GrowStoreFinder.com Grow Shop Directory 1-15-2014 GreenBookPages.com Grow Shop’s Directory Product Reviews
Local grow shops and hydroponic store locator with reviews Find Local Hydroponics Shops and Grow Stores. 10-10-14
Mega Text Ad’s Spaces Available!
Advertise On All 3 Of Our Marijuana Websites
We Update Daily!
Chris S. Kenoyer. Owner
Follow Us Now On Twitter
Or Follow Us Now
Email Us Here
Or Email Us Securely Here
OLP’s Free MMJ News EList
Is CBD? A Possible Cure For
Advertise Here On OnlinePot
Website Navigational Links
Parody’s Cartoons US
Amsterdam A to Z
Canadian Marijuana Websites
Co-Ops, Clinics, Dispensary’s
Marijuana Doctors & Clinics
Pot Cooking Recipes
Drug Testing A To Z
Pot Songs Video’s
100’s Of Grow Guides
Cannabis Legal Info, Drug
Other Marijuana Websites
Medical Marijuana Studies,
Parody’s & Cartoons
Avoiding Online MOM Scammers
The Politics Of Contraband
The Hall Of Shame Section
Online MOM Providers Ads
Politicians & Voters Rights
Medical Marijuana, Strains
The OG Marijuana Strain Guide
800+ FAQ Growing Questions
Patients Spiritual Guidance,
Online Marijuana Seed Banks
Maximum Security Section
Traveling Tips, Guides, B & B’s
Vaporizers A To Z
Online Pot Video’s & Movies
Please Visit Both Of Our Sister Websites!
Listen Right Here Online!
Translate Text or Web Page Go To:
Article Submissions & News
No part of this site maybe used or
OLP ENTERPRISES L3C
OnlinePot assumes no legal liability for any products, or information or
Cannabis: an environmentally and economically
Adapted from a diagram presented by Roulac (1997). Rather than being a comprehensive diagram, this serves solely to demonstrate the diversity of product and use for which Cannabis can be put. In addition, the possible ability for the ‘woody core’ or Hurds/shives to be used for energy applications has not been considered in this diagram.
2.5 Chapter two: Summary
h Large C. gene pool: wide selection of genotypes and phenotypes (i.e. desiccation
and frost tolerance)
h fast growing annual crop.
h extracts significant quantities of heavy metals from soil.
h long tap root, up to 2.5 metres helps prevent soil erosion
h requires modest (organic) fertilisation and near zero chemical fertilisation.
h ideally suited for integration into environmentally sound (i.e. organic) agricultural
h increases yield of the proceeding crop in rotation cycle by up to 10 percent.
h gross primary biomass increments up to 23t/ha.
h CO2 sequestration range between 7.6tC/ha and 11.5tC/ha.
h perfect substitute for cotton, requires less chemical inputs.
h suited to pulp paper manufacture: bast primary and secondary fibres low lignin
high cellulose content.
h chemical composition of woody core comparable to hardwood.
h potential as a biomass feed-stock for energy and transportation applications.
h also has the potential to be a valuable food source of plant protein.
Thus far, we have examined policy alternatives for climate change mitigation and as a result have examined the characteristics of a specific form of biomass  . Essentially, this chapter aims to examine (theoretically) the climate change mitigation potential arising out of the utilisation of Cannabis for industrial purposes while considering key variables such as land use and land availability. However, there is to date no comprehensively accurate data regarding global land use and therefore land availability that could be used for example, in a ‘dedicated biofuel programme’ (IPCC, 1996b). Despite this problem, much of the analyses done in this area use FAO land-use assessments which are considered to be most accurate (IPCC, 1996b) and provide reasonable estimates of land use/availability and will therefore be drawn upon in this chapter. By expanding on the work carried out by the IPCC and others in conjunction with the data/information from chapter two it will be argued that Cannabis cultivation has the potential to achieve the objectives set out in section 1.3.
As a determining variable, land-use is sensitive to many socio-political considerations and differs regionally according to factors such as demographics, requirements for agricultural land and the management of agricultural land. For example, some analysis (IPCC, 1996b) consider that intensive agricultural practices in the EU will lead to 15-20 Mha  of good agricultural land being surplus to requirement by 2010 (IPCC, 1996b, p755).  On the other hand, this situation is unlikely to occur in tropical regions as only half of land-use conversions (i.e. from forests to agriculture) contribute to an increase in agricultural productivity. The other half, ‘is used to replace previously cultivated land that has been degraded and abandoned from production’ (IPCC, 1996b, p749). This type of (inefficient) land-use conversion contributes as a significant source of atmospheric carbon (14 percent of total) which could be remedied by increasing carbon storage in managed (i.e. agricultural)  or forested soils.
However, there is a finite possibility for reforestation to occur given that adequate supplies of food, fibre and energy must be obtained from the remaining area. This is only deemed possible in the EU and US due to intensive farming methods (IPCC, 1996b). Since these methods contribute significantly to climate change and will therefore be affected by climate change (either directly or via mitigation policy), it would be highly undesirable to even consider an increase (globally) of standard intensive farming methods given their limitations of sustainability. Moreover, it would be advantageous for climate change mitigation policy to consider and address how the intensive agricultural (and consumer) practices in temperate regions could be rationalised and/or altered in order to promote (more) sustainable agriculture in conjunction with climate change mitigation policy. This is a point that will be elaborated on further in section 3.3.
3.2 Land availability
Contrary to popular belief there is more than enough available cropland to satisfy the World’s rapidly growing population. Taking into account the unsuitability of some soils and terrain, the FAO considers there to be 3000Mha of potential cropland of which only about 50 percent is at present cultivated (around 1450Mha)(IPCC, 1996b, p809). In light of this, many of the analyses (e.g. Hall et al, 1994 and IPCC, 1996b) that consider between 10 and 15 percent of total global cropland to be available for biomass cultivation for energy requirements form modest and reasonable assumptions. It must be pointed out, however that this figure does not allow for variations between geographic area according to, for instance, socio-political circumstances. In temperate zones, estimates of available cropland range between 8 and 11 percent (26-73Mha), while for tropical zones with a generally higher demand for agricultural land (food requirements), this figure is reduced to 5-7 percent (41-57Mha) (IPCC, 1996b, p755). The cropland area available when temperate ‘shelterbelts’ and tropical ‘agroforestry’ are included adds 13-26Mha and 41-65Mha respectively (IPCC, 1996b, p755). In terms of actual land area, these figures correspond to those (above) of the FAO (1991) cited by IPCC (1996b). 
This data can be extrapolated to give a total mean cropland availability of 171Mha globally, marginally more than the 10 percent figure given by Hall et al (1994) for the potential cropland they considered available specifically for energy biomass cultivation. There is also the strong possibility that this could be increased substantially by using some of the world’s land that has been degraded as part of a bio-remediation/reclamation programme. According to the World Resources Institute (IPCC, 1996b) there exist 750Mha of ‘light’, 910Mha of ‘moderate’ and 310Mha of ‘severely’ degraded land, the most promise being in the former area (IPCC, 1996b). Some estimates consider this to be as high as 2100Mha, 30 percent of which is considered to be suitable for reforestation or energy crop applications (IPCC, 1996b, p604). This fact is especially significant for tropical regions as the 5-7 percent of cropland available for energy crops could be dramatically enhanced using degraded agricultural land. Given the data regarding the physiological characteristics of industrial Cannabis there could be many advantages in using this crop for the rehabilitation of degraded land, although this remains an area lacking in actual field research.
