation where D’s and R’s are likely
to split the Executive and Legislative responsibilities for a long time -
because of our Electoral College system of electing a President. The D’s have
a big advantage every four years. They also have a future advantage with
future votes from today’s youth. From a climate action perspective, all is not
lost.
Ron
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:54:45 PM UTC-8, Ron wrote:
> List:
>
> My guess is that climate-related funding and action in the US has
> been set back by at least two years because of the US election results that
> are now in. I was amazed at what has happened - and have no insights as to
> why it happened. Much blame being placed on Obama - which seems unfair,
> since his views seem mostly to be those of a majority of the electorate. I
> have heard not one view that it had something to do with secret “dark” money
> - but suspect that was influential.
>
> I think those of us in the US would appreciate hearing guidance on
> how to get R’s to change their views on the seriousness of our looming
> climate mess. I have heard nothing that is working on how to convince
> deniers. Today’s sweep will make the job even harder.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
