US CO2 Soil Sequestration via Plant Root Mass Using a Renewable Abiotic EPS by Larson Growth Ind.

Hello! This looks like an interesting plan, and I'm looking forward to reviewing it after the first deadline, July 18. If possible, I recommend you try addressing the "Proposals Included in your Plan" question by exploring sector-based proposals from Climate CoLab's past contests, stored here: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans. There are dozens of proposals, and you may find some creative and well-developed ideas that fit with and expand your own. Best of luck! Catie Ferrara Climate CoLab Fellow

Thank you for submitting your proposal to this Climate CoLab contest. Because you had submitted it before July 18, the contest Judges were able to review your proposal and provide you with some feedback, which we have included below. Please note that these comments refer to the content of this proposal as it was provided on July 18. We hope that you will use it to further develop your work before the August 31 deadline. On August 31 at midnight Eastern Time, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will then select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award. The Winners will receive a special invitation to attend selected sessions at MIT’s SOLVE conference and showcase their work before key constituents in a workshop the next day. A few select Climate CoLab winners will join distinguished SOLVE attendees in a highly collaborative problem-solving session. In addition, if your plan is included in one or more winning global plans, you will receive Climate CoLab Points (see https://www.climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Climate+CoLab+Points), and the top point-earners will receive shares of a cash prize of $10,000. Thank you for your great work and good luck! - 2015 Climate CoLab Judges & Fellows *** Judges' Feedback (1) Sam Adams: This is a fascinating proposal that uses "a minor change to current agricultural processes." By what is presented it shows great potential to impact carbon emissions. I especially like that the proposal seeks to clean the air of carbon "in a green manner that is financially lucrative." But the concept might benefit from a discussion upfront about how this proposal fits until the GMO food debate. And, how and why it is safe. What initially sounds straightforward (understandably) quickly gets complicated and will be scary to some - "Soluble salt produced from a biopolymer and a process for producing the salt." Further study of this concept could include using scenarios such as different crops and climate zones. Finally, I was not clear what the impact on water requirements would be for these modified crops. *** (2)Jonathan Pershing Feasibility -- The proposal is quite brief, and it does not fully explain how it will be implemented. The general concept, of providing soil amendments, is interesting and certainly feasible, though how we get to scale is not clear. For example, we have had several generations of soil amendments that could vastly improve farm productivity, but these are still not applied. What would be different about this, particularly in the absence of a carbon price that could value the benefit? Novelty -- The majority of proposals on soil carbon have focused on no-till, or new crops. This kind of approach focusing on soil amendments is therefore new. Impact on Climate Change -- If implemented at scale, this could have a very significant impact. However, getting to scale is not something that is clearly explained. If only a small number of actors implement, the effect could be quite modest. Presentation Quality -- [As of July 18 the proposal is] too brief to fully explain the process through which the proposal would be achieved. More information is needed both on the technology (and perhaps some unanticipated consequences to water quality, plant uptake, GMOs and others) as well as on how the global community achieves scale. But while brief, the proposal is clear about the underlying intent. *** (Additional) Comments from Climate CoLab Fellow Catie Ferrara: In addition to the judges' feedback provided above, I find this idea interesting and very clearly presented considering the complex science it depends on. However, showcasing a technological opportunity does not alone create a "regional plan." The author(s) should include more information on the U.S. agricultural context and address some of the challenges and opportunities particular to the region, e.g. the political power of the agricultural industry, which currently benefits from the status quo of policies and farming practices. The author could explore (or seek expert partners in) the economics of launching a practice like this across the U.S.; I wonder if most farmers could afford to participate, or if implementation might require subsidies. The author might look to other agricultural Climate CoLab proposals (for example, in the Land Use Contest) to make this plan for the U.S. more dynamic and feasible.