Carbon credits

[Michaelangelica]

 

Brother, can you spare a carbon credit?

Thinkers weigh a radical new way to reduce greenhouse gas: Give everyone an individual carbon allowance, and let the dealing begin.

Email|Print| Text size – + By Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow

February 24, 2008

 

GLOBAL WARMING IS a planet-sized problem, so policy solutions tend to aim for the grandest possible scale. The signatories of the Kyoto Protocol have pledged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions at a national level, while laws in various countries and states seek to reform entire industries.

Brother, can you spare a carbon credit? - The Boston Globe

[erich]

Newyorker Article on our carbon Big Foot

 

See an interview with Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO of CCX in « Big Foot » by Michael Spector, New Yorker, February 25, 2008

 

A Reporter at Large: Big Foot: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

 

This 9 page article really clears the air on the issues and difficulties of assessing the carbon loads of products and practices.

 

Of course I sent the author my TP post, characterizing Biochar as the "Cinderella Slipper" which fit our "Big Foot'' to a tee.

[LaurieAG]

This 9 page article really clears the air on the issues and difficulties of assessing the carbon loads of products and practices.

 

Hi Erich,

 

But if the Carbon Credit trading system is run anything like our current 'free' market, especially global finance, we'll be choking to death while the politicians all pat each on the back for creating such 'beautiful figures'.

[Michaelangelica]

Hi Erich,

 

But if the Carbon Credit trading system is run anything like our current 'free' market, especially global finance, we'll be choking to death while the politicians all pat each on the back for creating such 'beautiful figures'.

Very interesting article Eric

(Some good cartoons too)

So the Feds lending the state a low/no interest loan saved interest?

For who?

Your Feds are already up to their neck in debt at present so that option looks buggered.

It may work in Oz though with the Feds awash with money but unable to spend it because of inflationary pressures.

 

No one I spoke to for this story believes that climate change can be successfully addressed solely by creating a market. Most agreed that many approaches—legal, technological, and financial—will be necessary to lower our carbon emissions by at least sixty per cent over the next fifty years. “We will have to do it all and more,”

The telling figure is that if we stopped GHG emisons tomorrow Earth Temps would still go up for another 100 years.

So we need not just to account for present emissions we need to do more. The sequestration freight train needs to go in reverse-so we are putting away many more GHGs than we presently make.

 

The atricle does give a lot of promising signs of change and the are many positive things starting to happen.

 

I read the other day about gardening being a "subversive activity" as it shortcut the whole commercial, transport etc process. In my case I keep the possums well supplied with fruit eg figs (30 at $1.89 each!) tomatoes etc. Unfortunately much of my backyard is not sunny.

But I note the first "community garden" just opened up locally. The first I have heard of in this state.

It is unfortunate that gardening is not taught in most schools.

Most suburban primary schools have plenty of land appropriate for gardens

 

There are problems with carbon trading. Fist among them I think is that people will think it is OK to carry on as usual as their emissions are "neutralised"

 

"Fly by night" tree planting schemes in general are a worry and the 'Lights OFF in Cities' for an hour is a cruel joke. You just wonder what the power plants do with all that electricity they have to keep generating for the hour ( Most big generators take 4 or more hours to step either up or down). It must wreak havoc with their systems; yet they say nothing. I wonder why?

[Michaelangelica]

This week, Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500) announced that it will invest $9 million to help save a tropical forest in Aceh, Indonesia. It's the first time a Wall Street firm has invested in carbon farming, and let's be clear: this isn't philanthropy of public relations; it's strictly business.

 

In fact, the man who put the deal together to save the 1.9-million acre forest, called Ulu Masen, believes it could be a very big business. "It will be the biggest carbon project in the history of the world if we can pull it off," says Dorjee Sun, the 31-year-old founder of an Australian startup company called Carbon

. . .

Speaking by phone from Jakarta, Dorjee Sun says he has pitched large-scale avoided deforestation projects to more than 200 banks, hedge funds, pension funds and conservation groups. He's working with governors in Indonesia and Brazil, and came to the U.S. last fall where he pitch deforestation projects to Howard Schultz of Starbucks and investor George Soros.

 

Sun, a former Internet entrepreneur, is frank about his motives. "The more hectares we manage, the more land we 'farm' carbon on, the more money we make," he says. "Our goal is to be the amazon.com of the Amazon." To top of pageConservation.

Merrill Lynch's foray into carbon farming. - Apr. 18, 2008

[alexander]

I think i wrote my thoughts about carbon credits very recently....

 

right, here it is:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/14694-whole-green-factor.html#post215586

 

Personally i think they are while with good intention, another form of currency that deceives the end user...

[InfiniteNow]

Lately, I've been leaning more toward the idea of a carbon tax, as opposed to a carbon credit.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, one way or the other?

