Skip navigation
18comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Anita Talberg

Apr 6, 2014
11:14

Fellow


1 |
Share via:
michael123, thanks for your proposal. It is clear that you are passionate about this and keen to generate some interest around your idea. Is it possible for you to clarify a few points on your proposal, and especially to refine your idea around the contest question. For the purposes of the contest, which focusses on governance, it is useful to black-box your actual technology and just assume that it is a marine-based proposal that occurs in the one of the major oceanic gyres and interacts with the marine ecosystem to produce several products, one of which is biofuel. Is this a fair simplification? It would helpful if you explained how your technology is carbon negative. Are emissions from the use of the marine bioenergy captured and stored? Can you please elaborate on this? On governance, there are a few questions that arise with your idea and it would be useful to have your views on these. Below are a select few of these questions. Firstly, your proposal takes place in the open seas, which is under no national jurisdiction. This area is generally governed by international treaties, such as the London Convention (which is also known as the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972) and particularly the London Protocol to that convention. A recent amendment to that treaty regulates marine geoengineering. See this media release for information on the amendment: http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/45-marine-geoengieneering.aspx#.U0Hz-cdgyao Can you provide more detail as to if and how international treaties might affect your proposal? Secondly, let's assume that your proposal went forward, a major research program was undertaken and shortly after this there was some adverse environmental impact--for example, fish stocks declined in neighbouring waters or weather patterns were altered because of changed ocean temperatures. Your proposal might be blamed for this and this could lead to geopolitical tension. What safeguards do you propose for this? Thirdly, in the section "Who will take these actions?" you suggest that organisations would carry out the work and that international participation would support technology transfer and cooperation with civil society being consulted in evaluation of the science. Is it correct that you expect private companies to champion this idea? If so, do you think they should be able to patent the technology? If so, what mechanisms do you propose to promote technology transfer? Fourth, another impact of increased atmospheric carbon concentration is ocean acidification. Does your proposal increase or reduce ocean acidification and do you think an appropriate governance regime should address this? Clarification on these fronts would help in evaluating your proposal.