Other than utilising degraded land for energy crops, a key argument of this thesis is that a substantial proportion of (currently used or technically ‘unavailable’) agricultural cropland could support Cannabis as a multipurpose energy crop. Essentially, this involves the integration of Cannabis into sustainable systems of rotation that, as the reader will by now be aware; Cannabis is well suited to. The possibility of doing so will be explored below and should in theory confer several additional environmental and economic benefits to climate change mitigation policy in line with the recommendations of both the Convention and IPCC, 1990, 1996a, 1996b.
3.3. Integration of Cannabis for sustainable agriculture
There are several aspects of intensive agriculture that are clearly unsustainable. Among these activities is an inadequate system of crop rotation that leads to greater reliance on (fossil fuel dependent) chemical fertilisers. These fertilisers also have a long-term impact on the quality of soil and therefore the productivity of the soil. According to Verloo and Willaert (1990), phosphorus-bearing chemicals display high levels of heavy metal concentration. For example, cadmium (Cd) is potentially phytotoxic and represents a health hazard. Moreover, de Haan (1987) attributed more than 90 percent of the Dutch soil Cd burden to inputs from chemical fertiliser impurities.  As an ideal rotation crop, Cannabis has a greater potential than most to remove these substances from the soil thus aiding the transition to organic status which is undoubtedly a fundamental objective where sustainable agriculture (and development) is concerned. For instance, it has been
‘calculated that organic farm systems in Germany emit only 39 percent of the overall fossil C required by conventional farms  . . . . Even energy inputs per ton of harvested crop were lower by 20-60 percent.’ (IPCC, 1996b, p754)
Moreover, where there does exist the problem of chemically polluted land Cannabis could be cultivated for industrial uses such as paper (bast/secondary fibre) and bio-energy (woody core), the plant being split according to its chemical composition. In cases where there is no significant chemical pollution, Cannabis could also be grown for seed  or food purposes either for human or animal consumption in addition to bio-energy or paper applications. High intensity animal production is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in modern agriculture, primarily as a result of the large quantities of fertiliser required in the production of feed. According to IPCC, 1996b, ‘reducing animal protein consumption in Europe and the United States by only one half of its present excess would decrease N (nitrogen) fertiliser requirements by about one half’ (p754). 
The significance of this is borne out by the fact that the fixation of atmospheric N (nitrogen) into synthetic fertiliser requires about 1.2kg of fossil fuel equivalent for each kg of fixed nitrogen. The present global consumption, 80Mt of fertiliser N, corresponds to the consumption of 100Mt of fossil fuel (IPCC, 1996b, p754). When considered in conjunction with the points raised in the previous chapter there would seem to be a strong case for the introduction of Cannabis as a multipurpose rotation crop. In doing so, the amount of land available for climate change mitigation policy is enhanced significantly. The choice for agricultural policy makers (in the EU, for example) is between an intensive system producing inferior quality products which will make available a substantial proportion of good agricultural land (see section 3.1) at the risk of degrading the rest. Or to keep this land productive on a rotational basis achieving a better quality of production more efficiently while also undertaking pragmatic steps for climate change mitigation.
3.4 Cannabis: energy crop for climate change mitigation
Hall et al (1994) consider it feasible that 10 percent of the total cropland, including that used for commercial forestry could be used for energy crops. This assumption means about 38Mha for Europe as a whole and approximately 15Mha for the EU. Given that there is adequate data for EU energy use, it is this last figure that shall be concentrated on. The data regarding the potential yield of Cannabis was around 15-20 dry tons (stem) per hectare, which can be averaged at around 17.5dt/ha. Using Hall et al’s (1994) data suggesting 18Gj/ton heating value for biomass  , 15Mha of Cannabis could produce 9.1 percent (5EJ) of the EU energy requirement. However, if grown in rotation with three of the EU’s main arable crops (wheat, barley and potatoes) the land area increases by 28.6Mha (OECD, 1997) giving a total area of 43.6Mha.
In effect, this would mean that 25.5 percent (or 14EJ) of the total EU energy requirement could be produced using the industrial cultivation of cannabis while benefiting the soil  and, therefore, the crops following from it in the rotation cycle. Moreover, oil accounts for around 40 percent of the EU primary energy requirement and 1527.2Mt of EU CO2 emissions (OECD, 1997). This particular example has the potential to offset around 974Mt of atmospheric carbon emitted if used to substitute directly for oil and could sequester up to a further 501.4Mt CO2 via photosynthesis in biomass. 
3.4.0 Global implications
Considering the above data on land-use and availability, the global potential for this particular mitigation option is substantial. For example, using the same statistics on which the previous example was based taking 10-15 percent cropland to be available (i.e. 171Mha) globally for energy crop applications, the use of Cannabis could generate around 54EJ or 20 percent of global primary energy requirement (as at 1990). Translated into emissions, this would reduce global CO2 emissions from its present level of 6Gt per annum from fossil fuel combustion by 1.2 Gt and sequester  a further 3.3 Gt/CO2 per annum. Of fundamental significance is the fact that according to the IPCC and others there is a 3.3Gt shortfall in terrestrial and oceanic sequestration. This is equivalent to a 1.5ppmv CO2 annual increase in atmospheric carbon that could be halted by using the additional biomass assumed in this example, thus stabilising CO2 emissions at their 1990 levels in line with the requirements of the Convention (see chapter one). The next section will consider this data in the context of globally enhanced future energy requirements and will consider the additional implications of Cannabis in a global rotation system.
3.4.1 Global scenario: 2025 and beyond
It is estimated that global consumption of energy (expressed in EJ) will increase from the global mean of 270EJ (1990) to around 491EJ by 2025.  Much of this will be due to the increasing energy demands of developing countries (IPCC, 1996b). Moreover, a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario will see growing pressures on natural forests for the global consumption of paper (see section 1.3 para 4-5) and agricultural land, especially in the tropics. This section will therefore examine the possible impact of cultivating industrial Cannabis to mitigate these problems in the context of fulfilling the UNFCCC and IPCC policy recommendations.
The international cultivation of Cannabis as both renewable energy source and fibre/seed crop would depend on the regional circumstances. An ideal scenario, for instance, would mean crop production satisfied local needs and/or markets (entailing local processing) with cultivars complementary to the local environment and climate. However, much of this remains at a theoretical level as the majority of plant breeding for fibre content has been in temperate regions and very little (if any) research has been carried out in tropical (or sub-tropical and boreal) regions with these cultivars. While section 3.3.1 outlined the possible impact of industrial Cannabis cultivation on global cropland deemed suitable/feasible for energy crops, it is possible to determine the impact when in rotation, for example, with wheat  crops at the global level. In addition, allowances can be made regarding the area of land categorised as degraded but deemed suitable for reforestation or energy crop applications (see section 3.2). Considering these factors increases the potentially available land  to approximately 1097Mha globally. Using the primary data from section 3.3.0, if total (stem) biomass is used for energy purposes this would create 346EJ of energy, representing a 76EJ or 28 percent increase over the mean global consumption of energy in 1990. While this would be highly desirable for climate change mitigation it is an extremely unlikely outcome, at least in the short term. However, if (as indeed we are) considering the multipurpose use of Cannabis biomass in a mitigation programme, such an area of land presents many additional opportunities for carbon sequestration.
