From Kansas State University's:

Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS)


Charles W. Rice, K-State Department of Agronomy, National CASMGS Director

(785) 532-7217

Scott Staggenborg, K-State Department of Agronomy (785) 532-7214

Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications (785) 532-7105



March 4, 2008

No. 61



* Agriculture Offsets Would Hold Down Costs of Proposed Climate Security Act

* New Blog Offers Insights Into Legislative Actions on Climate Change and Agriculture Offsets

* Greenhouse Gas Offsets: FAQs About the Potential from Farms and Forests


Science and Research:

* COMET-VR: USDA’s Voluntary Reporting Carbon Management Tool

* Climate Impact of Starch-Based vs. Cellulosic Bioethanol



* The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change: 2007 IPCC Working Group I

* Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability to Climate Change: 2007 IPCC Working Group II

* Mitigation of Climate Change: 2007 IPCC Working Group III






Agriculture Offsets Would Hold Down

Costs of proposed Climate Security Act


An economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 2191) using a Department of Energy (DOE) model shows minimal macro-economic impact, and agriculture offsets as one key to holding down the cost.


The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) used in the analysis was developed and is maintained by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration. It is a detailed, computer-based, energy-economic modeling system of U.S. energy markets and projects energy supply, demand, imports, conversion and prices. 


The analysis of S. 2191 shows that the macro-economic impact of the bill becoming law would be small, with gross domestic product projected to be 102 percent in 2030 if S. 2191 were to become law and 104 percent under business as usual.


In large part due to a provision allowing agriculture carbon sequestration offsets and other efficiency and allowance provisions, there would be no fuel switching to natural gas under the bill.

This is important for agriculture due to concerns that if electricity generators began consuming more natural gas, fertilizer manufacturers couldn’t compete and price would increase. For the same reason, the NEMS model projects stable residential and commercial natural gas bills. The bill also includes a provision to allow credits for “feedstock” industries, such as fertilizer manufacturers, if they are needed to further hold them harmless.


Another key projection is that the cumulative value of all offsets would reach $330 billion by the year 2030. 


The National Association of Wheat Growers supports the Lieberman-Warner legislation because of the opportunity inherent in an agriculture offset program.


-- National Association of Wheat Growers, WheatWorld, February 29, 2008







New Blog Offers Insights Into Legislative Actions on

Climate Change and Agriculture Offsets


Agricultural producers and organizations can keep updated on climate change policy actions at the national and state levels by checking out a new blog called “AgOffsets (If you are not at the table ... You are on the menu!!).” This blog is unique in that it explains how proposed legislation would affect agriculture and the potential for carbon offsets from agriculture.


This blog is from Sara Hessenflow Harper, with The Clark Group in the Washington, D.C. area, and others. It is a good way to keep informed and updated on the important issues in which agriculture should be involved. Climate change legislation is coming, and agriculture could stand to benefit from a well-designed cap-and-trade system that includes agriculture offsets.


This possibility is not automatic, however. There are many powerful interests opposed to agriculture offsets. Agriculture must get involved and makes its voice heard in these issues while they are still being negotiated and developed.


AgOffsets is at:


-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications






Greenhouse Gas Offsets:

FAQs About the Potential from Farms and Forests


The Climate Change Policy Partnership, from the Center on Global Climate Change, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, has posted a report titled “Harnessing Farms and Forests: Domestic Greenhouse Gas Offsets for a Federal Cap and Trade Policy FAQs,” which answers many of the questions that buyers and sellers of carbon offsets from agriculture and forestry might have. Questions and answers include:


What is a cap and trade system?

What is an allowance?

What is an offset and how does it work?

What are the benefits of allowing domestic farm and forest offsets in a cap and trade system?

What about other types of offsets?

What types of farming and forestry activities could be included in an offsets program? How do biofuels fit in?

How much greenhouse gas mitigation can be expected from a domestic farms and forest offset program?

How can we be assured that an offset is real or valid?

How are offsets measured? What type of accounting is required?

How can we be sure that an offset allowance is equivalent to an actual reduction of one ton of greenhouse gas?