Michael Hayes

Apr 18, 2014
05:55

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
The response is long and, due to the need for links, requires that I post using another format. I've posted the contents below and also posted the response within (and at the end of) the draft paper on LSM. michael123, thanks for your proposal. It is clear that you are passionate about this and keen to generate some interest around your idea. Is it possible for you to clarify a few points on your proposal, and especially to refine your idea around the contest question. For the purposes of the contest, which focusses on governance, it is useful to black-box your actual technology and just assume that it is a marine-based proposal that occurs in the one of the major oceanic gyres and interacts with the marine ecosystem to produce several products, one of which is biofuel. Is this a fair simplification? Yes; The concept is primarily one of economics rather than technology. Biofuel needs to be subsidized to be competitive with FFs and the profits from the non-fuel commodities can provide the needed subsidy. This proposal also provides for the vast scale of cultivation/production needed for biofuel to be truly competitive at the global scale. All technical aspects of this proposal are, in fact, currently being used on a less than vast scale. This proposal explores the deployment of known technologies on a globally significant scale. The value of LSM, as a form of GE governance, is within its' ability to replace FFs on a global scale using a graduated deployment regiment. It would helpful if you explained how your technology is carbon negative. Are emissions from the use of the marine bioenergy captured and stored? Can you please elaborate on this? As to the carbon negative issue; The production of organic fertilizer, which utilizes both biochar and other LSM production 'wastes' streams is the primary carbon negative path. By transferring the biochar/marine organics into the industrial agricultural setting, the oceanic carbon will contribute to further CO2 sequestration through the soil fungi/root interaction. Also, in the production of biochar there is the production of CO2 and soot which is fed back into the microalgal cultivation and the energy generated by the pyrolysis of the algal waste will be used in the biorefinery to process a wide spectrum of commodities. Marine BECCS not just recycles captured CO2 but also stores much of the non-recycled CO2 in a form (Biochar) which produces further sequestration within land crops. On governance, there are a few questions that arise with your idea and it would be useful to have your views on these. Below are a select few of these questions. Firstly, your proposal takes place in the open seas, which is under no national jurisdiction. This area is generally governed by international treaties, such as the London Convention (which is also known as the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972) and particularly the London Protocol to that convention. A recent amendment to that treaty regulates marine geoengineering. See this media release for information on the amendment:http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/45-marine-geoengieneering.aspx#.U0Hz-cdgyao Can you provide more detail as to if and how international treaties might affect your proposal?Yes, I'm aware of this recent IMO development and the LSM concept is, in some ways, designed specifically with the IMO/LC/LP in mind (as well as the current changes within the CBD). The amendment was in direct response to ocean iron fertilization (OIF). Yet, the LSM concept does not use any type of 'dumping' and all aspects of the cultivation will be used. This permaculture approach to cultivation is well known in small scale agriculture and is adaptable to the Marine BEECS (LSM) cultivation method(s). Also, the LSM concept is closely related to the 'Circular Economy' concept which encourages the use of all waste. There is, however, the issue of thermal changes within the Gyres induced by the LSM installations. These changes can be purposeful or simply passive in nature. The science and technology used in the monitoring of the ENSO can be directly employed in the monitoring of the LSM deployment. Such detailed monitoring has significant importance at the socioeconomic level as the STCZs are the spawning grounds of superstorms. The LSM installations can play an important role in decreasing the severity of superstorms, if, at the policy level, such actions are called for. It is important to note and to keep in mind that, the primary geoengineering aspect of LSM is the replacement of FFs at a global scale. All other benefits of LSM are secondary. Secondly, let's assume that your proposal went forward, a major research program was undertaken and shortly after this there was some adverse environmental impact--for example, fish stocks declined in neighbouring waters or weather patterns were altered because of changed ocean temperatures. Your proposal might be blamed for this and this could lead to geopolitical tension. What safeguards do you propose for this? In simple words, starting small and monitor during growth is the rational way to approach any large scale global warming mitigation method. If a mitigation technology can not be deployed in this precautionary way, it should be set aside. Further, LSM has the ability to be dispersed (which negates any extensive surface water thermal effects) and the use of the STCZ is purposefully employed to avoid significant impact on or interaction with any established ecosystem. As to geopolitical tension, the open source nature of LSM sets up the scenario which allows all nations to be energy independent. Clearly, there are invested interests which will not want to see this widespread energy abundance come about. Yet, short of unethical manipulation of the IMO/LC/LP, there is little the vested interests can do to put this genie back in the bottle. The primary question we should be asking is; How easy is it to manipulate the IMO/CDB? Thirdly, in the section 'Who will take these actions?' you suggest that organisations would carry out the work and that international participation would support technology transfer and cooperation with civil society being consulted in evaluation of the science. Is it correct that you expect private companies to champion this idea? If so, do you think they should be able to patent the technology? If so, what mechanisms do you propose to promote technology transfer? All technical aspects of the LSM concept are already being used at one scale or another. I'm convinced that the LSM concept is non-patentable as floating tank farms are a well known in the marine engineering arts and the cultivation/processing/refinement aspects are also well within known science and engineering arts. Scale, typically, is not patentable. If, on the other hand, the thermal aspects are patentable, I recommend that the patent be made available to all nations as long as basic environmental rules and regulations are adopted and practiced. The IMO/CBD combination (which are currently working closely on developing GE constraints) may be the proper arbitrator of such conditional practices. If not, the patent should be entrusted to a special non-profit organization formed specifically to administer and exert overriding contractual control over the licensees. The competition prize will be used to further the intellectual property clarification and support presentation of this concept at the next CoP. Fourth, another impact of increased atmospheric carbon concentration is ocean acidification. Does your proposal increase or reduce ocean acidification and do you think an appropriate governance regime should address this? One interesting aspect of BECCS, in general, is the potential to 'overshot' current CDR goals. A recent paper explores a few of the aspects of BECCSs' 'over shooting'. The paper is: Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change Geoffrey Blanford, James Merrick, Richard Richels, Steven Rose In simple words, the carbon removal and sequestration ability of BECCS can be so aggressive that, potentially, widespread use will trigger a cooling trend. Marine BECCS (LSM) will draw CO2 directly from the nutricline water and thus would have a direct effect on ocean acidification. During the initial deployment phase, this will be negligible. At the 1.5M km2+ scale, the CO2 consumption of LSM operations would be globally significant. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that the primary goal of the LSM concept is to end the FF era. All other environmental aspects, regardless of the benefits or risks, are secondary. Without the global replacement of FFs, mitigating the damage of FF usage will result in generating the Moral Hazard. Supporting further use (and/or expansion of the use of FFs) is currently not viewed as scientifically, morally or ethically supportable. Mitigation of the damage caused by FF use, without replacement of FFs, is highly problematic at all levels. Clarification on these fronts would help in evaluating your proposal. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to offer the clarifications.

