[Terrapreta] Carbon Trading Primer in Scientific American

[Duane Pendergast]

The December issue of Scientific American includes a good primer on carbon
trading.

 

As Greg and April suggested in another thread could be the case, it is
posted on the website too for public access.

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=29896DAF-E7F2-99DF-3CB3CA01486CA951

 

As we might expect there is no discussion in the article of a market to
encourage removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is the goal for
the terra preta concept.

 

The discussion focuses on cap and trade and so-called "offset exchange" in
connection with the Clean Development Mechanism. I find the use of "offset"
in that context a misnomer as the carbon emissions discussed may not be
really offset. In the example discussed emissions from the developed
countries are said to be compensated by reductions in emissions in
developing countries. I suspect the reality in practice is that increasing
emissions from the developed countries will spawn some new projects in
developing countries which will have lower emissions than might have
occurred without CDM. The total net result will be increased emissions.

 

On the other hand "Company C" terra preta projects could actually take
emissions from "Company A" out of the atmosphere resulting in an offset in
the dictionary sense of the word.

 

I tried to introduce the concept of "emission removals" to the Canadian
government back in 2003. At that time I thought it would be premature to try
and include it in policy other than as a means of raising funds for R&D on
the concept. I don't think the concept of credits for removals was
recognized or discussed at the time. The offset system discussed then died
on the vine and is no longer a topic for open public discussion here in
Canada. The points I tried to make are discussed here.

 

http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/Offset%20Consultat
ion.htm 

 

I think there may be some ideas and language there to support thoughts
previously expressed on the list that credits for removal of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere should have higher value than credits for emissions
avoidance. Emission avoidance seems the target of all schemes in place today
and is the only approach discussed in the SciAm article.

 

Your ball.

 

Duane Pendergast

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071219/0dadd5e0/attachment.html