Talk:Biosequestration/Archive 1

Waterfalls

Why do those images have a place here? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Teh Russell Falls picture seems a good illustration of the type of biospehere that many biosequestration policies were trying to protect.121.127.207.75 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hansen, etc.

His comments are only marginally relevant to this article, even if the text was supported by the reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the para in question. I'd be interested to get the views other editors on this James Hansen has argued that policies to cap carbon emissions and trade permits for them (see cap and trade) will only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow 'business-as-usual' for the coal, oil and gas industries which are the major contributors to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. He claims the best way to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide levels below the catastrophic tipping point of 350ppm is to phase out coal-fired power stations that lack adequate biosequestration facilities and impose a progressive carbon tax at source on those who mine or trade carbon as oil, gas or coal. This carbon tax will be offset when such carbon dioxide producers are certified as utilising climate change mitigation strategies such as biosequestration and will be collected through existing taxation bureaucracy to provide a potential 100% dividend deposited monthly into the bank accounts of carbon-responsible individual members of society (not governments) (equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family)). This dividend will create an incentive for families to invest in renewable energy and biosequestration initiatives, buy low-carbon products and make money by striving to reduce their carbon footprint to less than average. 150.203.87.47 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Per comments in Talk:Carbon tax#Hansen, the text is not supported by that reference.
2. Biosequestration is only marginally supported even by that text, and the word only appears once in the actual article.

If I think of other reasons it doesn't belong, I'll let you know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This reference supports the text
James Randerson Nasa climate expert makes personal appeal to Obama. The Guardian, Friday 2 January 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen accessed 10 Dec 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.207.75 (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hansen has also made his letter to Obama available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf and the revised “Tell Barack Obama the Truth” at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf in hopes of getting the information to people who continue to push for “goals” and “caps”.

121.127.207.75 (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Still no reference to biosequestration, and only a passing reference to "carbon capture", in any of those references. Please stop adding inappropriate references to Hansen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hansen mentions 'carbon trapping' this must be either geosequestration or biosequestration as the article says. Arthur is going around wikipedia fighting every mention of Hansen's proposal (see edit war he started at Kyoto Protocol). He claims that I am indulging in vandalism in trying to inserted a carefully crafted para with multiple accutate references to an article I've already contributed substantial time in assisting along.150.203.87.47 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "carbon trapping" means biosequestration is original research, as Wikipedia defines it. Your "carefully constructed" paragraph contains, at best, Hansen's opinions, and, at words your opinion as to Hansen's opinions, and is only marginally related to this topic. Now that you've added his book to the references, I can't prove you're not making your own interpretation of Hansen's proposal without buying and reading the book, but you'll forgive me if I doubt it, as you keep changing the references without adding any that actually support what you state of his position. Still, even if it's sourced, the details of the proposal shouldn't be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Stating that "carbon trapping" is (amongst other things-like geosequestration) biosequestration is what this article is about. I agree with suggestions that a better approach would be for critics of Hansen to build the quality of the article by citing criticism of his ideas (of which there is plenty)121.127.207.75 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, again. Unless Hansen specifically refers to biosequestation, it should be in a general sequestation or carbon sequestration article, not in this one. I'm taking it out again. However, if you add any details of Hansen's plan again, I'm going to recommending blocking your IPs (both of them). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur you spend so much time and energy blocking other people ideas and you haven't added a single constructive thing to any of the articles (this, Carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol)you've been been edit warring with me on. Shame on you. I'll also recommend your IP is blocked for being so obstructive to debate121.127.207.75 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I could spend more time making constructive edits if you wouldn't spend so much time making edits against Wikipedia policy and consensus.

1. Calling Hansen's comment on "carbon trapping" "biosequestration" is original research, as Wikipedia defines it. If you source the connection to someone other than Hansen, it's WP:synthesis.

   Even if Hansen called it "biosequestration", it would be only tangential to both his proposal and to this article, so it still shouldn't be here.

2. Adding the comment on the dividend is totally inappropriate in this article. Adding the details of the "dividend" is totally inappropriate in any article unless existing credible proposals are likewise added.
3. Adding different, inconsistent details on the per capita dividend in proportion to carbon footprint is absurd, even if Hansen said it.