Not least of these is the potential contribution this would make to the pulp and paper industries. Based on the chemical composition of Cannabis, around 35 percent of the stem weight is suitable for non-wood (i.e. low lignin, high cellulose) paper production. In the present global (statistical and/or theoretical) context, this translates into about 7Gt of raw material suited for paper applications.  Plantations currently provide only 370 million m3 or 25 percent of the worlds industrial round wood (FAO, 2000) implying that the other 75 percent is met through the destruction of natural or semi-natural forests. In addition, many of these plantations have directly displaced natural forests in order to offset the initial costs of plantation forestry, a problem that Cannabis cultivation through agricultural rotation and land rehabilitation could potentially solve. Moreover, a study of land-use in the US estimated that in a situation where industrial hemp (Cannabis Sativa) was used to replace pulp log production, the land required for the same production (output) level was only 10 percent of that currently used (Alden et al, 1998)  . Again this has many positive implications where Cannabis is integrated into sustainable systems of rotation agriculture.
Remaining with this dual function, around 13Gt (65 percent of stem ‘woody core’) of hardwood material – suitable for energy applications – could be produced. At 18Gj/t (heating value) this implies that approximately 225EJ (83 percent at 1990 levels) of the world energy primary energy could be met in a sustainable way while mitigating some of the problems brought about by changing land-use and deforestation for industrial (pulp paper) purposes. Sequestration of atmospheric carbon is also significant for this particular example.
Using the total biomass increment of Cannabis (see chapter two) the potential sequestration for this example is around 21Gt of atmospheric carbon! 
Obviously, geo-engineering at this level would require a considerable amount of research. It could be suggested, for instance, that flora and fauna will have already begun a process of climate change adaptation and any changes should be gradual. This however remains theoretical as the current rate at which carbon is added to the atmosphere is proportionally large.  We have, as discussed, increased levels from 270ppmv to over 360ppmv in the last three centuries. Even at the aforementioned level of sequestration via Cannabis cultivation, it would still take around 36 years to reduce levels to those of 1750, not accounting for continuing global increases in CO2 emissions over the next century! On the other hand this could allow world energy consumption (of fossil fuels) to treble emissions in the long-term without a substantial atmospheric build-up of carbon additional to that already present. As most policy is a product of compromise borne out of economic circumstances, it makes sense that a more incremental or indeed pragmatic approach is considered. The following sections will consider some of the practical and technological implications pertaining to this thesis.
3.5 Commercial applications
3.5.0 Energy and transport
In 1990, the share of global energy consumption in the transport sector was around 63EJ, equivalent to 1.4Gt of atmospheric carbon emissions (where the total emissions equal 6Gt/CO2 from 270EJ of global primary energy consumption). Transport and energy form the basic primary sources of carbon emissions. By changing the feedstock (raw materials) of these industries (using several existing technologies) from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates in the form of biomass derived cellulose(s), serious advantages to climate change and general pollution mitigation could be achieved.
The use of biomass as an energy application does not entail simply burning it. As mentioned in section 2.4, biomass can be used as a feed-stock in gasification processes which involves steam-reforming into hydrogen or methanol, both of which are perfect substitutes for fossil fuels and far less polluting (IPCC, 1996b). In transportation, for instance, the fuel cell vehicles (FCV’s) which utilise hydrogen are more than twice as efficient than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV’s) with similar performance (IPCC, 1996b).
Another application of biomass to the energy and transport sectors is in the production of ethanol (via enzymatic hydrolysis) which is most efficiently derived from fast-growing hardwood, the chemical composition of which is comparable to the ‘woody core’ of Cannabis. Even with comparatively low yields (12dt/ha/yr) compared to Cannabis; ethanol derived from other woody feedstock(s) yield twice that of grains. In addition, ethanol can be used in ICEVs with considerably lower life-cycle emissions (in gC/km) of around 2 percent of those in ICEVs using reformulated gasoline (IPCC, 1996b, p609). Clearly, the utilisation of these technologies in conjunction with an energy biomass programme would be a key factor in long-term climate change mitigation and general pollution abatement.
While it is easy to get carried away with the ‘technological-fix’, it is worth bearing in mind that a substantial proportion of the world energy requirement is already met by biomass in the form of firewood. According to the World Bank, firewood accounts for 35 percent of energy supplies in developing countries (Jepma, 1995, p25). Although, at the global level, plantations supplement 25 percent of the industrial roundwood market they only contribute around 4.5 percent to the fuel wood market (FAO, 2000). It would therefore be speculation to assume an amount of natural (and semi-natural) forest preservation that Cannabis could potentially achieve by supplying this market. Integration into rotation agriculture represents a key variable in realising the potential for Cannabis as a short rotation industrial feedstock in developing countries.
‘Despite the long term advantages of reforestation a fundamental question remains: how can people be motivated to invest time and labour in caring for trees when they may not be any benefit for years?’ (Gradwohl and Greenberg; 1988, p178)
3.5.1 Organic Farming
If the theoretical propositions of Alden et al (1998) concerning industrial Cannabis and land use minimisation can be borne out in practice then serious benefits could accrue for even the smallest landowners/farmers. This benefit is doubled when the environmental benefits of Cannabis cultivation are considered in the agricultural context. As a goal of sustainable development organic farming is of fundamental importance. Global food security does not just depend on the quantity of goods produced. The way in which goods are produced effects, for example, the long-term sustainability of soil systems. In addition, it could be argued that quality also has a dramatic impact on demand.
The introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the food chain has received criticism from scientists in developed and developing countries alike due to the long-term scientific uncertainties associated with their propagation and consumption. These scientific uncertainties make the introduction of GM crops unsustainable and potentially hazardous for long-term food security (see section 4.0).
Many developed countries (mostly in the EU) are making a concerted effort to move away from intensive to more extensive agricultural systems in order to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and for overtly economic (but associated) objectives such the reduction of surpluses – given their subsequent effect on prices. In the EU the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms of 1992 sought to break the link between farm incomes and volume of food (Ilbery, 1998). The ‘productivist’ philosophy behind GM crops does not fit well with these objectives and circumstances i.e. surpluses. Organic farming satisfies all the relevant criteria. So too does agricultural set-aside and non-rotational set-aside as described in EU Regulation 2078/92 or ‘agri-environmental action programme’. This was heavily influenced by international policy such as the UNFCCC and considered non-food crop set-asides for uses such as biofuel production with accompanying measures encouraging reforestation of agricultural land and organic farming (Ilbery, 1998)  . Changes to the CAP were themselves regulated for; being controlled via the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) established under Regulation 3887/92 (Ilbery, 1998).
Clearly this level of organisation would not be possible universally given the plethora of socio-political (and therefore economic) concerns at the global level that would mitigate against such co-operation in for example the civil conflict endemic in many parts of the World. It does, however, demonstrate the possibilities for the integration of agricultural and environmental policy, which for too long had remained separate issues in the EU. The encouragement of organic farming and more sustainable conventional practices at the Global level is fundamental to the successful integration of these policy areas and enhances dramatically the potential for Cannabis to be used in a multitude of functions, not least in the over-arching goal of climate change mitigation.
Chapter four: conclusion
4.0 Cannabis: an environmentally viable method for climate change mitigation?
It is apparent that Cannabis has the potential to confer several environmental benefits in addition to climate change mitigation. Not least is the ease with which Cannabis cultivation could be integrated into sustainable systems of agriculture or indeed into environmentally unsustainable situations as a method of improvement. The idea of ‘sustainability’ in agriculture engenders concerns regarding the long term security of food production which includes many aspects of production from soil quality – and all the variables that affect this – to the sustainability of products themselves. In addition, this definition could be extended to cover the impact agriculture has on surrounding environments, the hydrological cycle and therefore global warming. These all potentially affect the sustainability of agricultural systems and therefore food security. While this demonstrates the interconnectedness of events in nature and those induced by human activities, it is also intended to emphasise the positive impact Cannabis cultivation may have in this context.