How can we ensure that offset allowances result in an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? What is baseline?

What happens if an offsets project inadvertently leads to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere? How can this be measured and accounted for?

How can uncertainty be addressed?

How can we address the fact that carbon sequestration may not be permanent?

Case studies:

How would forest management be addressed?

How would forest products be addressed?

How can we mitigate the risk that natural occurrences pose to offset projects?

How will existing programs or offset eligible activities (i.e. early actors) be included?

How can the program avoid being defrauded?


This Q&A can be found at:







COMET-VR: USDA’s Voluntary Reporting

Carbon Management Tool


The Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases-CarbOn Management Evaluation Tool (COMET-VR) is a web-based decision support tool for agricultural producers, land managers, soil scientists, and other agricultural interests. It is on the web at:


The carbon management tool is a collaborative research effort between USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Colorado State University, Natural Resource Ecology Lab (CSU NREL).


This is an easy-to-use program that serves a dual purpose:


* It allows landowners and others to get a quick estimate of the carbon sequestration rate on any parcel of land anywhere in the U.S. (except Hawaii). They can also see how changes in management of the land might affect carbon sequestration rates.


* It also allows landowners a quick way to enroll their land into the USDA’s voluntary greenhouse gas reporting system – known as the “1605(b)” program.


How can a computer program estimate the carbon sequestration rate on any given parcel of land in the U.S.? Obviously, there are no actual measurements of soil carbon levels on file for every parcel of land. Instead, the developers of COMET-VR have constructed a computer model that can make a good estimate, based on inputs provided by the user. To accomplish this, the developers of the model combined research data on agricultural practices and soil carbon levels from across the country with information available on soil types in every county in the U.S. and other data.


The COMET-VR web site has boiled everything down to a short series of simple steps:


1. Select your state and county.

2. Select the soil texture and hydric information for the parcel, from a pull-down menu.

3. Enter the landscape position and cropping system used on the parcel during four distinct periods of time – again, using a pull-down menu of options.

4. Select the tillage system used on the parcel during the same four periods of time.

5. Click “Get Carbon” to get the model’s soil carbon calculation for the parcel.

6. To enter the data into the 1605(b) program, which is optional, enter the annual amount of gallons of diesel, gasoline, propane, biodiesel, N, natural gas, and electricity used on the parcel.


The results are presented as 10-year averages of soil carbon sequestration or emissions with associated statistical uncertainty values. Estimates can be used to construct a soil carbon inventory for the 1605(b) program.


This tool estimates soil carbon changes for management alternatives within each Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). The analysis is based on MLRA’s as defined by NRCS in Ag Handbook 296. COMET-VR uses the Century Soil Organic Matter model, a generalized biogeochemical ecosystem model that simulates carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrient dynamics. The model simulates cropland, grassland, forest and savanna ecosystems and land use changes between these different systems. The Century Model was developed by CSU and USDA Agriculture Research Service (ARS). 


-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications






Climate Impact of Starch-Based

vs. Cellulosic bioEthanol


Biofuels: an energy- and climate-saver, or a climate-heating money trap? There is no single answer to this question. Biofuels are carbon neutral in some ways, in that burning a biofuel simply releases a portion of the carbon back into the atmosphere that the plants absorbed during their lifetime.


But there’s more to the analysis than that. Whether a particular biofuel source can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions also depends on how the biofuel crop is grown, where it is grown, and how it is converted from the feedstock into the biofuel, according to some researchers. There is no question that some biofuels can lead to substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions when compared to fossil fuels. But some may not.


To know for sure, it is necessary to figure in all the emissions that occur in the production and processing of the fuel source.


In large part, the ultimate answer may depend on whether the feedstock for the biofuel is “first generation,” using only the high-starch or oil-rich parts of the plant, or “second generation,” using the entire plant biomass, according to a newly released report from the British House of Commons. The report is titled “Are Biofuels Sustainable?” See:


The European Union is actively promoting the production of biofuels as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, among other goals. This report was done to evaluate the climate effects and energy balance of biofuel production.