Finally, you've already violated 3RR on this article, although I don't know why it was declared "stale". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Rebuttal to Arthur Rubin's latest obstruction to the Hansen paragraph

Arthur's miscounting of 3RR may be symptomatic but it doesn't excuse the way he's tried to silence debate here and at Carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol (which he's helped lock down during the Copenhagen meeting) without adding a single referenced sentence to any of those articles. 'Non numerantur, sed ponderantur' Here are some quotes from the references cited to demonstrate how pedantic and obstructive Arthur has become. He can't have read the article on biosequestration to say that biosequestration isn't a subset of carbon trapping. What is carbon trapping-how do you do it? Put it into something. What? Rocks or fissures (geosequestrtion) or plants (biosequestration). The introduction to biosequestration says this. His claim it is OR to say biosequestration is a subset of carbon trapping is surely Pinteresque in its absurdity given the references in the biosequestration article. Hansen's plan as can be seen below mentions (in his Letter to Obama for example) not only carbon trapping but improved agricultural and forestry practices. Did Arthur not read that? Both are major independent sections of the biosequestration article.

Bone article: He proposes that the “carbon tax” start at the equivalent of about $1 per gallon of petrol but rise in future years. The tax revenues should be returned directly to the public in the form a dividend, he said.
Randerson article: First, he wants a phasing out of coal-fired power stations - which he calls "factories of death" - that do not incorporate carbon capture. "Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen - caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source," the Hansens wrote. Second, he proposes a "carbon tax and 100% dividend". This is a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so that high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.
Hansen letter to Obama:
1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2. This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits. Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range. As an example of coal’s impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”. A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising. The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public. The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products.
Kloor article: In his book, Hansen makes it clear that no additional coal plants should go online until 'clean coal' technology is in place...I ask Hansen what he thinks about ongoing efforts to encourage citizens to shrink their carbon footprints, and whether he has tried to reduce his own. Somewhat surprisingly, he plays it down, saying that individuals cannot solve the problem. "If you reduce your carbon footprint, one of the effects is to reduce the demand, and if a lot of people do that, it makes [fossil fuel] cheaper so somebody else can burn it," says Hansen. But one of the best actions an individual can take, he allows, is to stop eating meat. "I've almost become a vegetarian," he says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.207.75 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 121.127.207.75 (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that almost all of Hansen's statements would be false or misleading, even if his plan were passed by a legislature, suggests additional caveats. Nonetheless, even if all his statements were true, it wouldn't belong in this article.

And the lockdown of Kyoto protocol is primarily because your spam was removed there by 3 established editors. I thought that semiprotection would have been adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, if you define "spam" as carefully worded sentences with 4 or 5 complete and accurate references one wonders why the editorial powers that be allow you to continue at Wikipedia. They must be compassionate believers in the capacity of processes like this to civilise even the most closed minds.121.127.207.75 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1. "Carefully worded"? You still had the "propoportional" fraud synthesized (by you) error.
2. "4 or 5 complete and accurate references"? There had been only one reference, and, even now, with the possibly exception of the book, none of the spammed versions you've added were completely sourced.

I can no longer prove that the sentences you've added were not in reliable records of Hansen's opinions. Even so, I don't see a relationship, visible to anyone other than yourself, of this sentence to topics other than carbon tax and probably cap and trade, and possibly James Hansen. Anywhere else, the connection is quite indirect, and should only be limited, at most, to shortened sentence and a pointer to a more detailed version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a clear and manifest connection between Hansen's ideas and biosequestration as defined in this article. I've tidied the paragraph.121.216.43.246 (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've highlighted algal biosequestration efforts at coal-fired power plants and added a quote from Hansen's book. All this has a clear connection to the article.121.217.243.75 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC) That is why I removed the tag.121.217.243.75 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. Replies to this message will not be read - please address any follow-up comments to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hansen paragraph

An editor discussed above has attempted to remove the entire referenced Hansen paragraph which includes quotes in which Hansen specifically refers to biosequestration.NimbusWeb (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to that editor because the paragraph had almost no relationship to biosequestration or to the sources. I took quite some time to go through it, and ended up replacing it with a small quote from Hansen in support of biofuel use for CO2 drawdown. Thanks for your concern about removal of referenced material. I'm not sure about your experience here, but in a publicly-edited encyclopedia like Wikipedia, references can be accidentally shuffled and it's very important to take the time to make sure that the paragraph says what the references do. Awickert (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Biosequestration dispute on multiple articles

This discussion was originally started as a request for enforcement at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, and was moved here because it is primarily a content dispute.

