News

Home

Instead of a price on carbon, what we really need is safe, clean energy that's cheaper than coal and has a smaller carbon footprint than renewable energies. LFTR CAN DO THAT.

Rather than Carbon Capture and Sequestration, we need to take carbon out of the air and store it in a way that doesn't destroy it and cost the earth but invests it in building up life instead. BIOCHAR CAN DO THAT.

THERE IS A WAY TO RESPOND TO THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT OVER WHO, OR WHAT, IS CAUSING IT.

We are at a critical point in history and face multiple global challenges such as climate change, environmental destruction, a global energy crisis, increasing food prices and global food shortages along with increasing global population and the steady loss of arable land.

Earth from space

Yet on arguably the dominant issue of our time - climate change, there is significant disagreement over even its reality, cause and effects, let alone what our response should be. With honest differences in viewpoints being muddied by ideological leanings, domestic and global political considerations and those promoting or protecting their own financial interests, we could get bogged down in this conflict for years - time we simply don't have if the bulk of scientists are close to the mark.

We need a practical and affordable course of action which can actually reduce atmospheric CO 2 levels, not just slow down the rate at which we put CO 2 into the atmosphere. To achieve that we must do two things:

1. Provide safe, low carbon energy cheaper than coal.

2. Affordably remove excess carbon from the atmosphere.


Achieving these two aims for a net cost equal to, or lower than current fossil fuel energy means the objectives of climate change believers would be met at the same time as satisfying the core objection of climate change skeptics, i.e. they won't have to pay extra to deal with something they either have doubts about or don't believe in.


The whole reason emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes exist is because it is assumed there are no viable, low-carbon sources of energy cheaper than fossil fuels, coal in particular. Raising the cost of energy from fossil fuels discourages their use, encourages energy efficiency and enables renewable energies and others to compete. So increasing the cost of energy for everything we do is a deliberate outcome of this approach.


The basic assumption underlying this approach is now being challenged by a technology that has been around for over 50 years, one which promises greater reductions in CO 2 emissions than renewable sources at a cost less than coal. This means we could side-step the whole climate change conflict and get on with things without wasting time or energy resolving unnecessary arguments.

Better still, if this new sourge of energy could be used in conjunction with a way to remove the extra CO 2 we've already put in the atmosphere, and do that in a way that uses it to actively benefit life on earth, and all that for a combined cost equal to or less than current fossil fuel use, we can also go a long way toward solving the other major crises we face by slowing population growth and sparing the environment from extra competition from us by feeding more people from the same land area without increasing the use of environmentally dangerous toxic chemicals or GMO crops. Then we could have caution without cost while enjoying enduring returns as the full picture of CO 2 's impact inevitably emerges over time.


There is a way forward that can bring all these benefits and this website has been created to bring it to your attention. Briefly, to be effective, we will need to:


1. Actively remove carbon from the atmosphere and permanently store it in a form that positively benefits life on earth. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is a fundamental step. Anything that doesn't include this will never be enough, because at best, it will only slow down the rate at which CO 2 builds up in the atmosphere without ever stopping that buildup or reversing it.

2. Significantly reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere.

3. Create low-CO 2 energy at a cost developing nations can afford. There is a strong link between energy affluence and low birth rates. Without readily affordable energy, populations in poorer countries will continue to grow rapidly which will inevitably lead to increasing tensions between rich and poor nations and between the needs of people and the overall environment.

4. Use the least area of the earth's surface possible to achieve all of the above and so minimize our footprint on the environment as much as possible. This means maximizing the efficiency and sustainability of food production on existing agricultural land.


There are many approaches that can contribute toward these goals but two technologies need to be central, BIOCHAR and ENERGY FROM THORIUM . The combined effect of these is greater than either on their own and this synergy is vital to our success because together these can achieve what neither can on its own - a net reduction in atmospheric CO 2 levels.


Realistically, given the urgency of our situation, the more immediate progress is more likely to come from providing cheap, low CO 2 energy through using a combination of a different element, thorium and a Molten Salt Reactor - a GEN IV reactor that is so radically different from anything we've used to date that it deserves to be looked at afresh, without all the baggage we normally associate with nuclear energy.


While it is important to give a high priority to dealing with global warming, we can't allow ourselves to be panicked or stampeded by fear, because that is when we are at our most vulnerable and least creative. Of all forms of life on earth, we alone have the God-given intellect, creativity and moral capacity to comprehend our current situation and choose well for the benefit of all life - not just ourselves. Like it or not, our world is full of life that will be profoundly affected by the choices we are making now. For their sake and for our children's sake, this task is too important for us to allow ourselves to be side-tracked by unnecessary conflicts.


If you're interested (and why wouldn't you be?), come with me as I first ensure some foundational understandings.


If your main focus is on providing the energy we'll need at the price we can afford, start with Nuclear Energy . Don't make the mistake of writing off this radically new approach before you look into it. I used to be against nuclear energy because of the problems associated with waste, safety, proliferation concerns and cost. But I've completely changed my mind after coming to understand this approach. It really is fundamentally different to the nuclear technology that has caused the problems above and deserves to be looked at without prejudice.

If you're more into renewable energies and reducing CO 2 levels in the environment, I recommend starting with ' CO 2 stuff ' because through that you will better understand what is likely to work and what isn't when it comes to this fundamental task .


Remember though, it is the two of these working together that can get us there. Neither can on their own.


If you find anything valuable in this site, Let others know about it. If want to question anything, encourage or take issue with me, there is a contact form at About / Contact .