For example, we observed earlier that problems such as the over-cropping of erodible soils lead to unsustainable practices of land conversion particularly in the tropics. Systems of rotation – using crops with long tap roots such as Cannabis – could help prevent the degradation of agricultural land, removing or at least lessening the need to convert more land (i.e. forested areas) for agricultural purposes. Some may be inclined to argue that less intensive systems of agriculture could result in food shortages. Cannabis however, as well as being a protein rich food crop could promote environmentally beneficial methods of agriculture (via rotation cultivation) that could help secure a long-term strategy of land management ensuring that food shortages do not occur. This would be enhanced greatly by using Cannabis as a key bioremediation crop to restore unproductive land back into agricultural use. Shortages are arguably far more likely to occur in areas where there is a deficit of suitable land due to intensive agricultural practices combined with inadequate land management (IPCC, 1996b).
Arguments suggesting that the way forward lies (solely) in the technological advances of genetic engineering are mistaken. Claims made by GMO corporations, such as Monsanto, that less chemical fertilisers could be applied to food (GM) crops with guaranteed yields and quality have not been borne out by the experiences of conventional farmers in the United States – many of whom have been using GM seeds for almost a decade. Moreover, claims that GMOs could ‘feed the world’ are extremely tenuous to say the least. To address these points, research into GM yields has demonstrated a mean 4 percent yield drag in RR  soybeans. Even comparing the top five varieties from each, RR still yielded five percent less than conventional soyabeans (E.A. Clark, 1999).
According to other research, GM soya is unsuitable for some (hotter) climates as soil temperatures reaching 40-50 degrees Celsius resulted in crop losses of up to 40 percent due to stem splitting (Coghlan, 1999). Moreover, research carried out at Cornell University, New York, has demonstrated that genetic diversity of agricultural crops – as opposed to genetic standardisation – is the way forward. Experiments using rice (another C3 crop), where all commercial varieties are derived from just two Sativa varieties, showed that crossing these with ‘wild’ genera boosted yields by between 10 and 20 percent (Coghlan, 1999). It is far more plausible, therefore, that years of continuous (protein deficient) cereal production will require alternative and rotational crops rather than genetically modified crops to,
‘allow control of those weeds, pests and diseases that still cannot be controlled in the cereal crops themselves, and perhaps more importantly [would] help restore organic matter to the soil following years of depletion by cereal crops’ (Forbes and Watson, 1992, p 257).
There is absolutely no scientific foundation for claims that GM crops will ‘feed the world’.  It is often argued that those in the West who oppose this technology do so only because they can afford to and that decisions should be left to individual countries. However, GM technology represents, for a nation-state, the ‘cheap fix’ for many social and agricultural problems as individual or small farmers would not be able to afford this technology (Mack, 1998)  . Their respective States, however – burdened with debts – could (and have, in the case of Brazil and Kenya) encourage(d) the use of these crops as an economic alternative to the capacity building of agricultural infrastructure, refrigeration facilities and transportation networks  with no regard for the long term sustainability of this technology – which is far from established. In effect, the technology has preceded the science.
It is also the case that the food we eat today is not varied enough in terms of nutritional content. The bulk of the worlds’ food is derived from only twelve crop plants and three types of livestock (Tivy, 1990, p7). For this reason many of the worlds poorer communities suffer from malnutrition as a result of cereal rich but protein deficient diets. The technological ‘solution’ involves engineering crops with enhanced nutritional value but according to the British Medical Association (representing 115,000 doctors), the use of anti-biotic marker genes in GM crops poses a slight but “completely unacceptable risk” of enhancing drug resistant bacteria (cited in E.A Clarke, 1999).
This is coupled with concerns about pest resistance to the pesticides and herbicides that (GM) crops are engineered to be resistant to – such as Monsanto’s ‘Round-up’ herbicide (E.A. Clarke, 1999). However, integrating Cannabis as a rotation crop into agricultural systems could potentially alleviate this regional (malnutrition) problem while mitigating climate change and other environmental problems associated with intensive agriculture such as pollution by ‘carcinogenic nitroso compounds’ found in areas of high nitrate pollution (Tivy, 1990, p250). Given these facts combined with the information in chapter two, there is a very strong case for the integration of Cannabis into both conventional and organic farming methods for climate change mitigation and general environmental improvement. One of the key areas where this would be possible is in the energy efficiency of agricultural systems  . The least efficient system is that of ‘feedlot’ cattle production as it produces only one tenth of the energy input – a fact that has led some to ‘question the long-term viability’ of such a system (Martin and Keable, 1981).
Thus not only could the multipurpose characteristics of Cannabis aid (more) sustainable systems of agriculture in the tropics whilst providing a welcome source of plant based protein but it may also help to challenge the intensive cattle production of the Western World, referred to as ‘excessive’ by the IPCC  . Cultivation of Cannabis in agricultural systems represents an integrated approach to deal with several related problems and indeed causes of climate change. However, the potential environmental benefits from cultivation on an industrial scale are most significant where climate change is concerned. As we have seen there are several related environmental factors and social practices that contribute to the overarching problematic of climate change.
These can be broadly summarised as:
h Fossil fuel consumption
h Degradation of agricultural land and desertification 
Cannabis cultivation for biofuel and industrial wood pulp could have the most profound mitigation potential by addressing the above factors. Sections 3.4 and 3.4.0 outlined the mitigation potential of Cannabis using the agricultural land considered by research to be available for energy crops which proved to be highly significant. In addition, there would obviously be less need to cut down ‘old growth’ trees if pulp was to be derived from Cannabis plantations in conjunction with that grown in agricultural systems. The prospect of utilising Cannabis in land reclamation/regeneration is also a significant and real possibility where industrial plantations are concerned given the physiological characteristics of the crop. It is probable however that Cannabis plantations would require significantly more chemical inputs than would be the case in rotational systems (Bocsa and Karus, 1998, see also chapter two section 2.1). It could be suggested, however, that the advantages of Cannabis cultivation for climate change mitigation far outweigh (minor) disadvantages such as this, although decisions are seldom – if ever – taken on the basis of their environmental credentials alone.
4.1 Cannabis: an economically viable method for climate change mitigation?
Cannabis is certainly an economically valuable crop given the plethora of possible uses to which its constituent parts could be put but economic value is also determined by the demand for products and the market(s) in which these demands are expressed. On this level the world market for hemp (Cannabis Sativa) derived industrial pulp is very small at around 120,000 tons/year (FAO, 1995). This however does not constitute real demand, as there are several political issues that ‘artificially’ determine industrial and therefore consumer behaviour – the essence of which shall be the subject of further deliberation later. At a holistic level enhanced climate change represents costs of almost unquantfiable proportions. How for example, do we quantify losses of species or for that matter the displacement of entire communities due to flooding? These questions raise several issues and make objective financial judgements very difficult. However, as noted in section 1.0, the IPCC and others consider that the cost attributed to climate change can best be described as a ‘fixed’ cost for atmospheric carbon, which over time turns out to be around 50 US dollars per ton.  In 1990, total atmospheric carbon totalled 750Gt (IPCC, 1996b).