I apologise if this is not the right format, but this editor [ User:Arthur Rubin ] has been disrupting references to Hansen's carbon tax in the following articles: biosequestration, carbon tax, Kyoto Protocol and criticism of Kyoto Protocol. The fifrst three of these have the Climate Change probation warning on them. The discussion pages of biosequestration, carbon tax and kyoto protocol reveal how he has disregarded sources. Please look for example at this series of diff edits:

1. 05:43, 16 January 2010 Carbon tax ‎ (→Carbon taxes compared to cap-and-trade: remove unsourced _bio_sequestration; add a grammatical correction)
2. 05:42, 16 January 2010 Kyoto Protocol ‎ (→Criticism: remove "proportional" nonsense -- it's still false, and not visibly in the source)
3. 05:40, 16 January 2010 Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol ‎ (→James Hansen's criticism: remove irrelevant false statement "proportional to carbon footprint")
4. 05:26, 16 January 2010 Biosequestration ‎ (→Biosequestration and climate change policy: there is no evidence that Hansen _mentioned_ biosequestration; his claims may still be relevant, but some reliable source needs to make the connection)

NimbusWeb (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reformatting your statement above and inserting diff links so that it's easy to see what you're talking about. It looks to me from the above (and your following reverts) that you and Arthur have a difference of opinion on Hansen's views about how to prevent or offset the worst effects of global warming. This looks like a very new development, and neither you nor Arthur have engaged in any untoward behavior. I applaud your instinct for bringing this to the attention of third parties, though it would also be a good idea to address Arthur directly on his user talk page.

This kind of event isn't unusual and it doesn't require administrator action at this stage. You're both doing the right thing so far.

Both you and Arthur are obviously editing in good faith, so I urge you to put aside your initial response and Assume good faith. Please engage with Arthur civilly and try to resolve your differences without undue drama or accusatory language. If you cannot convince Arthur that he has overlooked or misinterpreted important sources, try raising a RFC on the question to see if you can get third parties to take a look at it with a view to achieving a consensus view of how these disputed passages should be written. --TS 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be some centralized location for the discussion; this may be as good a place as any. I still don't think Hansen is a major player with respect to those articles, but consensus seems to be against me on that point. This dispute has been going on for a few months, with one IP and user being the principals in favor of inclusion, and I being the principal opposed to inclusion. I think, perhaps a multiple-article 3rd opinion, or the above-suggested RFC, might be a more appropriate venue.

My disagreements are:

1. "Biosequestration" is not mentioned in any of the sources quoted in that article. I don't have his book, and I certainly don't have one with a search engine, so it's possible he said it somewhere. Previous versions of the paragraph, spammed to dozens of remediation-related articles, had said "biosequestration" or "geosequestration". We would need a reliable source making the connection or a quote of his mentioning it.
2. In any case, the other details of the proposed carbon tax are not directly related to biosequestration.
3. The dividend is not directly related to the Kyoto Protocol articles. (This is arguable, but I don't see any arguments, related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in favor of inclusion ever having been made.)
4. The original "proportional" was false, so I was removing it as a courtesy to Hansen. The later "inversely proportional" was my synthesis, still not precisely accurate, and shouldn't be in the articles unless sourced.