 

Any information which indicates that one would have greater utility over the other?

 

Anyone discount the idea completely simply because they live their lives "against taxes?"

 

 

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... :D

[alexander]

I hate taxes, but carbon tax would not be a bad thing all together... on a corporate level...

[Michaelangelica]

This is an interesting article about a fledgling Australian Carbon Credits scheme.

Austraian soils typically hold less than 3% humus (SOM?). I don't think frequent wetting and more frequent drying out helps.

Nor does tilling.

Nor do very frequent bushfires help the soil keep humus and therefore water holding capacity of the soil.

Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS)

This is the html version of the file http://www.amazingcarbon.com/What%20are%20Soil%20Credits.pdf.

G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS)

 

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

Page 1

‘Managing the Carbon Cycle’ Katanning Workshop 21-22 March 2007

Welcome to Amazing Carbon!

37

Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS)

Dr Christine Jones

Founder, Carbon For Life Inc.

Welcome to Amazing Carbon!

Abstract

Australia has the highest per capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Appropriately managed farmlands could effectively ‘mop up’ most of the excess carbon being emitted to the atmosphere, converting a potential hazard into an extremely productive opportunity.

Under the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS), carbon sequestration rates will be measured within Defined Sequestration Areas (DSAs) located on regeneratively managed broadacre cropping and grazing lands.

Soil Credits will be paid annually and retrospectively for validated soil

carbon increases above initial baseline levels determined within each DSA.

Receipt of Soil Credits will be similar to being paid ‘on delivery’ for livestock or grain, with the bonus being that sequestered carbon remains in soil, conferring ongoing production and NRM benefits. Soil Credits will be calculated at one-hundredth the 100-year rate ($25/tonne carbon dioxide equivalent).

The ASCAS model is based on financial reward from the private sector, creating a collaborative and progressive market based instrument to help address a wide range of environmental issues.

Increased levels of biological activity in soil have multiple landscape health and productivity advantages.

The Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme is a first in the Southern Hemisphere, placing

Australia among the world leaders in the recognition of soils as a verifiable carbon sink.

……………………………………………………………….

etc

 

 

Reference

McKenzie N, Ryan P, Fogarty P, Wood J (2000). Sampling, measurement and analytical protocols for

carbon estimation in soil, litter and coarse woody debris. National Carbon Accounting System,

Technical Report No. 14. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra

 

 

5.2 Water-Holding Capacity Increase for One Hectare for Varying Levels of Humus Increase

 

 

Using the guideline ratio, which has been established for additional water retention the following gains can be expected.

 

Humus Increase Increased Volume of Water Retained /ha (30 cm)

 

(OC% x 4,000,000kg x 4)

 

0.5% 80,000 litres ( average 2004 level)

 

1 % 160,000 litres

 

2 % 320,000 litres

 

3 % 480,000 litres

 

4 % 640,000 litres

 

5 % 800,000 litres (pre-settlement level)

 

The Clarence Valley catchment has an area of 2,300,000 ha², a 0.5% increase in humus (organic carbon) would therefore store an additional 184,000,000,000 litres of water following an adequate rainfall event.

 

.SUSTAINING NATIONAL WATER SUPPLIES BY UNDERSTANDING THE

[HydrogenBond]

Carbon credits may not be the best way to go if the goal is to maximize the health of the environment. An analogy is the government deciding to address national obesity by proposing exercise and diet ,while also offering fat credits. If I don't wish to exercise or diet I can buy fat credits and not have to change my life style. Logically, the goal is to get everyone healthy, which is done better if everyone participates. But if we could buy fat credits, with the national goal calculated at 100 Million tons of fat, this may require some people need to get skinnier than is healthy, so they can make the credits available so others can remain fat.

 

The system I like better, than carbon credits, is a carbon reward system. One is given a tax rebate based on their conservation. It sort of like, for every pound of fat you lose, you get a $10 bill. One can then spend that as they like, adding this reward money back into the economy. If one adds trees to help absorb CO2 that also receives a reward because it helps the overall good. The credit system is more based on fear and with some of the ingenuity being used to get around the system. The reward system is a positive motivation system that taps into the ingenuity and dedication of everyone. Even businesses will invest in R&D, since the reward will help to pay for the good.

 

We may first need to establish the baseline with the current weight the zero point; no penalty and no reward. There is no angry pressure just cash incentive to make the earth healthier. It is a more positive experience. Where the free market can enter are those who develop good techniques. They can be the trainers for the fat cats. Their training efforts allows them to share the rewards. I see a smoke stack that can be improved we lease out the technology to help out and share the reward from the system. A carrot always works better than a stick and makes the horse much happier to keep walking forward.