When the full cost of climate change (if indeed this is possible) is taken into account almost any measures to mitigate climate change would be cost effective. However, according to the IPCC and UNFCCC mitigation measures should also confer direct benefits on individuals. The benefits that would accrue to farmers and consumers alike from the integration of Cannabis into sustainable agriculture have been examined but costing these adequately (such as the reduction of chemical inputs and increased yields of other crops) is beyond the scope of this piece of work. It would be beneficial and indeed advantageous to conduct a comprehensive social cost-benefit analysis for such a project, although this would be an extremely ambitious undertaking.
It is a distinct possibility that there could actually be more economic than environmental benefits if Cannabis was integrated fully into a World Economy based on the use of agricultural or bio-products as opposed to the current state of affairs which relies heavily on fossil fuels. From IPCC projections of future energy use we will become increasingly reliant on biomass this century and beyond. I would be inclined to argue that such projections must be taken in a context where all commodities are less dependent on fossil fuels for their production, not just energy. The following digression will elaborate.
Within economic discourse many considered the emergence of information technology to represent a new ‘wave’ of development but forget that this is a mechanism that allows the economy to function – it is essentially a tool to do the things we already do i.e. manufacture, buy and sell essentially the same commodities  . In addition, ‘waves’ of development in capitalist society are dependent not just on relative prices, new technologies or entrepreneurial dynamism but the techniques which influence all of the above. Assuming that raw materials are a (if not the) fundamental requirement of industrial society, it is fair to assume that a shift from the oil based economy is inevitable given the industrial reliance on finite and environmentally unsustainable resources. Eventually the price of fossil fuel will force alternatives, such as biofuels onto the market. Although, by the time this (market effect) occurs, assuming no fossil fuel shortages occur in the next (22nd) Century, the effects of climate change could be too dramatic to reverse.
Cannabis is possibly the most diverse and useful plant known to humanity (Roulac, 1997) and we already have much of the technology to manufacture many thousands of commodities from it (see section 2.4). Moreover, because we have possessed the ability to do so since the 1930’s, the reasons why industry has not utilised this plant is open to suggestion! There are several conspiracy theories featuring heavy-weight industrial players of the day such as Randolf-Hearst (then owner of both the New York Times and large areas of natural forest in the US) and the DuPont corporation which had patented techniques for the manufacture of artificial fibres from petrochemicals (Roulac, 1997). Kondratiev’s (a 20th century Russian economist) theory states that ‘waves of development’ occur due to changes in relative prices between manufactures, food and raw materials (Harris, 1988) and would seem to fit with the above ‘conspiracy’ theory (i.e. that Hearst and DuPont conspired to remove a formidable competitor) in so far as the hemp industry in the US was taxed out of existence in the 1930’s – leaving petrochemicals with no competition (see Roulac, 1997). 
Thus far all industry to date has been heavily reliant on fossil fuels of one kind or another and it would be reasonable to suggest that the – as yet – undefined K5 (after Kondratiev) ‘wave of development’ will utilise biomass to the same extent as all the previous waves of development have utilised fossil fuels – K4 being fuelled by petrochemicals and the motor industry. Cannabis could fill many (if not all) of the gaps in an economy shifting from a fossil fuel to biomass industrial base as is implied in the IPCC projections of future energy supply – this being a definitive feature of industrial society. According to this rationale, within the context of a global response to climate change mitigation, a suitable conclusion would be that the production of Cannabis could confer economic benefits on every country and individual landowner that participates. However, due to the global dominance of fossil fuels, policies are required to stimulate expansive cultivation of such an environmentally beneficial alternative. This could be achieved via the extension of global climate change mitigation policy as enshrined in the UNFCCC to include those countries at present not Party to the Convention by the adoption of a biomass cultivation initiative – in which Cannabis could be a major contributor. As chapter three discussed a sizeable proportion of all farmland could be utilised for Cannabis rotation, not to mention land rehabilitation.
There are other mechanisms by which this crop could enter the global market besides direct legislation or international agreement. For instance, there are several problems related to the supply of plant-based oil and protein for both human and animal consumption. Today the bulk of the World plant based protein is derived from Soya and most of that grown in the US has transgenic properties due to genetic engineering. The OECD (1999) states that there is a strong demand for plant based oil and protein, especially as a feed ingredient and projections show that production will increase by 34 percent or 64Mt by 2004 (OECD, 1999).
Moreover, oil seed rape is favoured for its oil content (35 percent oil) while soya is favoured for its protein content (OECD, 1999) both of which are surpassed or equalled by Cannabis with 33 percent oil by (seed) weight and 25 percent protein by ‘seed’ (see section 2.3.0). If there are restrictions placed on the cultivation of transgenic crops due to the lack of knowledge regarding their safety and therefore long term sustainability – or indeed that consumers themselves reject this food – Cannabis is in a perfect position to enter the food and feed market as a perfect non-GM substitute for these products.
Unlike previous waves of development in which benefits accrued only to those countries with large oil reserves and/or the technological means to manufacture commodities from them, a biomass economy would not be regionally specific but would be distributed internationally. Cannabis fits perfectly into such a scenario as it can be produced at almost every latitude covering, therefore, most climatic zones. Because it is an annual crop it would not be affected by climate change to the same extent as other choices of short rotation woody feedstock for industry (IPCC, 1996, p389).  Moreover, the use of a standardised industrial feedstock makes far more economic sense than does using a heterogeneous supply of biomass, as technology could be tailored specifically and standardised to reduce cultivation, harvesting and processing costs. In addition, due to the environmental benefits of Cannabis as a rotation crop participation could be universal and could be non-specific to the size of land-holdings – thus enhancing rural employment.
In the context of international agreements concerning climate change mitigation (i.e. UNFCCC) such an economy would almost certainly require technology transfer from rich to poor to enable regional biomass processing – an idea that has been accepted by the 160 signatories to the Convention. This would be essential in order to take advantage of the multipurpose characteristics of Cannabis. For example, it would be advantageous to have the technological capacity at a local level for the dual processing of paper and biofuel as this would be based on a separation of the constituent parts of Cannabis as described in chapter two. In addition, if seed production was to be locally desirable in this multipurpose scenario then it would also necessarily involve technologically advanced dual processing facilities.
As mentioned earlier, there are also some serious political considerations for this thesis. According to research (see section 2.1) the environment Cannabis is cultivated in can affect the biochemical pathways of the plant. While this confers benefits on the plant in terms of its ability to cope with a range of climatic conditions, it also effects the production of the Cannabinoid Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol – categorised as an illegal narcotic in most countries due to domestic and international drug laws (mostly of US origin). This situation would put developing countries (in other words those who would benefit most from this climate change mitigation, environmental and economic policy) at an unfair disadvantage in relation to the countries of temperate regions who can cultivate low THC varieties of Cannabis Sativa or ‘hemp’ for fibre and seed within these regulations. 
An international agricultural agreement on Cannabis cultivation would necessarily address this issue either by relaxing laws governing the THC quantity in plants due to climatic variations or by embarking on a tropical breeding programme to try and reduce the apparent correlation between UV-B levels and Delta-9-THC production. Research in this area is urgently required given the overwhelming benefits that cultivation of this crop would bring to these regions and indeed the World in terms of climate change mitigation and through the preservation of the bio-diversity found in old growth forests currently destroyed by land-use conversion and industrial activities. In comparison to the problem of climate change this issue is insignificant given the immediate possibilities for addressing it via modern plant breeding practices or legislative changes.