This section should probably be named more appropriately to the locus of the dispute, rather than to the participants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the section. I think perhaps it should go somewhere else. Since the locus seems to be biosequestration perhaps it should be moved to talk:biosequestration. --TS 16:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A look at the discussions boards for biosequestration and carbon tax and kyoto protocol will show that Arthur has been trying to remove or distort references to Hansen's tax plan for some time and now despite prolonged discussion board interactions with numerous other editors he is not ceasing. In specific answer to Arthur's listed 'disagreements:
1) Quotes are given to Hansen's open letter to Obama and his book and other media where he calls for a moratorium on coal fired power stations that do not 'sequester' (he uses that word) or 'capture' (he also uses that word) C02. There are only two ways in which carbon sequestration or carbon capture is being explored in relation to coal-fired power stations-biosequestration using algal bioreactors (which is discussed in the biosequestration article) and geosequestration. It is sheer pedantry (at least) and manipulative disruption (at worst) for Arthur Rubin to say that Hansen is not referring to biosequestration or geosequestration when he is talking about carbon sequestration or carbon capture-what else could he be referring to? The claim of "spamming to dozens' of articles is an unjustified personality attack on another editor using exaggeration-Arthur's definition of spamming obviously includes the insertion by an editor of what appears to be properly referenced material, and for an editor who claims to have an Erdos number of one it is peculiar he equates a dozen with three articles-biosequestration, carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol-to all of which Hansen's ideas are relevant.
2) The other details of the carbon tax are directly related to biosequestration-to try and explain this to Arthur an editor exerpted entire paragraphs from the quotes on the discussion page in which Hansen specifically mentions that his tax is designed to encourage people to invest in biosequestration initiatives in 'forestry and agriculture'
3) The orginal use of 'proportional' was an inadvertent error but any reading of Hansen's tax idea would reveal that the dividend is greater for people with a low carbon footprint-for Arthur to wish to remove these words and make Hansen's tax plan unintelligible is just another example of his/her disruptive editing
All of this should be viewed in the context of Arthur not inserting a single referenced sentence to any of the articles he seeks to remove material from. Neither (apart from his suggestion of 'inversely proprtional'-which he is now trying to revert) has he sought to make Hansen's ideas clearer-rather he seeks to remove or distort them This leads to the conclusion that he is disruptive editing.The title of the dispute should be about 'Disruption of Hansen on Carbon Sequestration and Taxing'-Arthur's disruption has extended to multiple articles where Hansen's ideas are expressed. There is almost nothing else Arthur Rubin does with his/her edits in these articles except to try and remove or make unintelligible Hansen's ideas.NimbusWeb (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be here, but while it is: this edit [1] by AR is entirely correct. onsite biosequestration for a coal plant is obviously wrong. This edit [2] by NW, restoring biosequestration, is obviously wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment fails to give any evidence for why "onsite biosequestration for a coal plant is obviously wrong'" Does this editor mean 'obviously wrong' from the point of view of the coal industry? Sure. It certainly is not obviously wrong from the point of view of scientists or policy-makers who advocate it. As but one example, take the Garnaut Report (Ross Garnaut. The Garnaut Climate Change Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and Melbourne 2008 ISBN 9780521744447. Page 432 of that Report has this direct quote: "Some algal biosequestration processes could absorb emissions from coal-fired electricity generation and metals smelting." (There's more from Garnaut on algal biosequestration as on-site use in coal-fired power stations at p578.)"Obviously wrong' thus appears to be an argumentum ad verucundiam (argument from authority) by this particular wikipedia editor-his authority being placed ahead of published sources. Doesn't this highlight the type of disruptive editing that AR are his friends are generating in these climate-change related articles?NimbusWeb (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The insertion of "biosequestration" into Hansen's position is clearly not in any of his articles, at least as quoted. (If it's in his book, we need page numbers.) The statement you make above that "There are only two ways in which carbon sequestration or carbon capture is being explored in relation to coal-fired power stations-biosequestration using algal bioreactors (which is discussed in the biosequestration article) and geosequestration" may be true, but unless it is due to Hansen, or noted in reliable comments on Hansen's work, it would be synthesis to include it on Wikipedia.

None of your other arguments, although possibly accurate, speak to the relevance of those aspects of Hansen's comments to those articles. You have presented no credible argument No credible argument has been presented (correction to avoid any implication that you and the only IP previously adding this material are necessarily the same) toward relevance, and little (and none accurate) toward sourcing it to Hansen.