Michael Hayes

Apr 19, 2014
06:58

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Anita, I've refined my response and worked with the formatting to help increase the readability. The rework is below and can also be found at the end of the LSM draft. michael123, thanks for your proposal. It is clear that you are passionate about this and keen to generate some interest around your idea. Is it possible for you to clarify a few points on your proposal, and especially to refine your idea around the contest question. For the purposes of the contest, which focusses on governance, it is useful to black-box your actual technology and just assume that it is a marine-based proposal that occurs in the one of the major oceanic gyres and interacts with the marine ecosystem to produce several products, one of which is biofuel. Is this a fair simplification? Yes; The concept is primarily one of economics rather than technology. Biofuel needs to be subsidized to be competitive with FFs and the profits from the non-fuel commodities can provide the needed subsidy. This proposal also provides for the vast scale of cultivation/production needed for biofuel to be truly competitive at the global scale. All technical aspects of this proposal are, in fact, currently being used on a less than vast scale. This proposal explores the deployment of known technologies on a globally significant scale. The value of LSM, as a form of GE governance, is within its' ability to replace FFs on a global scale using a graduated deployment regiment. Once biofuels can be provided in the volume and with the price needed to supplant FFs, the production volume can be tied directly to the oceanic/atmospheric CO2 store. A simplified example would be; If global cooling begins due to the over consumption/sequestration of CO2 by the Marine BECCS/LSM operations, the production volume would be scaled back to achieve the desired oceanic/atmospheric CO2 levels. The command and control of such adjustments would be within a combined science based ‘IMO/CBD like’ international organization. The IMO/LC/LP/CBD matrix is, at this time, being coordinated to act in unison on the governance issue. The Marine BECCS/LSM operations would be a predictable and flexible mitigation tool for such a coordinated international meta-organization. It would helpful if you explained how your technology is carbon negative. Are emissions from the use of the marine bioenergy captured and stored? Can you please elaborate on this? As to the carbon negative issue; The production of organic fertilizer, which utilizes both biochar and other LSM production 'wastes' streams is the primary carbon negative path. By transferring the biochar/marine organics into the industrial agricultural setting, the oceanic carbon will contribute to further CO2 sequestration through the soil fungi/root interaction. The exact amount of CO2 within this terrestrial phase of sequestration is difficult to express in exact terms as there is a broad range of conditions and potential outcomes. In general, it can be fairly stated that a properly formulated organic fertilizer will produce multiple sequestration pathways with multiple sequestration outcomes. Also, in the pyrolytic production of biochar there is the production of CO2 and soot which would be fed back into the microalgal cultivation (both CO2 and dissolved inorganic carbon (ie. soot) are consumed within the microbial loop). There is the possibility that Marine BECCS/LSM may reach a point of efficiency which closes the nutrient loop much like what is found in permaculture practices. The importation of minerals (ie. olivine) would be the only aspect of production which can not be provided for on site. The energy generated by the pyrolysis of the biomass will be used by the biorefinery in conjunction with Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) to process a wide spectrum of commodities. Further, a large enough bioplastics production level would represent a form of sequestration. On governance, there are a few questions that arise with your idea and it would be useful to have your views on these. Below are a select few of these questions. Firstly, your proposal takes place in the open seas, which is under no national jurisdiction. This area is generally governed by international treaties, such as the London Convention (which is also known as the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972) and particularly the London Protocol to that convention. A recent amendment to that treaty regulates marine geoengineering. See this media release for information on the amendment:http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/45-marine-geoengieneering.aspx#.U0Hz-cdgyao Can you provide more detail as to if and how international treaties might affect your proposal? Yes, I'm aware of this recent IMO development and the LSM concept is, in some ways, designed specifically with the IMO/LC/LP in mind (as well as the current changes within the CBD). The amendment was in direct response to ocean iron fertilization (OIF). Yet, the LSM concept does not use any type of 'dumping' and all aspects of the cultivation will be used. This permaculture approach to cultivation is well known in small scale agriculture and is adaptable to the Marine BEECS/LSM cultivation method(s). Also, the LSM concept is closely related to the 'Circular Economy' concept which encourages the use of all waste. There is, however, the issue of thermal