The main area of discussion involves the “life cycle analysis” of biofuel crops. In a “life cycle analysis,” the climate impact of all the inputs used in producing and utilizing a crop for ethanol or biodiesel production are taken into account.


Biomass crops to be used for cellulosic ethanol production are considered to reduce GHG emissions, and the life cycle analysis is favorable.


Other biofuel sources are still being debated, however. Production of ethanol from corn, for example, may contribute to global warming by increasing nitrous oxide emissions, which would more than offset the benefits that come from fossil fuel savings, according to a report by Dr. Paul Crutzen, 1995 Nobel Chemistry Prize recipient and atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, in Germany. Crutzen’s report, released in summer 2007, discusses the adverse effect on GHG emissions of increased nitrogen applications to farm fields. His report is at:


Nitrous oxide (N2O) is about 300 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, making it the most powerful greenhouse gas.


Through hundreds of field measurements and evaluations, Crutzen and his staff discovered that the global warming impact of nitrous oxide emissions from corn fields for ethanol production is up to 1.5 times greater than the saved CO2 emissions. For biodiesel produced from rapeseed, the emissions are up to 1.7 times larger. These studies did not include CO2 emissions from farm equipment or fertilizer/herbicide production.


Crutzen’s report states that the increase in N2O emissions from biofuel production will also destroy more of the beneficial ozone layer in the stratosphere.


Cellulosic plants like switchgrass, elephantgrass, and other plants that require less nitrogen fertilization may be a better option for producing biofuels, claims Crutzen, but more research is needed in that area.


The House of Commons report “Are Biofuels Sustainable,” released on January 21, 2008, concludes that N2O emissions from the nitrogen fertilizer used in the production of ethanol are just one factor to consider when evaluating the climate impact of biofuels. Other considerations include:


* Agricultural production practices. If biofuel crops are grown using tillage, the soil will release carbon to the atmosphere. If the crops are grown using no-till systems, this is not a concern. The emissions from farm equipment used in production of the biofuel crop also needs to be taken into account. Here again, no-till has an advantage because less fuel is used.


* The amount of energy consumed (and greenhouse gases released) in the transportation of corn to the ethanol plants, the process of converting corn to ethanol, and the transportation of ethanol to the end user.


* Whether tree clearing was done to make land available for biofuel crop production.


The House of Commons report refers to another study released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international trade organization consisting of 30 countries – primarily developed economies. The OECD specializes in studying issues of sustainable economic growth and financial stability. The OECD study concludes that growing second-generation cellulosic biofuels is better than developing traditional sugar- and starch-based biofuels, partly because marginal lands can be used for biomass crop production instead of land that could otherwise be used for food production.


Richard Doornbosch, Principal Advisor, Round Table on Sustainable Development, OECD, and Ronald Steenblik, Director of Research, Global Subsidies Initiative, International Institute for Sustainable Development, stated in the September 2007 OECD report that if ethanol and biodiesel become significant contributors to the transportation sector, food prices along with the environment will most likely be compromised. The report is at:


They said that in theory, there might be enough land available around the globe to feed an ever-increasing world population and produce sufficient biomass feedstock simultaneously, but it is more likely that land-use constraints will lead to a “food-versus-fuel” debate. Because food production and biofuel production compete for the same resources, the rapid growth of the biofuels industry is likely to keep food prices high and rising throughout at least the next decade, the report stated.


Doornbosch and Steenblik also pointed out that if value is not placed on the environment, biofuel demands will result in natural ecosystems like forests, wetlands, and grasslands being replaced by cropland -- making biofuels less environmentally friendly. 


One potential benefit of producing biofuels is that biofuels could give developing countries an opportunity to develop their own source of energy, the report stated. Biomass could provide electricity to people who have been living in the dark. Bioenergy could also boost developing economies with increased exports to industrialized nations. They said that more research needs to be done about this subject to determine its importance.


-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications


-- Katie Starzec, CASMGS Communications, Kansas State University






The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change:

2007 IPCC Working Group I


Working Group I of the Fourth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report states that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” The average increase in global surface temperature over the past 100 years is 0.74 degree Centigrade (C). Warming rates of the lower- and mid-tropospheric layers of the atmosphere are now confirmed to be similar to those of the surface temperature.