Even if the statements attributed to Hansen were accurate, that would not be relevant to inclusion, except that attributing an inaccurate statement which he didn't actually say is a WP:BLP violation. My assertion is that he didn't say most of what is being added, and most of it is not relevant to these articles.

Oh, and I did note that many of the statements previously added were obviously inaccurate, both "proportional" (which I corrected to a nearly-true statement containing original research), and his statements that it would not damage the (US) economy if implemented. The latter would be allowable as a quote. I don't see any other obviously wrong statements in the present insertions in those four articles, although I haven't rechecked the other 8 articles irrelevant articles it was added to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Clear references have been provided to where Hansen uses the terms "carbon sequestration" and "carbon capture" in relation to coal-fired power stations. Your refusal to admit that this involves either biosequestration (through algal biosequestration-see the Garnaut specific reference to algal biosequestration and coal-fired power stations in the paragraph above) or geosequestration is mere disruptive editing. One tries to assume good faith but it is clear why the coal industry wouldn't want this type of idea out there-it would create pressure for a standard where every coal-fired power station had to have carbon sequestration. Instead of removing this material you should study algal biosequestration and the literature on it.NimbusWeb (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is plausible to insist that a coal plant should geologically sequester carbon, and Hansen has said this. Arguing that each coal plant should biosequester carbon is implausible, due to the scale - biosequestration is diffuse. You are a noob, with strong ideas, and you are pushing them far too hard. It will all end in tears unless you slow down William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling my a 'noob' is just an example of the ad hominem (attack the man) logical fallacy which characterises your disruptive edits her and at carbon tax and at Kyoto Protocol. All I am arguing for is that fully referenced ideas be allowed to stand. That's what creating a world class encyclopaedia should be about. Whether YOU think they are feasible is irrelevant logically. You are welcome to include references from published sources opposing these ideas but you shouldn't try to censor debate by removing fully referenced material. I include the paragraph you both are trying to delete below to assist other editors who hopefully will try an objectively adjudicate on this edit war you have commenced. Please note, thes etwo editors are trying to remove material wholesale, not to include referenced material.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
James E. Hansen in a recent book and open letter to President Obama about policies to reduce carbon emissions, has advocated phasing out coal-fired power plants that lack adequate carbon capture and storage (through either geosequestration or biosequestration in the form of, for example, algal biosequestration (see algae bioreactor). In his open letter to Obama for example he advocates a "Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2".ref: James Hansen. Letter to Obama http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf accessed 10 Dec 2009. In Storms of My Grandchildren, similarly, Hansen discusses his Declaration of Stewardship the first principle of which requires "a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester carbon dioxide".ref: Hansen, James (2009). Storms of My Grandchildren. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 242. ISBN 1408807459. Hansen also argues that biosequestration (in terms of what he specifically refers to as agricultural and forestry practices improved in terms of their carbon trapping potential) can be encouraged by a carbon tax at source on those who mine carbon as oil, gas or coal to provide a regular dividend to members of society (equal shares on a per capita basis) at a level inversely proportional to their carbon footprint.ref: James Bone. Climate scientist James Hansen hopes summit will fail. Timesonline December 3, 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece accessed 10 Dec 2009.Ref: James Randerson Nasa climate expert makes personal appeal to Obama. The Guardian, Friday 2 January 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen accessed 10 Dec 2009 Ref: James Hansen. Tell Barack Obama the Truth. accessed 1o Dec 2009.Kloor K (26 November 2009). "The Eye of the Storm". Nature Reports Climate Change: 139. doi:10.1038/climate.2009.124. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NimbusWeb (talk • contribs)

Can you point to a single reference where Hansen uses the term biosequestration? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c: @NW): I was attempting to offer you advice. You are pushing too hard. If you'd been around a bit you would realise that. To the matter at hand: there is no doubt that Hansen has argued for a "Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2". But there is definitely doubt as to whether he has advocated phasing out coal-fired power plants that lack adequate carbon capture and storage (through either geosequestration or biosequestration.... As fas as I can see the addition of bioseq into that last is entirely your own interpolation.