changes within the Gyres induced by the LSM installations. These changes can be purposeful or simply passive in nature. The science and technology used in the monitoring of the ENSO can be directly employed in the monitoring of the LSM deployment. Such detailed monitoring has significant importance at the socioeconomic level as the STCZs are the spawning grounds of superstorms. The LSM installations can play an important role in decreasing the severity of superstorms, if, at the policy level, such actions are called for. Unless there is a broad sociopolitical level of support for storm reduction, such actions would be avoided through dispersing the installations at such a range that the surface cooling effect is dissipated. It is important to keep in mind that, the primary geoengineering aspect of LSM is the replacement of FFs at a global scale. All other benefits of LSM are secondary. Secondly, let's assume that your proposal went forward, a major research program was undertaken and shortly after this there was some adverse environmental impact--for example, fish stocks declined in neighbouring waters or weather patterns were altered because of changed ocean temperatures. Your proposal might be blamed for this and this could lead to geopolitical tension. What safeguards do you propose for this? In simple words, starting small and monitor for environmental responses during expansion is the rational way to approach any large scale global warming mitigation method. If a mitigation technology can not be deployed in this precautionary way, it should be set aside. Further, LSM has the ability to be dispersed (which negates any extensive surface water thermal effects) and the use of the STCZ is purposefully employed to avoid significant impact on, or interaction with, any established ecosystem. As to geopolitical tension, the open source nature of LSM sets up the scenario which allows all nations to be energy independent. Clearly, there are invested interests which will not want to see this widespread energy abundance come about. Yet, short of unethical manipulation of the IMO/LC/LP/CBD, there is little the vested interests can do to put this genie back in the bottle. The primary question we should be asking is; How easy is it to manipulate the IMO/CDB? Thirdly, in the section 'Who will take these actions?' you suggest that organisations would carry out the work and that international participation would support technology transfer and cooperation with civil society being consulted in evaluation of the science. Is it correct that you expect private companies to champion this idea? If so, do you think they should be able to patent the technology? If so, what mechanisms do you propose to promote technology transfer? All technical aspects of the LSM concept are already being used at one scale or another. I'm convinced that the LSM concept is non-patentable as floating tank farms are a well known in the marine engineering arts and the cultivation/processing/refinement aspects are also well within known science and engineering arts. Scale, typically, is not patentable. If, on the other hand, the thermal aspects are patentable, I recommend that the patent be made available to all nations as long as basic environmental rules and regulations are adopted and practiced. The IMO/CBD combination (which are currently working closely on developing GE constraints) may be the proper arbitrator of such conditional practices. If not, the patent should be entrusted to a special non-profit organization formed specifically to administer and exert overriding contractual control over the licensees. The competition prize will be used to further the intellectual property clarification and support presentation of this concept and strategy at the next CoP. Fourth, another impact of increased atmospheric carbon concentration is ocean acidification. Does your proposal increase or reduce ocean acidification and do you think an appropriate governance regime should address this? One interesting aspect of BECCS, in general, is the potential to 'overshot' current CDR goals. A recent paper explores a few of the aspects of BECCSs' 'over shooting'. The paper is: Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change • Geoffrey Blanford, • James Merrick, • Richard Richels, • Steven Rose In simple words, the carbon removal and sequestration ability of BECCS can be so aggressive that, potentially, widespread use will trigger a cooling trend. Marine BECCS (LSM) will draw CO2 directly from the nutricline water and thus would have a direct effect on ocean acidification. During the initial deployment phase, this will be negligible. At the 1.5M km2+ scale, the CO2 consumption of LSM operations would be globally significant. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that the primary goal of the LSM concept is to end the FF era. All other environmental aspects, regardless of the benefits or risks, are secondary. Without the global replacement of FFs, mitigating the damage of FF usage will result in triggering the Moral Hazard. Supporting further use, and/or expansion of FF use, is currently not widely viewed as scientifically, morally or ethically supportable. Mitigation of the damage caused by FF use, without replacement of FFs, is highly problematic at all levels. Clarification on these fronts would help in evaluating your proposal. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to offer the clarifications.

