Dr. Schuiling et al, Your work does offer an elegant summation of a logic which few can dispute, especially someone as scientifically ill equipped as myself. The use of olivine opens up a number of far more complex climate change mitigation and adaptation scenarios than what you propose and there is a need to more often give credit to the importance of this mineral and your work with it. I for one, intend to better highlight the importance of olivine within my own work on the IMBECS Protocol.
I realize you see little value in spending time on promoting vast scale oceanic farming as depicted in the IMBECS Draft. However, here in the US the use of littoral waters for shore line operations, such as you have rightfully proposed, face massive regulatory restrictions and limitations (even for temporary scientific investigations). Thus, the deployment of a large scale network of olivine/diatom shoreline operations in this country is not practical. This type of extreme regulatory burden is one of the critical reasons why I'm working on an offshore version of your olivine/diatom concept. Thank you for allowing us to read your draft. Best regards, Michael On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:09:23 AM UTC-8, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) wrote: > > I have written down some of my thoughts on “natural” geoengineering. I > haven’t published it, but would appreciate comments, Olaf Schuiling > -- 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.