4.3 Cannabis: Industrial raw material for the 21st Century?
While the answer to this question rests with the degree to which resources are dedicated to research, the present picture is very promising. Current research has resulted in new advances in Cannabis breeding for fibre yield, quality and seed production (Ranalli, 1999) and technologies are being further developed for the utilisation of biomass in the energy and transport sectors which Cannabis is perfectly suited to (see section 3.5.0). In addition, because of the range of products that can be synthesised from Cannabis our current reliance on fossil fuels could be reduced still further. Moreover, the ability to do so exists at present so far from being a future or long-term objective, industrial Cannabis could in fact be utilised for these purposes in the very short-term. In the context of climate change mitigation policy, reducing the use of fossil fuels is of paramount importance but there are overlapping environmental concerns associated with modern production methods that can and should be addressed by coherent environmental policy, especially in a global/holistic context.
In addition to the environmental concerns arising from modern agriculture, many of the products currently synthesised from fossil fuels will continue to pollute air, land and water long after their usable life is over. Products made from Cannabis would not have this problem given their greater potential for recycling and for biodegradable product lines (Roulac, 1997). This is an important aspect in the light of international standards set out by the International Organisation for Standardisation such as the ISO 14000 requirements for environmental management. Roulac (1997) points out that the US Department of Energy requires all contractors to register as complying with these (ISO) standards. If all the environmental considerations are taken into account, Cannabis certainly has the potential to become a primary industrial feedstock for the 21st Century.
However, we should learn the lessons of the past where corporate and political interests have been successfully mobilised to prevent the cultivation of this important crop. There remain therefore a plethora of inter-related issues that require serious deliberation – several of which are fundamentally political. Not least is the politico-economic power that today’s multi-national (in particular petrochemical and biotech) corporations have over governments – especially in the developing world. Moreover, within the context of climate change and it’s associated causes, decisions cannot be left to the market to decide, although as pointed out (in section 4.2) this will occur eventually where fossil fuels are concerned. Successful climate change mitigation requires immediate action which in turn requires political and corporate attention to be focused on the relevant issues. These include our obligations and responsibility to implement climate change mitigation as laid out in the UNFCCC for maintaining the World’s biological diversity and for future generations’ development.
For example, while the GM food safety issue is of major concern, this technology has the potential to contribute positively in the further development of biofuel crops and land rehabilitation using multipurpose industrial crops i.e. Cannabis. Unfortunately, without some political intervention this technology will have greater market viability where food crops are concerned over other, arguably more environmentally sound uses such as climate change mitigation. Alternative technology designed specifically for the energy sector has also been making substantial progress. According to Paul Staples, Chairman of HyGen Industries (personal communication, 2000) hydrogen powered fuel cells will enter the market with a sizeable share of domestic, commercial and utility applications within the next ten years. In addition, there are many companies such as Iogen Corporation that are committed to the development of ethanol from biomass feedstocks. This process has particular economic and environmental benefits since (see section 3.5.0) it can use commercially established technology such as the internal combustion engine rather than new (i.e.hydrogen) fuel cells, thus saving the premature devaluation of capital stocks (from oil generated power stations to motor vehicles). Most importantly Cannabis is particularly well suited to this end both practically and logistically.
The cultivation of Cannabis within both conventional and organic agricultural systems, combined with the rehabilitation/reclamation of degraded land could form an important – if not crucial – foundation for a coherent and politically/socially inclusive World Agricultural Agreement. By addressing climate change via an environmental approach using Cannabis as a multipurpose biomass – supported by environmental policy and economics – we have the potential to address many of the land-use and consumption related causes of climate change and the actual volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This could be achieved as part of an overarching international climate change mitigation policy that would target – above all – the extensive use of fossil fuels in the World Economy today rendering the use of Cannabis viable, not only for energy applications but as a foundation for a World Economy that requires an alternative industrial feedstock for the production of all commodities that presently rely on fossil fuels.
Alden et al. (1998) ‘Industrial hemp’s double dividend: a study for the USA’ in Ecological Economics, 25, pp291-301.
Adger W.L and Brown K. (1994) ‘Land Use and the Causes of Global Warming’
Bazzaz, F.A and Sombroek, W.G (1996) ‘Global Climate Change and Agricultural Production: Assessment of Current Knowledge and Critical Gaps’ in Global Climate change and Agricultural Production (Eds. Bazzaz, F.A and Sombroek, W.G) Wiley.
Biermann, C.J (1993) ‘Pulping and Papermaking’ Academic Press Inc.
Bocsa, Dr Ivan and Karus, M (1998) ‘The Cultivation of Hemp: Botany, Varieties, Cultivation and Harvesting’ Hemptech.
Bocsa, Dr Ivan (1999) ‘Genetic Improvement: Conventional Approaches’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
Coghlan (1999) ‘Splitting Headache’ New Scientist 20th Nov. 1999.
Coghlan (1999) ‘Relative Values’ New Scientist 27th Nov. 1999.
Clarke, E.A (1999) ‘Ten Reasons Why Farmers Should Think Twice Before Growing GE Crops’, published on-line by the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Clarke, R.C (1999) ‘Botany of the Genus Cannabis’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
De Groot, B., G.J van Roekel Jr, J.E.G van Dam (1999) ‘Alkaline Pulping of Fiber Hemp’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
De Haan F.A.M (1987) ‘Effects of Agricultural Practices on the Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties of Soils: Part III – Chemical Degradation of Soil as the Result of the Use of Mineral Fertilisers and Pesticides: Aspects of Soil Quality Evaluation’. In Scientific Basis for Soil Protection in the European Community (Eds. Barth, H & L’Hermite, P. Elsevier) Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London.
De Meijer, E.P.M (1999) ‘Cannabis Germplasm Resources’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
Eurostat (1997) ‘Agricultural Yearbook’ OECD
Faaij, A., J. van Doorn, A. Curvers, L. Waldheim, E. Olsson, A. van Wijk, C. Daey-Ouwens (1997) ‘Characterisation and availability of biomass waste and residues in the Netherlands for gasification’, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, Termiska Processer AB Studsvik Sweden, Province of Noord-Holland, published in Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 225-240.
FAO (1995) Yearbook, ‘Production 1994’ Vol.48. Rome, Italy.
FAO (2000) ‘Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products’ Sao Paulo, 27-28 April 1999. Published on-line by the FAO
Farming News (1999) on-line publication of the Norfolk Genetic Information Network
Forbes, J.C and Watson, R.D (1992) ‘Plants in Agriculture’ Cambridge University Press.
Gradwohl and Greenberg (1988) ‘Saving the Tropical Rainforests’ Earthscan
Hall, D.O et al. (1994) ‘Biomass for energy and Industry’ in : Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Biomass for Energy and the Environment, Agriculture and Industry 5-9 October 1992, Florence, Italy. Ponte Press Bochum Germany.
Houghton, J (1997) ‘Global Warming: the complete briefing’, Cambridge University Press.
Harris (1988) ‘The UK economy at the crossroads’ in ‘The Economy in Question’ (Eds. Allen, J and Massey, D) Sage Publications in association with the Open University
International Energy Agency (1997) published by OECD.
Ilbery, B (1998) ‘The Challenge of Agricultural Restructuring in the EU’ in The New Europe: economy, society and environment (Ed. Pinder) Wiley.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ‘1990: Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment’, Report prepared for IPCC by working group I (Eds. Houghton, J.T, Jenkins,G.J and Ephraums, J.T) Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (1996a) Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. (Eds. Bruce, P; Lee, H and Haites, E.F) Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (1996b) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds. Watson, R.T; Zinyowera, M.C; Moss, R.H and Dokken, D.J) Cambridge University Press.