Michael Hayes

May 10, 2014
06:27

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
The response to the initial questions from Anita have been revised and extended within the Draft. Please note revisions on pages 15-20 of the Draft. The IMO has responded to information request and a biofuel for FF barter is proposed.

Michael Hayes

May 13, 2014
06:06

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
This most recent revision introduces the concept of a Marine Covective Tower as a multi-functional adjuct to the LSM tank farms.

Michael Hayes

May 23, 2014
07:31

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I've made a change in my response to Anita's questions. The change in text is small yet it has significance at the technical governance level. The change is concerning scaling back the Marine Biochar production as a means of controlling global cooling. The text is below. "Once biofuels can be provided in the volume and at the price needed to supplant FFs, the production volume can be tied directly to the oceanic/atmospheric CO2 store. A simplified example would be; If global cooling begins due to the over consumption/sequestration of CO2 by the Marine BECCS/LSM operations, the production volume of only the Marine Biochar factor would be scaled back to achieve the desired oceanic/atmospheric CO2 levels. The command and control of such adjustments would be within a combined science based ‘IMO/CBD like’ international organization. The current IMO/LC/LP/CBD matrix is, at this time, being coordinated to act in unison on the oceanic GE governance issue.The Marine BECCS/LSM operations would be a predictable and flexible mitigation tool for such a coordinated international meta-organization.".

Michael Hayes

Jun 6, 2014
07:14

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
This revision to the entry form clarifies a few strategic governance issues. Also, the MBECCS concept has now been connected to two other CoLab contests.

Michael Hayes

Jun 10, 2014
08:57

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
This revision introduces the International Marine Bioenergy and Carbon Sequestration (IBECS) Protocol and Foundation construct.

Mark Johnson

Jun 10, 2014
09:40

Member


9 |
Share via:
Thank you Ms. Neetberg for your detailed, insightful comments and counter-arguments. Michael, you provided a SUPERB response to Ms. Neetberg - YOU ANSWERED THE MAIL! Just one thought please. The earth is comprised of 70% ocean, so based on current FF consumption (worldwide), how is the marine biomass potential transformed to meet demand? You both are at a very high level of competence. Mark.

Michael Hayes

Jun 14, 2014
05:31

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Mark, In simple terms, the marine cultivation of biomass is far more efficient than any terrestrial based cultivation of biomass. One acre of corn produces around 240 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Algal cultivation produces around 6K gallons. Thus, marine cultivation can reach a level of efficiency that the terrestrial cultivation method(s)simply can not compete with. Also, terrestrial cultivation operations typically produce a minor number of useful byproducts (if any). Yet, algal cultivation offers a wide spectrum of byproducts which can be used to supplement biofuel production costs. Also,and highly interestingly, there is a cultivation method which can eliminate the need for solar energy in micro-algal cultivation. Please see the following paper: http://jgp.rupress.org/content/26/2/241.full.pdf+html The use of that technology means that, relatively low cost cultivation tanks can be stacked at depth and thus significantly increase per acre output while significantly reducing costs. Thank you for the question (I need them to help me stay focused). Also, I have updated the IMBECS Protocol document(6/14/14)

Michael Hayes

Jun 17, 2014
10:53

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
In this revision, within the IMBECS Draft document (Sec. 2 pg 3-5), the issue of governance, at the intergovernmental and foundation levels are beginning to be addressed in a detailed fashion. Also, a blog has been created for the IMBECS Protocol and the link is on page 25 or you can find it at: http://voglerlake.wix.com/the-imbecs-protocol

Mark Johnson

Jun 21, 2014
04:27

Member


12 |
Share via:
Thanks Michael. Read your repress.org abstract above: http://jgp.rupress.org/content/26/2/241.abstract Interesting and timeless. I also did an "Algae" search on this site and came up with 192 abstract or full PDF responses, the most recent published less than a month ago: http://jgp.rupress.org/search?submit=yes&fulltext=algae&sortspec=date&where=fulltext&y=0&x=0&hopnum=1 What vast potential. Current 240 gallons of fuel per acre per year is super low yield. Thanks for the perspective and painting a bright Algae-Awesome future.

