From the start of 2012, the European Union (EU) wants airplanes entering or leaving its airports to join the EU ETS. Years ago, the European Council decided that including aviation in the EU ETS was the best way to reduce the climate impact of aviation, and the European Commission insists that bringing aviation into the EU ETS was the most cost-efficient and environmentally effective option to control aviation emissions.

On November 2, 2011, a majority of countries in the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization adopted a declaration describing the EU directive as inconsistent with applicable international law and urging the EU to refrain from including flights by non-EU carriers in the EU emissions trading system.

Late last month, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard told a conference in Brussels in advance of the UN Climate Change conference in Durban, South Africa, later this month, that “innovative schemes” were the way forward. The EU wants to get shipping and aviation “involved in the UNFCCC”, she said, adding that these two sectors, plus the carbon market, were key to future climate funding.

Stefan Agne, from the European Commission's Climate Action directorate, said the EU would prefer a global scheme to tackle emissions from the shipping sector, but noted that it was “necessary for the EU to take the first steps to make things happen”. He insisted that any unilateral action was “not meant to be the end result of the debate, but to trigger the process in other countries”.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to break this deadlock?

The idea behind the "Biochar Economy" is to try to embed biochar production into as many processes as possible, as pictured on above image, from open source ecology.

In carbon-negative 'Biochar Economies', biochar is proposed to also act as a kind of local 'gold standard' for local currency supply.

Your comments are welcome!

Related posts by Sam Carana
Biochar
Fees on Livestock to fund Biochar
The way back to 280 ppm

Ten years ago, I asked some of my friends what most defined the times we live in.

The 2001 Top Ten was:

1. Cars
2. Nuclear disarmament
3. Overpopulation
4. Science and Technology
5. Consumerism
6. Globalization
7. Capitalism and Corporate power
8. Cold War
9. Decreasing relevance of the Nation-State
10. Space Exploration

The 2007 Top Ten was:

1. Global Warming
2. Terrorism
3. Globalization
4. Air Travel
5. Competition
6. Urbanization
7. Drug-resistant diseases
8. Science and Technology
9. Power of the individual
10. Decreasing relevance of the Nation-State

I've got to admit, it's a small sample, but what strikes me - every time - is that most issues mentioned tend to have a global character.

And again, I got that same feeling when I recently asked friends the question again.

The 2011 Top Ten:

1. Global Financial Crisis
2. Climate Collapse
3. China's Economic Power
4. Unemployment
5. Smart Phones
6. Obesity
7. Electric Vehicles & Renewable Energy
8. Organic Farming
9. Geo-engineering
10. Socialist World Government

That last response bothers me a bit. I like to find out more, and I like to discuss such responses further.

As you may know, I'd love to see feebates top the list. After all, when discussing how to act on global warming, feebates come out as the best way to deal with global warming, while they can also revitalize local economies, improve our health, etc.

Feebates can actually guard us against wasteful global bureaucracy, as they:
1. can most effectively rectify decades of perverse support by politicians for fossil fuel; 
2. allow market mechanisms to most economically sort out what works best where; 
3. are most efficiently implemented locally.

One respondent commented: "People don't seem keen to embrace solutions like feebates; people look at everything that sounds like global as a conspiracy to establish socialist world government, precisely because they feel that they lack control over what's going on."

But then again, feebates are the best way to put more control directly into the hands of the individual, optimizing optionality as much as possible, i.e. in terms of consumer choice, investment opportunities and creation of jobs and supplier outlets locally.

What do you think about that? And what do you think defines our times most?

Dutch Professor Olaf Schuiling has been working on rock grinding for many years. Remember the Virgin Earth Challenge, launched early 2007 with the promise to award $35 million to the best method to remove greenhouse gases? Schuiling said: Let's grind more rocks! Last thing Schuiling heard was that he was among the final ten contenders.

Schuiling's method is simple. Crush olivine rock to small pieces and it will bind with carbon dioxide. This process - called weathering - happens in nature but takes a long time. Crushing and grinding olivine rock will speed up the process and is therefore often called enhanced weathering. It works best in wet tropical countries, but can be done everywhere around the world.

Schuiling proposes to cover beaches, levees and railway tracks with the material, and proposes olivine to be added to building materials like pavement and concrete. It can also be added to soil and water. Adding olivine can fertilize the soil and improve its ability to retain water, and can work well in combination with biochar and other ways to increase organic carbon in the soil. When added to the sea, it can reduce acidification, and stimulate growth of diatoms and other forms of biomass in the sea.

This is a win-win solution, Schuiling says, as it helps grow more food, while combating global warming. To add another win, it can also produce drinking water that is healthier than rain water. Schuiling recommends cities to build olivine hills, to remove carbon dioxide from the air while filtering water.

Below is a video with more background, in Dutch with English subtitles.  Also have a look at this poster.