[Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Lou

lou gold wrote:
> Hello Kevin,
> 
> 
> Can you see any way to show clearly that the Carbon Credits Movement is
>> something other than a money maker for its promoters?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not completely sure that I get the drift of your question. Is it that
> you feel that developing areas don't compellingly deserve to be rewarded 
> for
> not following the same destructive path that the developed world followed?

OK... basically, what I see is a large number of businesses SELLING 
carbon credits. This should be at the least a "sum Zero" game. If I sell 
you a Carbon Credit for 1.0 Ton of CO2, then I must have 1.0 Ton of 
carbon credits in stock. I have to BUY carbon credits in order to have 
them to sell. Very few seem to be buying.
> 
> Here is an example: Brazil proposed that countries should receive carbon
> credits for not cutting forests. The reaction was, "why should we want to
> pay a country not to be destructive." The Brazilian Minister responded, 
> "The
> correct question is why would you NOT want to?" So, yes, in this sense the
> carbon credits movement is supposed make money for its promoters AND
> therefore contribute to practices that would benefit the entire global
> community. In other words, it is promoted as a wise investment.

Consider a "mature" forest. By definition, a "mature" forest has 0 
Annual Increment... there is no net gain or loss of biomass... the 
forest mass lost by dying trees is made up for by new growth from 
younger trees. If the trees are cut and used for building, then the 
carbon content of the wood is sequestered in a building, and new space 
is freed up for growth of new trees to take Carbon out of the 
atmosphere. A mature forest does nothing to alleviate the Greenhouse 
Effect, and as far as I can see, saving Mature Forests is a blatant 
Carbon Credit Scam.
> 
> If you mean by "promoters" the army of middlemen who mediate the market, 
> the
> answer is that's how modern economies work, full of contradictions and 
> leaks
> and siphons just like everything else.

You don't mind a bit of "leakage," but from what I can see, it is mostly 
smoke and mirrors, and mostly leakage.

  If it's not a market but public
> programs (with their power to distribute and redistribute) I certainly 
> would
> want to see subsidies to peasant farmers as well as to agri-business
> mega-corporations. Carbon credit economics might be a way. Taxes and
> subsidies might be a way. Yes, there will be all the mistakes, scandals and
> frauds that come along with development of any kind. The virtue is found in
> the direction of the energy -- such as toward terra preta.

Again, we get back to what I see as a "fatal flaw" in "Carbon Credits", 
where basically, all they do is give someone permission to add more CO2 
to the biosphere in balance with someone else who is reducing the CO2 
burden on the Biosphere. There is no net gain, the polluter is off the 
hook, and the creator of the carbon credits gets a paltry sum of about 
$3 or $4 per ton of CO2 credit.

Who in the World will bury charcoal for $4 per ton???  That is why I 
feel Terra Preta must progress on its own Agricultural merits, and not 
get tied into the "carbon credits" scheme.

So, I can't see where meaningful carbon credits are being created, and I 
can't see where the Carbon Credit payment would be sufficient to induce 
anyone to create them. Too many things just don't compute. When there 
are this many "loose ends", it sort of points toward "smoke and mirrors" 
and "smelly deals."

Am I missing something?

Kevin
>