Michael Hayes

Jun 24, 2014
10:19

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Mark, Thank you for the link to the list. As you have found, there is a high level of knowledge which can be drawn on to support the biological approach to global warming mitigation. And, we have run up against significant and complex limiting factors in using terrestrial resources for vast biomass production. Also, in promoting ocean centric solutions and investing in the industrial scale infrastructure, there will be a significant increase in educational spending on marine biology/engineering. Thus, looking to the oceans for environmental answers, jobs, profits, critical commodities and space can be a robust engine of change, in of itself. Yet, as this competition seeks answers to, we must find a reasonable and widely acceptable approach to governance of such a powerful engine. I found a highly cogent passage, related to the above in the conclusion of "The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change" 2nd/ed. sec. 5.4 pg 195. http://www.amazon.com/Science-Politics-Global-Climate-Change/dp/0521737400 The authors state the following: "But whatever the details of the first serious steps toward managing climate change, it is critical to take them....Indeed,...the first steps are sure to be imperfect, and will need to be assessed and adapted over time. Consequently, developing effective institutions and processes to support effective research and assessment and adjust policies as experience is gained, capabilities change, and knowledge advances is far more important for successful management of climate change than the details of initial policies. Developing these adaptation processes will be a novel challenge, and a critical one.". The authors' pristine logic does seem to be the only useful road to climate management today, and ten generations from now. The IMBECS Protocol is an attempt to build a vehicle that can travel along such a road with the needed flexibility such a rough path will demand. Yet, there still remains the issue of the universally accepted paradox underlying the human compulsion which has pulled us to this point of global crises. The undeniable power of acting out of "self interest" has generated great advances in technology and commerce which has given us the abilities to culturally grow to the point of you and I being able to research complex issues and use virtually instantaneous communications to rapidly disseminate new ideas. Obviously, that view is the positive view as acting completely out of self interest is widely recognized as the hallmark of sociopathy. On one hand, self interest provides the most powerful motivation yet to be recognized in our species. On the other hand, global scale sociopathic political behavior, on the global warming mitigation issue, can potentially drive our species population to profound level of collapse. In my search for an understanding of the dynamics of the above paradox, the first step was to simply Google what would seem logical from a biological view. Many symbiotic biological relationships use 'self interest' while avoiding collapse. Thus, the search offered up the following result: Symbiotic politics: resisting governance/ governing resistance http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/aworldincrisis/2012/03/01/symbioticpolitics/ This type of bio-centric questioning/understanding of our current political abyss, on mitigation governance, may possibly be useful, in that, nature is profoundly prolific in its' parabox resolution abilities and our species may wish to take note of this important and productive path, or face significant disruptions of our current state of global social development. If the FF industry and 'everything else on our planet' were to be viewed in the symbiotic context, the FF industry can be legitimately viewed as a 'pathogenic' species which does not seem to 'need' to protect the host population from collaps. Can the FF industry be converted to a supportive/beneficial 'species' to the host? Frankly, that will only happen if the FF industry itself, with its' vast profits, voluntarily begins to support large scale mariculture deployment and operations. However, it is my most humble belief that: We, as a species, need no longer to shape our relationship, with our environment and the symbiont, primarily, if not solely, around the rapacious needs/demands of the symbiont. As, a strong intergovernmental or simply national support of IMBECS like protocols and production can act as a strong deterrent to the symbionts further pathogenic behavior. Best regards,

Michael Hayes

Jul 1, 2014
06:23

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
In this update, I've refined my response to one of Anita's most important questions: Thirdly, in the section 'Who will take these actions?' you suggest that organisations would carry out the work and that international participation would support technology transfer and cooperation with civil society being consulted in evaluation of the science. Is it correct that you expect private companies to champion this idea? If so, do you think they should be able to patent the technology? If so, what mechanisms do you propose to promote technology transfer? Beyond the STEM aspects, this proposal calls for the creation of a non-profit organization, which would function as a mirror organization of the primary treaty organizations for the purposes of synthesizing the intent of the UNFCCC/IMO/CBD (ie. "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate system" etc.) across the spectrum of international/national related governance organizations. The non-profit foundation would be designed, through its' formal "Mission Statement", to function as the primary global "actor" for IMBECS related R&D and operational deployment. In that, the foundation would deploy ‘investigatory’ technology for universal evaluation and then lease the technology to for-profit corporations (IMBECS Franchises). The franchises would be required to follow procedures and practices established through the IMBECS Protocol or forfeit their licence. Further, the emerging class of business structure known as Benefit Corporations would be the prefered for-profit partner at the IMBECS Franchize level. However, the IMBECS technology will be highly standardized and the processural protocols streamlined. Failure at the The motivation to advance technology is often linked to patents and patent ownership should be supported for that reason. Yet, a strong effort should also be made by the IMBECS Foundation to purchase the relevant patents so as to best manage the technology development. The first fielded method would seem to have an advantage simply due to the significant effort, at the policy level, to establish cooperation. In simple words, we need inventors and the inventors need a buyer for their GE patents which offers both governance and financial support for planetary changing technology. Also, work on the 4 other related CoLab challenges are moving forward and I encourage the reader to follow along as the IMBECS Protocol assimilates those other import subjects. Resistance to assimilation is futile:)