[Michaelangelica]

i don't think I understand this

How do you create $3 tril in "value" to be 'returned to the people' from nothing but air? Like money I guess, everyone just decides air (or pieces of paper) has value and away you go. Bizarre. Reminds me of the Cloaca Machine.

Here's why: Essentially, presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, leading Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress, dozens of Fortune 500 CEOs, and mainstream environmental groups all agree that a so-called cap and trade system to regulate greenhouse gases is needed to fight global warming program. That, by itself, is remarkable.

Ask where that money should go, and the consensus breaks down. Coal-burning utilities say they should be given the permits for free - otherwise, they argue, their customers will be whacked with much higher bills. Others, including candidates Obama and Clinton, say all the permits should be auctioned - why reward the polluters, they ask? Still others want auctions so that proceeds can be used for a variety of causes, ranging from investments in renewable-energy research to middle-class tax cuts to paying down the federal debt.

 

Climate change regulations will generate $3 trillion. - May. 15, 2008

[Michaelangelica]

Professor gumnut and the AustralianLabor governemt seem to be ignoring farmers on this issue in their carbon credits scheme proposals.

That is a lot of seats/votes to throw away!

Should organic farmers get 'carbon credits'?

 

A further goal of the partnership between The Rodale Institute, the PA Department of Agriculture and the PA Department of Environmental Protection is to explore policy mechanisms by which farmers and landowners could quantify the carbon sequestered on their properties and receive a payment from the state or federal government for ecosystem services provided, or even participate in emerging 'carbon-trading' markets around the world. Although the development of carbon-trading markets in the US was put on hold by the Bush administration's decision, in 2001, to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol (citing projected deleterious effects on the struggling US economy), such markets are rapidly expanding in the European Union and elsewhere. (See, for example, co2e.com, a greenhouse gas brokerage firm based in London.)

 

"The Kyoto Protocol [the 1997 global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases] talks about agriculture and forestry as carbon sinks, but fails to distinguish between the different effects of different types of agriculture," notes Daniel Desmond of the PA Department of Environmental Protection. In fact, the whole business of credit for carbon-sequestration activities under the Kyoto accord is problematic, because of the lack in 1997 of good carbon inventory data that could be factored into the nation-by-nation emissions-reduction targets.

 

Nevertheless, although sequestration in agricultural soils can vary by climate and by soil type, multiplying 3,670 pounds of captured CO2 per acre across the 160 million acres planted to corn and soybeans in the US yields a potential CO2 capture on the order of 293 million tons per year, or as much as three-quarters of the reductions required if the US were to adhere to its Kyoto targets. (Total U.S. cropland is 431 million acres.)

 

Organic farming -vs- the Kyoto targets

 

In 1997 the U.S. agreed to reduce 1990 levels of CO2 by seven percent. So here's a question: How far would converting U.S. cropland to organic take us toward satisfying those Kyoto goals? Let's do the math:

 

Converting 160 million acres of corn

and soyean to organic results in

293 million tons of CO2 stored in soil

 

Kyoto target:

400 million ton reduction in CO2

 

Percentage of Kyoto goal that would be

satisfied by converting to organic:

73 PERCENT!

 

NOTE: This doesn't even take into consideration the drastically reduced energy expenditure and CO2 emissions of organic farming compared with using chemical fertilizers.

 

Thinking globally, the British Royal Society has estimated potential CO2 sequestration on the world's 2.5 billion acres of agricultural soils at 6.1 to 10.1 billion U.S. tons per year for the next 50 years. Another estimate puts the total amount of CO2 that could be captured in developing countries at 1.7 billion U.S. tons over the next decade. In short, carbon sequestration via adoption of organic agriculture could have a substantial impact on global warming.

 

Still, carbon sequestration by organic farming, like carbon capture through reforestation, is a short-term or 'bridge' solution, a way of buying time for more fundamental changes. Ultimately, global climate change can only be fully addressed through rationalization of energy policies, reductions in fossil fuel consumption, and improvements in emissions-control technologies. Among the possible short- to medium-term solutions, however, organic farming has a lot going for it. "There are a number of 'Star Wars'-like solutions being proposed" for carbon and carbon dioxide capture, observes Hepperly, including pumping CO2 deep into the ocean or underground--in July of this year the US Department of Energy announced that drilling had begun on a 10,000-ft 'well' to funnel CO2 deep beneath West Virginia.

 

Compared to expensive, experimental, high-technology projects like these, global transitioning to organic farming looks cheap and easy. "It's a no-brainer," Hepperly concludes. "Organic farming is not a technological fix, not an untried experiment that could have its own unforeseen consequences." Instead, it's a step toward solving global warming that brings with it a wealth of other environmental benefits.