Jepma, C.J (1995) ‘Tropical Deforestation: a socio-economic approach’ Earthscan
Lalli, C.M and Parsons T.R (1993) ‘Biological Oceanography: an introduction’, Pergamon Press
Latta, R.D and Eaton, B.J (1975) ‘Seasonal Fluctuations in Cannabinoid of Kansas Marijuana’ in Economic Botany, 29, pp153-163.
Leemans et al (1996) ‘Land Use Change in Global Climate Change Models’ in Global Climate Change and Agricultural Production (Eds. Bazzaz, F.A and Sombroek, W.G) Wiley Ltd.
Lehmann, H., A. Pfluger, T. Reetz, (1996) ‘Sustainable land use in the European Union, available area for biomass production in a sustainable land use scenario’, Wuppertal institute for climate, environment and energy, 9th European Bioenergy conference and 1st European Biomass Technology Exibition, Copenhagen, 24-27 June 1996. Published on-line.
Lopez-Real, J.M (1981) ‘Plant-microbial Interactions’ in Biological Husbandry: a scientific approach to organic farming (Ed.Stonehouse, B) Butterworths.
Mack, D (1998) ‘Food for all’ New Scientist, 31st October, 1998.
Martin, N.W and Keable, J (1981) ‘Problems of Energy Saving and Recycling in Biological husbandry’ in Biological Husbandry: a scientific approach to organic farming (Ed.Stonehouse, B) Butterworths.
Mattoon, A.T (1998) ‘Paper Forests’ in World Watch Vol.11 no.2
OECD (1999) ‘Agricultural Outlook’ 1999-2004
Pate, D.W (1999) ‘The Phytochemistry of Cannabis: Its Ecological and Evolutionary Implications’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
Pate, D.W (1999) ‘Hemp Seed: A Valuable Food Source’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
Pearce, D. et al (1989) ‘Blueprint for a Green Economy’, Earthscan
Ranalli, P (1999) ‘Agronomical and Physiological Advances in Hemp Crops’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
Roulac, J (1997) ‘Hemp Horizons: the comeback of the worlds most promising plant’ Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Tivy, J (1990) ‘Agricultural Ecology’ Longman Group (Ltd)UK.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 9th May 1992
(Reprinted, London: HMSO 1995)
Van der Werf, H.M.G et al (1999) ‘Crop Physiology of Cannabis sativa L.: A Simulation Study of Potential Yield of Hemp in Northwest Europe’ in Advances in Hemp Research (Ed. Ranalli, P). Food Products Press (imprint of The Hawthorn Press, Inc).
Verloo, M and Willaert, G (1990) ‘Direct and Indirect Effects of Fertilisation Practices on Heavy Metals in Plants and Soils’. In Fertilisation and the Environment (Eds. Merckkx R., Vereecken H. and Vlassak K.) Leuven University Press, Belgium.
Weerakoon, W.M et al (1999) ‘Effects of nitrogen nutrition on responses of rice seedlings to carbon dioxide’ Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment’ 72, 1-8 cited on-line @ World Climate Report.
Yassoglou, N.J (1987) ‘The Production Potential of Soils: Part II – Sensitivity of the Soil Systems in Southern Europe to Degrading Influences’. In Scientific Basis for Soil Protection in the European Community (Eds. Barth, H. & L’Hermite, P.) Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.
 These include ‘The ages of Gaia’ (1988) and ‘Gaia: the practical science of planetary medicine’ (1991).
 How for instance do we adequately account for loss of species (biodiversity) as a result of climate change?
 The cost of emitting one ton of carbon now given future damage (marginal cost), calculated using a discount rate means that estimates range between 5 and $125 per t/C (Houghton, 1997).
4 Parts per million volume.
 Article 2 states that: ‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related instruments that the conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved in a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.’
 Sinks, as defined in the UNFCCC, ‘means any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.’ At present the terrestrial and oceanic sinks sequester 55 percent of all anthropogenic emissions, the remaining 45 percent is added to the atmospheric composition – resulting in global warming (Houghton, 1997).
 This is not to trivialise these areas; they are protected by international agreement (CBD, signed at Rio 1992 by 153 countries plus the EU) protecting the biological diversity located in these, mainly tropical regions. In addition, old growth forests represent a substantial store of above and below ground carbon the removal of which becomes a source of atmospheric carbon and other GHGs (IPCC, 1996b).
 See section 3.5.0 paragraph four.
 Global paper manufacture also accounts for a substantial proportion of industrial effluents released to water and therefore impacts on terrestrial and marine environments negatively.
 IPCC (1996b, p786) considers the average cost of plantation forestry to be around $400/ha.
11 Forests globally cover 4.1Gha, 0.1Gha are plantations and 11% of the total are managed. This varies by region as 20% of mid-latitude, 17% of high latitude and less than 4% of low-latitude forests are managed (IPCC, 1996b, p776).
 This fact will be addressed more fully at a later stage.
 It is the author’s aim to put forward a non-discriminatory account of this species considering it’s naturally occurring (and human) induced diversity. The intricacies pertaining to the Cannabis gene pool are of great interest, especially in terms of the wider theoretical ramifications for this thesis. As a result more attention will be devoted to this area at a latter point.
 Due to hemp’s (Cannabis sativa) rapid early growth and the density of the crop, strong weed suppression is virtually guaranteed. Even thistles and couch grass are killed off by hemp (Bocsa, 1998). This situation may not follow where extremely poor soil conditions are prevalent. In addition, pest resistance could be undermined when cultivated in plantation conditions i.e. continuous cultivation in monoculture (Bocsa, 1998).
 This is verified by Hemcore UK Ltd, who contracts hemp cultivation with farmers in the South East of England (Roulac, 1997).
 L equals the amount of light intercepted during a growing season. RUE is the radiation use efficiency (the amount of dry matter produced per unit of light intercepted), and HI is the harvest index – the proportion of total dry matter consisting of plant parts of economic value (van der Werf et al, 1999, p88).
 Ha is the abbreviation for hectare, this being equal to 2.471 acres. Symbol ‘t’ refers to tons.
 The lower seeding rates characteristic of seed production would mean later canopy closure and a lower initial primary biomass production countered only by the fact that there would be less self-thinning of the crop due to less competition for PAR (Ranalli; 1999).
 Self-thinning has environmentally beneficial aspects for agriculture as canopy formation of the Cannabis crop develops, old growth (leaves, which are high in Nitrogen) die and so perform a self- mulching function, creating in effect a mini-ecosystem fertilising the soil, preventing soil erosion and run-off (Roulac, 1997).
 Cannabis seed contains negligible trace quantities of the psychoactive substance THC (Pate; 1999, p246)
 Zinc is an important enzyme cofactor for human fatty acid metabolism. It is also a fair source of carotene, a “Vitamin A” precursor, and is a potentially important contributor of dietary fiber…No other single plant source offers a more favourable human dietary balance of the two essential fatty acids, combined with an easily digestible complete protein’. (Pate; 1999, pp243-252)
 ‘With the present monoecious and unisexual varieties a potential seed yield of 1200 to 1500 Kg/ha can be achieved’. (Bocsa; 1999, p179) In addition a non-branching dioecious variety grown in Finland (FIN-314) has produced record yields of 2 t/ha (Pate; 1999).
 Lignin content is especially significant for pulp paper manufacture as it interferes with hydrogen bonding and so negatively effects paper strength and polluting effluents are produced in the removal of lignin leading to lower yields of pulp due to the chemicals degrading effects on hemicelluloses (Biermann, 1993).