The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in November 2007, consists of three main “working groups,” each group focusing on a different aspect of climate change and its effects. Working Group I concentrated on the “Physical Science Basis” of climate change, including drivers of change, climate processes, observed changes, and estimates of future change. The information in this most recent report builds on previous IPCC assessments, as modified by new research from the past several years.


Also, human activity has likely influenced the changes in extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns in both hemispheres, according to the report.


Counteracting this warming effect, to some extent, is the cooling effect of aerosols (sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate, and dust). However, atmospheric levels of aerosols have been decreasing. In balance, the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases has outweighed the cooling effect of aerosols, according to the report.


Increases in Greenhouse Gas Concentrations


Working Group I’s report states it is very unlikely that global climate change can be explained through natural causes alone. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperature since the mid-20th century is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activity.


Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide are all important greenhouse gases. Since 1750, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouses gases (GHGs) have clearly increased as a result of human activity, states the Working Group I report. Burning of fossil fuels has been the greatest source of increase in CO2, according to the report. Land-use change has had a smaller but significant contribution to CO2 concentrations. Ice cores have determined that methane levels in the atmosphere have exceeded the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Methane increases are due to human activities, including agriculture and fossil fuel use. In addition, more than a third of all nitrous oxide emissions stem from human activities, primarily agriculture.


According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, water vapor is the most abundant GHG. Working Group I states that water vapor has increased consistently with warmer temperatures because warmer air holds more vapor.


Observed Trends


Oceans have been absorbing more than 80 percent of the increasing atmospheric heat, causing sea levels to rise, states the report. Sea level rise is also attributed to the melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps. Working Group I’s scientists report that average arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years; on the other end of the globe, the Antarctic shows some localized changes, but it is predicted to remain cold enough to brace against significant melting.


Other observed trends include substantial increases in precipitation over some land areas; intensified droughts in the tropics and subtropics; more frequent heavy storms; a fewer number of cold days, nights, and frosts; and a higher frequency of hot days, nights, and heat waves.


Future Predictions


For future predictions, all three working groups modeled four scenarios that illustrate possible future societal values and rates of population growth. Taking a range of possible higher emission scenarios into account, the report projects a warming of about 0.2 degrees C per decade over the next two decades. Furthermore, even if emission rates were held constant at year 2000 levels, warming would still occur at the rate of 0.1 degree C per decade over the next two decades because of the slow response of the oceans. Temperatures are expected to increase more rapidly over land areas and in high northern latitudes, and less quickly over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic.


Other predictions included in Working Group I’s report are more thawing in permafrost areas; decreasing snow cover; more frequent heat waves and heavy precipitation events; more intense hurricanes; and changes in wind, precipitation, and temperature patterns as a result of tropical storms moving poleward.


Finally, the report projects the rise in sea level to continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even in greenhouse has concentrations were to be stabilized.




-- Katie Starzec, CASMGS Communications


-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications






Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability to Climate Change:

2007 IPCC Working Group II


Working Group II of the Fourth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report states that climate change in the next few decades is inevitable. Even the strongest possible mitigation actions taken now could not prevent a temperature increase of at least 0.6 degree Centigrade during that time frame. This makes adaptation measures essential. Mitigation efforts must also begin now, or climate change will eventually exceed our capacity to adapt in the long term.


The IPCC’s Report, released in November, contains three “working groups.” Working Group II focused on “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability” of natural and human systems to climate change.


Changes in Natural Systems Already Underway


Working Group II’s report states that several natural systems have already been altered. Plants and animals  have begun changing their locations and habits due to warming. Satellite observations have shown earlier greening of vegetation in the spring, many plant and animal species are moving poleward, and birds and fish are migrating earlier. The IPCC Working Group has high confidence that the changes being observed in ocean and freshwater biological systems are due to the warming of water temperatures. The ocean is also becoming more acidic because of higher carbon uptake, but the effects on marine ecosystems have not been determined, according to the report.