As you note, Hansen also argues that biosequestration (in terms of what he specifically refers to as agricultural and forestry practices improved in terms of their carbon trapping potential) and this is indeed true. But obviously, that isn't relevant to what a coal plant can do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Referring to "spamming to dozens of articles", it's only a slight exaggeration... The initial addition was to about 15 articles. Now, it's only added to four, not including Hansen's own article, although that might be because it's still protected due to another edit war.

Would someone please restore the obvious {{syn}}, {{cn}}, and WP:UNDUE tags to the three articles, per my comments above. (There could be {{offtopic}} tags added to the fourth article, Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol, but there's not much wrong with that one.) I can't do it myself, because it's already been done and reverted by NW, but a previously uninvolved contributor could do so without sanction. I have requested that the reviewing admin at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement do so, but he's off for a bit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

AW has now made a compromise edit on the bioseq bit [3] - that looks OK to me - anyone else? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still standing - astonishing! I love compromise. Awickert (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently decreased ocean sink?

I just took out:

Acidification of the oceans and other factors associated with anthropogenic climate change have recently decreased this capacity significantly.

It doesn't seem to be justified by the ref William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't understand the point being made here: the oceans must acidify as they absorb more CO2, unless carbon is being precipitated out at at a comparable or faster rate. It's like saying, "there's a sink, and the sink is filling, so there's less room in the sink," but in a not-so-obvious way. I also did a 5-10 min. skim of the source and found nothing relating to this sentence, so I re-removed it. (Willing to email the article to those curious and without journal access.) Awickert (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Carbon sequestration and carbon capture at power plants-could it involve biosequestration?

Arthur Rubin is continuing to delete refences to Hansen's arguments for carbon sequestration at power plants. He deleted these referenced sentences:
Hansen in his open letter to Obama also advocates a "Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2".ref: James Hansen. Letter to Obama http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf accessed 10 Dec 2009. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, similarly, Hansen discusses his Declaration of Stewardship the first principle of which requires "a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester carbon dioxide".Ref: {{cite book |author=Hansen, James |title=Storms of My Grandchildren |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=London |year=2009 |isbn=1408807459 |page=242.
His argument that when Hansen uses the words "carbon sequestration" or "carbon capture" at power plants he can't mean biosequestration seems to reveal either a gross ignorance of algal biosequestration (including failure to read this article) or bias. In either case it reveals significant problems with his editing.NimbusWeb (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Hansen did not use or imply biosequestration in anything you've quoted yet, or any of the online references to this article as of last week. It's your interpretation that he meant biosequestration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Add [4] ?

"Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications" by Adam Corner and Nick Pidgeon [5], in Environment Magazine print edition now, states biosequestration is the safest least-costly way to address global warming. A useful addition to this article? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems plausible, actually, if it's a reliable source. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See Geoengineering. 99.181.132.79 (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

BioSQ via crop breeding?

Crop breeding could ‘slash CO2 levels’, press release on research published by Professor Douglas Kell at the journal Annals of Botany.

It's pretty hand-wavy, but this is a current topic of interest, so this might provide support and a cite. I don't follow this article, so will leave this for active editors to use (or not). Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biosequestration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928131758/http://eco.ibcas.ac.cn/group/baiyf/pdf/gxzy/9_The_Potential_of_U.S._Grazing_Lands_to_Sequester_Carbon_and_Mitigate_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf to http://eco.ibcas.ac.cn/group/baiyf/pdf/gxzy/9_The_Potential_of_U.S._Grazing_Lands_to_Sequester_Carbon_and_Mitigate_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714055234/http://www.mbdenergy.com/catalogue/c17/c33/p129 to http://www.mbdenergy.com/catalogue/c17/c33/p129

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biosequestration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212025744/http://www.bio.org/ind/biofuel/CellulosicEthanolIssueBrief.pdf to http://bio.org/ind/biofuel/CellulosicEthanolIssueBrief.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041451/http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/summaries2006/English.pdf to http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/summaries2006/English.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106094410/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)