 IPPC refers specifically to the biomass-producer gas-engine and the more advanced but available biomass integrated gasifier/gas turbine or BIG/GT (IPCC, 1996b, p606). This and other mitigation options pertaining to the biomass potential of Cannabis in the energy and transport sectors will be elaborated upon in chapter three where other key variables such as land-use/availability will be accounted for.
 Biomass utilisation (for atmospheric carbon sequestration and energy applications) having the greatest mitigation potential of the said options according to the IPCC.
26 Mha refers to million hectares.
27Lehman et al (1996) calculate that there will be a surplus of agricultural land in the EU of 40Mha by 2010 and took into account strict environmental constraints on agriculture and aspects like the import of agricultural products.
 These practices include the prevention of low production levels, erosion, inadequate fertilisation, removal of crop residues, and intensive tillage (IPCC, 1996b).
 When accounting for a small margin of error, these figures broadly agree with Hall et al’s assumption that between 10-15 percent cropland is available for energy crops. According to the FAO data (in the context of Hall et al’s study we assume 10 percent availability) a total cropland area of 145Mha would exist, so the 171Mha used in this example is a reasonable estimate.
 Degradation of soil fertility under intensive agricultural practices can also be due to water and wind erosion, compaction, tranlocation of particles and lowering of organic matter content (Yassoglou, 1987).
 This is mainly due to the replacement of mineral N fertilisers by legume cropping (IPCC, 1996b, p754).
 The data regarding properties of the Cannabis seed are detailed in chapter two.
 In addition, this ‘excess’ of animal protein consumption is responsible for a substantial proportion of global CH4 emissions (see chapter one).
 The heating value is calculated from the short rotation grass, Miscanthus and short rotation coppice such as Willow (Faaij et al, 1997). Industrial hemp, (Cannabis Sativa), could perhaps have a higher heating value given the woody core’s chemical and botanical comparability to hardwood but due to a lack of data, the same heating value has been attributed.
 See chapter two, section 2.1.
36 Calculated using the upper total biomass yield of 23t/ha at an average uptake of between one half and one third of this total, as discussed in chapter two.
 On the basis of a total biomass increment of 23t/ha for Cannabis (see chapter two). Figures are based on 1990 levels of emissions and energy use, mean energy use being 270EJ and total emissions from fossil fuels being 6Gt (IPCC, 1996b).
38 This estimate is derived from calculating mean energy use based on the projections of the IPCC (1996b, p14).
 The reason why only wheat crops have been selected is primarily logistical and serves to provide a simplified but global example of the benefits resulting from Cannabis in rotation systems for agriculture and climate change mitigation. The more crops Cannabis could be rotated with the greater climate mitigation potential for this thesis and arguably the more sustainable the respective agricultural systems.
 Globally, the data for areas of light degradation is 710Mha. The land area harvested for wheat according to the FAO (1995) is around 216Mha. These figures have therefore been added to the 171Mha of cropland assumed viable for such a project from the data provided by Hall et al, 1994 and IPCC, 1996b.
 Since statistics dealing with plantation yields for industrial round-wood consumption deal primarily in volume (m3) (FAO, 2000) there are problems in terms of quantifying this amount to make the data more relevant.
 Unfortunately, this study left out some of the primary data that would have been extremely relevant for this thesis such as yield per/ha of pulp log and hemp production in the context of land-use minimisation.
 This figure does not include the sequestration of carbon stored in the conversion of (degraded) land back to agriculture and does not account for the additional sequestration from terrestrial sinks such as natural forests preserved from the pulp log market. It must also be pointed out that this figure does not account for the atmospheric carbon emissions from the utilisation of biomass as an energy feedstock as there is no available data. However, as section 3.5.0 will examine, emissions from biomass energy would be considerably lower than those from fossil fuels, although this area requires a considerable research effort.
 This is in comparison to the sensitivity of plants to climate change. According to the IPCC (1996b), fluctuations of as little as one degree Celsius could threaten some species survival.
 Industrial Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L, being controlled in terms of its ‘drug’ or THC content by EU legislation to be no more than 0.03%) is presently subsidised via the CAP. In 1994, aid for this crop was set at ECU641.6 per/ha.
 RR refers to ‘Round-up Ready’ – varieties engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s ‘Round-up’ herbicide.
 Trials run by the UK’s National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in 1997 and 1998 showed yields from GM winter oilseed rape and sugar beet were between 5-8% less than high yielding conventional varieties. (reported in Farmers Weekly (UK), 4th December 1998). In addition, according to the Norfolk Genetic Information Network, research at the University of Purdue (1997) found transgenic varieties of soya yielded on average 12-20 percent less than conventional varieties grown at the same location and the University of Wisconsin (1999) found that of 21 trial sites over 9 northern (US) States, GM yields were less in all but four sites compared with conventional crops.
 If GM is ever proven to be safe it would be fair to assume that the price would increase given the amount money this would require and time it would take.
 A recent Channel Four broadcast (Equinox 20/03/00) actually put forward the argument for GM because many food crops in developing countries ‘rot before they reach the market’. However, rather than encourage the use of technology that has yet to be rigorously tested for its safety and long-term sustainability (such as slow ripening GM tomatoes) the West has an obligation, for example, to underwrite debts to allow countries to expand their agricultural (and social) infrastructures in addition to climate change mitigation policy/strategy.
 See section 3.3 ‘Integration of Cannabis for Sustainable agriculture’.
 This would rest on consumer choice which at present we do not have the only plant based protein in the Western world is soya, much of which is either of GM origin or has been mixed with GM soya.
 These problems are often a direct result of the agricultural practices used such as intensive cropping without rotation and the overuse of chemical pesticides and herbicides (see section 3.3).
 The use of different discount rates to calculate future damage costs means that the range of value is between 5 and 125 US dollars per ton of atmospheric carbon (Houghton, 1997).
 It is easy to forget that our desktop PCs were manufactured using plastics derived from petrochemicals. In the future these could be manufactured from biomass derived plastics.
 Despite this fact, the US government did embark on a highly publicized ‘Hemp for Victory’ campaign during the Second World War to ensure a domestic supply of industrially required material (Roulac, 1997).
 This assumes that even if mitigation policies are implemented, because of the extent of atmospheric pollution from CO2 , N2O and CH4 global warming will continue for an unspecified number of years. In many respects mitigation policy is essentially damage limitation for the long term future wellbeing of the Planet as this problem is reversible.
 Even in temperate regions there is much confusion associated with the cultivation of Cannabis. In the US, for example, the legislators that passed the ‘Marihuana Tax Act’ of 1937 sought to distinguish between Sativa and Indica varieties due to their botanical distinctions but this still led to over regulation and taxation (Roulac, 1997). However, a later act in 1970 made no such distinction making the cultivation of hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) impossible. The authorities of the US delegate responsibility for drug law and enforcement to the DEA which has refused permits to (would be) industrial hemp growers. Under US Law, the DEA is required to inform congress of any countries producing ‘Marihuana’ in order for sanctions to be levied. Despite the DEA non-discriminatory approach i.e. between hemp (Cannabis Sativa) and Marihuana (Cannabis Indica), no sanctions have been levied against the EU, India or China in what remains something of a paradox (Roulac, 1997).
‘The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the United Kingdom Copyright Acts as qualified by the University of Strathclyde Regulation 3.49. Due acknowledgement must always be made of the use of any of the material contained in or derived from, this thesis.’