New Farm Field Trials: Organic farming combats global warming

[erich]

A New Look at "Ashes to Ashes...Dust to Dust"

 

Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

 

We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.

 

It's hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel.

 

Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

 

I got poking around the American Chemical Society Joint meeting and certainly found an ally in this presentation by

Paul Hepperly, Rodale Inst.;

 

Food and Agriculture Offer World of Opportunity to Combat Global Greenhouse Gases.

Food and Agriculture Offer World of Opportunity to Combat Global Greenhouse Gases.

 

I first spoke with Paul after a biochar article he did about two years ago, and recently sent him my field study proposals, and are in collaboration.

 

Rodale being the second oldest organic research center in the world should help certification fly by. The recent EU permits posted by Edward at 3RAgroCarbon 3R AGROCARBON

Should make US certification a slam dunk.

 

Dr. Mark Alley, at Virginia Tech, who sits on the voluntary Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) board has established credits for No-till cultivation practices which increase soil carbon content.

[erich]

Hi Listers,

I spoke to Peter Weisburg of the Climate Trust, he will be a speaker at the NABC in Boulder next month.

The Climate trust is most interested in receiving applications for Biochar programs.

 

 

$8 million in offset funding available

The Climate Trust has more than $8 million available to invest in new offset projects. We are seeking new, innovative and high-quality offset projects. There is no deadline for submitting project proposals. However, the first qualified proposals received are the most likely to be funded.

 

Peter Weisberg at 503.238.1915 x207.

 

The Climate Trust :: Apply for Funds

[HydrogenBond]

If the goal is to lower carbon, why are we auctioning the right for some to generate additional carbon? It is like saying we want everyone to go on a diet, because it is healthy. But we will auction cheese cake credits to the highest bidder. A better analogy is, we need a water ban, but we will sell water to the highest bidder. The highest bidder will then pass on the cost of the auctioned water to the consumer, who pays for them to water their lawn. No smart businessman will invest in something at an auction unless they see a return on their investment.

 

What is good about this big block approach, the politicians get to siphon off grease money, so they can water their lawns. Their stream will not be as noticeable, coming out of the big streams. We need an ethics clause that will not allow anyone in the bidding process to give campaign contributions before or after, or else it would look like the politicians have tampered with supply and demand, artificially lowering the supply, to create targeted demand in big blocks, so a grease money stream is make available. It is a magician trick that is easy to see through.

[InfiniteNow]

I love how most AGW deniers are the same folks who heartily thump the free market drum at every turn. Yet, when you propose a free market solution to help with climate change, they immediately talk about how "it can't work" and how you'll "break the back of the system" and "put people out of business."

 

Classic. Gotta love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. :)

[erich]

What the CFC/Ozone success story was for raising the importance atmospheric chemistry, I feel biochar will be for carbon soil chemistry, Mycology and Microbiology. The historical climate work of William Ruddiman showing the agricultural origin of most excess CO2 begs this anthropogenic solution of soil carbon sequestration.

 

The same relationship I felt held for the NOX & SOX success story in raising the prospects for Cap & Trade and would mean,(with the EU lessons learned) for the cap & trade in carbon. I thought the relatively painless process for both industry and consumer in clearing the air and acid rain would offer the best carbon solution.

 

Dr. Hansen and the Economist magazine have turned me around with their Tax & Dividend proposal . The simplicity of calling carbon by it's name, at it's source, reduces the overall complexity, for the public most of all. A system to deal with CO2 equivalence of other GHGs will be complex enough by it's nature of not having a choke point source.

 

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf

 

Politically, C tax & dividend (I prefer the name Tax & Share) may be to late to the stage this year to have a legislative chance, but I am changing my arguments for it, and will spread theirs.

 

Here is a post concerning modification of where the dividend should go, by Folke Günther, a chemical engineer in Sweden:

Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-climatechange] Emailing: 20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf

 

I agree with Jim's proposal on a global carbon tax .

However, I don't think the tax should be paid back to everybody, indiscriminately.

 

Instead, the tax collected to restrain emissions should be paid to those who sequester carbon from the air.

By that the counteracting measure could be very profitable

(In Sweden, the emission tax is 1 SEK per kg CO2, or 3.77 SEK (about $ 0.5) per kg carbon.)

 

If the same amount would be paid to those who bury char in their own land , a normal farmer, making char of the haulm could get an extra pyment of about $ 1000 per hectare! (assuming a harvest of 8 tonnes per hectare)

Many would join in. Here we are in a potential situation similar to that depicted by the anti-biochaists.

The solution to that is to restrict the payment to those following certain rules of an 'ethical' charring.

I mentioned that in my paper 'Carbon sequestration for everybody<

http://www.holon.se/folke/carbon/Terra%20pretav1_0.pdf >' about Mrs Ruth Less.

 

FG