The impacts of rising temperatures, changes in precipitation, and rising sea levels on natural and human systems will vary in magnitude, timing, and region, states Group II, partly depending on each area’s ability to adapt.


Effects of Climate Change


Ecosystems around the world will have a hard time adapting to the combination of climate change and other disturbances during this century, according to the report. Floods, drought, wildfire, an increase in the number of insect outbreaks, land-use change and over-exploitation of resources are contributing factors affecting adaptation ability.


Net carbon uptake by land-based ecosystems is likely to peak by mid-century, then the rate of uptake is likely to start declining, the report states. If the temperature increase is limited to 1-3 degrees C over the next century, then crop production in countries closer to the poles is projected to increase slightly. If the rate of warming is greater than that, crop production in those regions could decrease. At lower latitudes, even small increases in temperatures will reduce crop productivity, the report adds.


The effect of climate change on water supplies will vary. More than one sixth of the world’s population relies on meltwater from glaciers and snow in the mountains. Those water supplies are predicted to decline in the course of the 21st century. Areas that are prone to drought in mid latitudes will likely increase in extent.


Not surprisingly, coastal areas are at special risk, primarily due to the rise in sea levels. As sea levels rise, coastal and mega-delta communities will experience more floods; millions of people could be affected as early as the 2080s, according to the report. Asian and Australian coasts are at an even higher risk because of increasing development in these areas. With sea level rise, small islands will eventually become inundated. If the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt completely, the sea level would rise up to 7 meters and 5 meters, respectively, states the Group II report. But this is estimated to occur over centuries or millennia.


While things heat up, health concerns arise. The report states that climate change may affect millions of people through malnutrition, diarrhea, and cardio-respiratory disease. More deaths and injury will occur as a result of heat waves, floods, and drought. And again, areas that struggle to adapt will suffer the most.


On a positive note, there will be fewer deaths due to cold temperatures, less energy needed for heating, and less snow on the road, making travel easier.


Regional Differences


The future costs and benefits of climate change will vary for different parts of the world, but overall, the bigger the change in climate, the more negative the effects will be. Poor, developing regions will be hit the hardest because of their dependence on climate-sensitive resources and low adaptive capacity. Studies project that Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents, , and the adaptations that are taking place now may not be enough for future changes.


In Polar Regions, the thickness and extent of glaciers and ice sheets are projected to be reduced. Traditional ways of life such as hunting and travel over ice and the nature of physical structures are being threatened. Glacial lakes are increasing in number and size, the ground is becoming unstable in permafrost and rock avalanche areas, and some ecosystems are changing. Communities will need to adapt or relocate.


Nearly all European regions are anticipated to be negatively affected by some future impacts of climate change, states the report. More frequent flash floods and coastal floods may occur, winter tourism will be affected by glacier retreat and reduced snow cover, and up to 60 percent of Europe’s species in some areas will be lost by 2080 if high greenhouse gas emissions continue.


Significant biodiversity loss is a large risk in tropical Latin America; predicted decreases in water supply would cause tropical forests to be replaced with savanna in eastern Amazonia.


The report shows high confidence that water resources in North America will be strained. In certain areas of North America, crops that depend on heavy water applications may suffer. But in the early years of this century, yields of rainfed crops may experience higher yields in some regions of North America because of the longer growing season, states the report.


Need for Adaptation Measures


Some of amount of additional warming in the future is unavoidable due to past emissions; therefore, adaptation measures will be necessary regardless of any actions taken now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Communities are trying to adapt at present, but more effort will be needed. Adaptation methods can be technological, behavioral, managerial, or policy-related, states Group II. Limits and costs are not yet known, and adaptation will need to be supported by mitigation, which is discussed in Working Group III’s report.




-- Katie Starzec, CASMGS Communications


-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications






Mitigation of Climate Change:

2007 IPCC Working Group III


Regarding climate change, there is hope for the future if effective mitigation practices can be combined with emission reductions and appropriate adaptation measures, according to Working Group III of the Fourth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report. Greenhouse gas mitigation practices have substantial economic potential, and if fully implemented, these practices could keep future emissions below current levels, according to the working group. Although nations are not yet rising to their full potential in mitigating climate change, the negative effects can be lessened if they step it up over the next few decades.


The IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report, released in November, contains three “working groups.” Working Group III focuses on “Mitigation of Climate Change.”


What Can Be Done


Numerous steps can be taken to mitigate climate change, such as improved crop and grazing land management, establishing new forest acreage, improving energy efficiency in vehicles and buildings, changing fuel sources for electricity production, and simply reducing waste. But one answer will not solve every problem, states the report. Energy producers, industry, transportation, agriculture, waste facilities, and other areas will all need several different strategies. Some strategies are available now, and others are on the horizon.


Energy production and use will play a key role in future greenhouse gas emission levels. To get the most return for the money, it is better to invest in improved energy efficiency than to build new power plants whenever possible, the report states. Renewable energy sources and low-carbon technologies should be encouraged, as well as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) methods, it adds.


Other industries could mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by improving energy efficiency, enhancing heat and power recovery, and implementing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – especially in cement, ammonia, and iron manufacturing.


Sector Analysis


In the transport sector, direct greenhouse gas emissions rose 120 percent between 1970 and 2004, according to the report. Currently, technologies like hybrid vehicles and non-motorized transportation are available to reduce emissions, and biofuels could have a positive effect on emission control, depending on how they are produced. In the future, advanced electric and hybrid vehicles are projected to be on the market, along with more efficient aircraft. However, improvements in transportation will probably be challenged by consumer preferences, lack of policy frameworks, and growth in the sector, according to Group III.


There is great potential for greenhouse gas mitigation by making new and existing buildings more energy efficient, although there are also many economic and technological barriers to getting this accomplished, Working Group III acknowledges.


Evidence shows that changes in agriculture and forest management can make significant contributions to lowering greenhouse gases, at low cost. Soil carbon sequestration has the greatest potential, though the stored soil carbon could be susceptible to loss again if land management practices change. Some agricultural systems also have considerable potential to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Reforestation and tree species improvement to increase biomass production would also remove carbon from the air, and reducing emissions from deforestation in the tropics and elsewhere would help immensely.  


New ways of handling post-consumer waste also offer low-cost options for mitigating a small amount of greenhouse gases. Many technologies for improving waste management already exist, and would provide many co-benefits, the report states. Producing less waste and recycling more would also provide many benefits.


The Need for Mitigation Practices


The longer mitigation and emission reductions are delayed, the greater the impacts, states the report. According to Working Group III, government funding for most energy research programs has leveled or declined during the past two decades, in real absolute terms.


Many national policies are available to governments to create incentives for mitigation. Group III states that putting a price on carbon, in particular, could create incentive for both producers and consumers to invest in low greenhouse gas products, technologies, and processes. Carbon prices of $20-50 per ton of CO2 equivalent could lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2050, and make many mitigation practices economically feasible. Other policies include emissions regulations, carbon taxes, tradable permits, financial incentives, voluntary agreements, and awareness campaigns. Methods are determined by factors such as environmental effectiveness and cost effectiveness. The report states that if nations cooperate in their efforts, global costs could be lowered, and environmental effectiveness would improve.


Currently there are gaps in knowledge about some aspects of mitigation of climate change, states the report, especially in developing countries. Further research in these areas would help decision-making on mitigation policies. 





-- Katie Starzec, CASMGS Communications


-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications









August 18-22, 2008

Biofuels, Bioenergy, and Bioproducts from Sustainable Agricultural and Forest Crops

Bloomington, Minnesota







Send comments or items for the newsletter to Steve Watson at:


NOTE: If you are forwarding this newsletter to someone who would like to

subscribe on their own, here's how they can do so:


To subscribe:

Send a message to <> Skip the Subject line

in the body of the message, type: <subscribe carbon>

Then hit the return key twice.

If you would like to remove your name from this list and no longer

receive this newsletter, here's how:


To unsubscribe:

Send a message to <> Skip the Subject line

in the body of the message, type: <unsubscribe carbon>

Then hit the return key twice.