Michael Hayes

Jul 12, 2014
05:58

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
In this revision, the IMBECS Protocol Relationship Structure Diagram is offered.

Peter Wheen

Jul 16, 2014
03:30

Member


16 |
Share via:
www.oceannourishment.com Ocean Nourishment This technology, which represents an approx 1 Gt C climate wedge was previously submitted for the Virgin Earth Challenge prize. It is unclear why it was overlooked by the judges. There are many associated benefits of the technology. The need for research is a priority and a progressive scale up using a plan do check act approach is recommended. The precautionary principle requires reframing as the risk of inaction on reasearch by far exceeds the risk of inaction on climate change. The London Protocol provides governance in this space and the IMBECS protocol is also supported.

Michael Hayes

Jul 19, 2014
04:06

Member


17 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello Peter, Thank you for informing me about the work of your ONC group. The focus of the IMBECS Protocol/Technology is, however, distinctly different from that of ONC. In that, the primary objective of the IMBECS concept is to end the FF era through vast production of carbon negative fuel. I've reviewed the CMI 'wedge' concept and find it to be highly supportive of the FF industry and thus is 'wedged' in favor of continued use of FFs. Carbon negative biofuel, or even any mention of oceanic based production of biofuel, is simply ignored. Due to the potential of oceanic biomass/biofuel production to eclipse FF extraction rates, I'm not surprised by such an omission(s)by the (BP) OMI group. You mentioned that "There are many associated benefits of the technology.". Yes, the impressive array of the synergistic benefits of working within the oceanic environment are simply awe inspiring (and I'm a well salted commercial fisherman). My view on the precautionary principle is that it offers a path for action through Article 15. Yet, exactly 'who' is in the position to invoke the article is questionable. The 'how' aspect of invoking article 15 is also interesting to think about. The IMBECS Protocol, I hope, will bring a practical/functional level to the article 15 (intergovernmental governance) issue. Thank you for your comment. Few people are as knowledgeable, on oceanic based global warming mitigation, as you. Best, Michael

Climate Colab

Aug 6, 2014
12:26

Member


18 |
Share via:
Judges: I find this hard to assess. It is essentially a pitch for a certain technology, which has been subsequently partially rewritten to address some governance points - but is still, substantially, a technology pitch. I don't have a problem with an entry which seeks to address governance aspects of a certain technology - indeed, that is quite an interesting approach. But I don't think there is a coherent set of proposals here. Certainly it is very hard to understand what it is all about (too many unexplained acronyms, for a start). As far as I understand it, I'm not convinced it is geoengineering and I'm not sure the governance points are realistic - e.g. that the failure of international organisations to issue a "letter of scientific concern" would be "paramount [sic] to tacit approval". Can't see that running in a court of law, let alone with governments. NOTE: ONE OF OUR JUDGES HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE INTERFACE AND LOST HIS ORIGINAL COMMENTS AND HAD TO RECREATE THEM AS HE WAS BEST ABLE: .REconstructing the summary:- proposal includes some governance detail, but it's mainly an attempt to promote a specific category of projects.- Governance proposals are all intended to exploit current thin regulation of CE to promote this type of projects.- Many points of proposed governance are weak or under-specified (what's the foundation and how does it get authority/legitimacy to speak for all project proponents? How do you identify set of relevant treaties? What makes you think they will respond to inquiries on the terms you specify, and that their failure to respond as you specify fairly represents consent?- The proposal doesn't address CE broadly, and in particular excludes all the forms that are most challenging to governance. Anita and Ben: We appreciated the effort that went into the proposal, but we agree with John and Ted's concerns, and their decision not to advance your proposal in its present form. Especially given how much work went into this proposal, we hope you'll keep advancing your ideas.