The Integrated Protocol for Climate Change Mitigation (IPCCM): A Strategic Hypothesis Concerning Merging Competing Climate Chang Mitigation Concepts for Maximum Synergistic Value The IPCCM Draft
*Abstract: *The complex nature of climate change requires mitigation protocols which are themselves both broad spectrum and complex. There is no one easy solution to the multifaceted matrix of dysfunctional relationships which is commonly referred to as the 'climate change threat'. The many different large scale concepts which attempt to address one or a few aspects of the climate change threat matrix, commonly referred to as geoengineering, are reaching, or have attained, advanced developmental/functional levels of maturity. And, many of the currently available concepts are capable of achieving significant global scale results within their respective *fields of intent*. In brief, there are multiple large scale removal, utilization and sequestration of CO2 concepts available, as are; ocean pH adjustment from multiple technical paths; soil improvements using many traditional and advanced means and methods; wide area surface water cooling through simplistic yet well researched means and methods; sustainable cement production with CDR/CCS benefits, etc.. The important issue of international governance of planetary scale mitigation of climate change, in many case scenarios, is largely moot due to the fact that the specific technologies used in many of these scenarios simply are extensions of, or combinations of, extant environmentally and socioeconomically sustainable commercial operations. Thus, at this time, the lack of robust funding is the only major limiting factor holding back a multitude of sustainable climate change mitigation operations from being realized at the planetary scale and within the near term future. Even the significant limiting factor of the lack of robust start-up funding availability is being breached by a number of break-out mitigation focused corporations and or NGOs such as Cool Planet <http://www.coolplanet.com/>, Blue Planet <http://www.blueplanet-ltd.com/press.htm>, Cellana <http://cellana.com/> and the International Biochar Initiative <http://www.biochar-international.org/about> (this list is far from exhaustive). Thus, we now fact a strategic cross roads where these many climate change opportunities are either to be left to develop independently or within a mutually supportive protocol which technically, socioeconomically and politically leverages the strengths of one large scale climate change mitigation concept against the weakness of the other compatible sister mitigation concept. In brief, this hypothesis suggests that the overall group (i.e. socio-environmental actors/factors) and individual concept developers (i.e. patent holders/systems proponents) may realize a significantly greater value return through synergistic cooperation than can be realized through a laissez-faire or open competitive development path. Note to the GE List: This abstract is a result of the thread on nomenclature Ron started. The issue of nomenclature has the value of forcing one to come to a basic level of clarity. (thank you Ron). Before I go any further with this work, I would like to open the basic hypothesis up for critique by this group. The end product may be worth sending of to the GE summit...or not. Best, Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
