A chemical process, hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of low value biomass, is discussed as a tool for the sequestration of atmospheric CO 2 . Via the available biomass, CO 2 can be transformed into an efficient deposited form of carbon, i.e. hardly degradable peat or carbonaceous soil. Currently, world crude oil production amounts to about 4 billion tons or 4 km 3 per year (official energy statistics of the US Government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html). Assuming a price of US-$70 a barrel, this corresponds to a value of US-$1.76 trillion. As, essentially, all oil ends up— sooner or later—as CO 2 in the earth's system, the opposite side of this economy is the generation of an excess 12.5 billion tons of CO 2 per year, with the known implications on the world climate. The conventional discussion for handling this problem is to replace a minor part of the fuel and/or energy production by biomass schemes. This considers—beside direct combustion— the fermentation of carbohydrates to ethanol fuels, the cultiva-tion of oil seeds (''biodiesel''), or the generation of biogas via anaerobic digestion. 1 A very detailed analysis of the energy efficiencies, costs and biological impacts of such procedures was published by Gustavsson et al. as early as 1995. 2 For many years, sugarcane has been converted into ethanol in Brazil, replacing oil as a car fuel, which, however, turned out to be a highly inefficient process. Other countries, e.g. Sweden, try to become completely independent of oil imports through ''second generation'' biomass use, thus not only meeting their energy demand, but also significantly improving their CO 2 liberation footprint. However, in this context, it should be stated that biological fuel production schemes can only lower future increases in CO 2 emission, and cannot compensate for past and currently emitted CO 2 from fossil resources. Concerning climate change and the role of CO 2 therein, it would therefore be highly desirable to not only slow down further CO 2 emissions but also invert current development by sequestering the atmospheric CO 2 of past years of industrializa-tion. Not only is biomass a ''zero emission'' energy source, it also has the potential to generate a new chemical ''CO 2 disposal'' industry. This thought, as simple as it is, is only rarely accepted as a prerequisite for discussion. It also means that the search for new and efficient carbon deposits has to be perpetuated from a chemistry point of view. The biggest carbon converter, with the highest efficiency to bind CO 2 from the atmosphere, is certainly biomass. A rough estimate of terrestrial biomass growth amounts to 118 Â 10 9 tons per year, when calculated as dry matter. 3,4 Biomass, however, is just a short term, temporary carbon sink, as microbial decomposition liberates exactly the amount of CO 2 formerly bound in the plant material. Nevertheless, as biomass contains about 0.4 mass equivalents of carbon, removal of 8.5% of the freshly produced biomass from the active geosys-tem would indeed compensate for the complete CO 2 liberation from oil, all numbers calculated per year. To make biomass ''effective'' as a carbon sink, the carbon in it has to be fixed by ''low-tech'' operations. Coal formation is certainly one of the natural sinks that has been active in the past on the largest scale. Natural coalification of biomass takes place on a timescale of some hundred (peat) to hundred million (black coal) years. Due to its slowness, it is usually not considered in renewable energy exploitation schemes or as an active sink in CO 2 cycles. Never-theless, it is obvious that carbon fixation into coal is a lasting effort, as brown or black coal (on the contrary to peat) are obviously practically not biodegradable. The question of coa-lified carbon destabilization is, however, currently accessed in more detail. 5 Sufficient condensation of the carbon scaffold is, in any case, mandatory for the purposes of carbon fixation. It is therefore the purpose of this contribution to discuss the feasibility of turning coal formation into an active element of carbon sequestration schemes, simply by accelerating the under-lying coalification processes by chemical means. The natural process of peat or coal formation is presumably not biological but chemical in its nature. 6 As ''coaling'' is a rather elemental experiment, coals and tars have been made and used by mankind since the Stone Age, and one can find trials to imitate carbon formation from carbohydrates with faster chemical processes in the modern scientific literature. In this context, it is an exciting observation of soil research that the Indians of the Amazon basin used locally generated charcoal for the improve-ment of soil quality for hundreds of years (i.e. improving the water and ion binding of ''rich black'' soil) and that this carbon fraction was not easily decomposed. 7,8 Besides ''charcoal formation,'' which is performed with high quality, dry biomass only, hydrothermal carbonization (HTC)