1. ISES 2013 David Addison | Virgin Group www.virginearth.com

2. 3 3. US$25m prize for: scalable, sustainable ways of removing GHGs from the atmosphere GtC yr-1 scale potential 4. Aim Avoiding dangerous climate change Avoiding impacts of dangerous climate change Responding to dangerous climate change Avoiding a given level of atmospheric GHG concentration Avoiding global average temperature increases Ensuring that rising temperatures do not impact upon core interests Providing redress for injuries core to interests Strategy Mitigation Reducing GHG emissions GHG-removal Drawing GHGs out of the atmosphere Solar radiation management Increasing albedo (reflectivity of incoming solar radiation) Adaptation Improved irrigation, flood defences, protection against new disease vectors Rectification Financial compensation, symbolic reparation Source: Dr. Clare Heyward (2013) A typology of different responses to climate change. Google it Is GHG-removal an undervalued response to climate change? 5. VEC Assessment Criteria: more detailScience& engineering GHGremoval potential Environmental /socialimpacts Economicfeasibility Long term net removal of a quantifiable amount of GHGs from the atmosphere. All atmospheric GHGs (not only carbon dioxide) Considered, in relation to their global warming potential. scalable to a significant size in order to meet the informal removal target of 1 billion tonnes of carbon per year for 10 years. Removal considered on a net life cycle basis. Technical viability, effectiveness and efficiency. Sufficiently credible to accurately monitor the systems performance over time. Demonstrable at least in the laboratory environment, real-world demo(s) likely needed. Potential for harmful effects and/or other incidental consequences of the solution understood and avoided or mitigated. At scale operation should not create direct or indirect environmental / social impacts. Ideally the activity would yield social/environmental co-benefits. The system for removal of GHGs must be commercially viable. 3 year and 10 year financial outlooks. credible scenarios for future cost of energy, raw materials, management. Systems potential for monitoring, reporting and verification credible enough to enable revenue generation on the regulatory and/or voluntary carbon market. Source: VEC Terms and Conditions. A more extensive breakdown for review purposes is used by VEC. 6. Final Judges SIR CRISPIN TICKELL VEC Judge DR. JAMES E. HANSEN VEC Judge F.V.P. Al GORE VEC Judge SIR RICHARD BRANSON VEC Judge PROF TIM FLANNERY VEC Judge PROF JAMES LOVELOCK VEC Judge 7. Review process Economic Relevance Sector Relevance VGF EM Context Awarding +10,000 applications from 100+ countries Review process Stage 2 review ~100 proposals Stage 1 review 2,600 formal submissions Stage 3 Final Judgment In future Conducted in-house to assess the overall viability of the proposal and worthiness of further review. Undertaken by small team in 2010, now by DA. In-depth technical review. Use of consulting experts under NDA. Determine whether entry empirically meets VEC criteria. Entry with a sufficient evidence base will then be put to the 6 VEC judges: Richard, Al Gore etc Serves as additional redundancy empirical evidence of stage 2 plus expert opinion. Ultimately at discretion of judges. Possibility to go to more than one entry. 8. 10 9. 13 10. 14