[Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kevin, et. al.,

Kevin wrote:
... Effect, and as far as I can see, saving Mature Forests is a blatant 
Carbon Credit Scam.

There is standing carbon mass in that mature forest.  If it is cleared and burned, then it will put CO2 into the atmosphere.  It is is harvested and turned into timber, then the biomass is dead and if will decompose, again putting CO2 into the atmosphere (how many wooden structures last more than 50 years in a rainforest?).

If Brazil foregoes clearing & burning or harvesting that biomass, then they actually do prevent carbon from going into the atmosphere.  They forego taking the monetary gains they would otherwise enjoy, by selling harvested wood, by using harvested energy, and/or by using the land for agricultural production.

I do not think it is a scam for any developing country to want to sell "carbon credits", because they will forego potential profits, by maintaining an existing carbon sink.  They should get paid for doing this.  Why should they bear an "opportunity" cost?  They want to charge for missing an opportunity for profits, which they could otherwise take.

Do you see a problem with this argument?

Kevin wrote:
...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???  ...

You are basically right about the dollar amount.  But, the process for computing the payments is not made in tons of CO2.  It is paid in tons of carbon contained in a "CO2 equivalent" amount for the GHG that you are removing or preventing from release into the atmosphere.

"CO2 equivalent" amounts are discussed and computed because some of the other GHG gases, like methane (CH4) or nitrous oxide (N2O), have a much more potent and varying amounts of "green house effect" in the atmosphere, than an equivalent amount of CO2.  A nitrous oxide (N2O) molecule does not even have carbon in it.  Yet, its "green house effect" in the atmosphere is 296 times as much as a molecule of CO2. Preventing release or removing any amount of N2O molecules from the atmosphere has the "equivalent" effect
of preventing release or removing 296 times that number of molecules of CO2.

CO2 is one part carbon and two parts oxygen, hence the name, carbon DI-oxide.  The atomic weight of CO2 is (12+16+16), so it's 12/44ths (0.273) carbon and 3.67 tons of CO2 contains 1.0 ton of carbon.  The "carbon credits" are paid in terms of carbon tons in the "CO2 equivalent" amount for any GHG.  The amount paid for one ton of "CO2 equivalent" carbon, a "carbon credit", is actually, now, ~$10/ton, so at ~$10 per ton(carbon) or $(~10/3.67) = ~$2.72 (~$3) per ton(CO2), like you suggested.

"CO2 equivalents are computed like this; 1 mole of methane gas (CH4) has a CO2 equivalent of 62 moles of CO2 gas.  1 mole of methane (12+1+1+1+1) weighs 16 grams (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_mass<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_mass>).  A metric ton is 1,000,000 grams, so 16 metric tons of methane contains 1,000,000 moles of methane molecules.
This is equivalent to 62 million moles of CO2, which contains 62 million moles of carbon atoms.  Each mole of of CO2 molecules weighs 44 grams, and each mole of carbon atoms weighs 12 grams.  So, 16 tons of methane (CH4) is like 62*44 = 2728 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).  This is the "CO2 equivalent" measure of the GHG, methane.  Preventing 16 tons of methane from being released into the atmosphere would get paid like 62*12 = 744 tons of "carbon credits".

"Neo Terra Preta" land reforming, by carbonizing standing biomass, and burying it, will REMOVE carbon from the atmosphere.  The actual carbon which is removed from the atmosphere can either be viewed as the carbon in the plants themselves (having been already taken out of the atmosphere), or the carbon which will be taken up by the plants that grow in place of the ones removed for carbonization.  In fact, it could be viewed that BOTH amounts of carbon should be considered as REMOVED.

On the other hand, not clear cutting a mature forest, PREVENTS carbon (CO2) release into the atmosphere.
A mature forest can hold a tremendous amount of standing carbon, even it the forest no longer inspires CO2 any faster than the rate at which some forest material decays and expires CO2.  It is a large bank of carbon (a sink), but it is not necessarily a growing carbon sink.  Nonetheless, not harvesting it does reduce the current flow of carbon into the atmosphere (it PREVENTS the increase).

So, REMOVAL or PREVENTION have the same net effect on the positive flow of carbon into the atmosphere; they reduce it.  This is what "carbon credits" are initially designed to pay for, for reducing the net positive growth in atmospheric CO2.  Removal and prevention differ, though, as to how much they effect the AMOUNT of carbon in the atmosphere.

Removal is "carbon negative".  It actually will make the total amount of atmospheric carbon go down.  Prevention of GHG emissions into the atmosphere is only "carbon neutral".  It does not reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon.  It only offsets another positive flow (negating it) and causing the "zero sum game" as you like to call it.  The benefit comes from either, because they both will reduce the "increase" in total atmospheric carbon.

This does all seem complicated and it is to some degree not well understood by many normal people.  But, prevention of emissions is already the thing that "carbon credits" are bought and sold for.  Removal of carbon from the atmosphere is the "Holy Grail" that is offered by "Neo Terra Preta" land reforming.  As far as I know there is no other proposed method for REMOVING CO2 from the atmosphere.  It is a step better than mere PREVENTION.

There is one more aspect of the "Carbon Trading Scheme", that I think you do not know about.  The only places where you can sell "carbon credits" are for doing projects in developing or underdeveloped countries (called Non Annex I countries).  The industrialized and developed countries (Annex I and Annex II countries) can only pay to buy "carbon credits".  This is set up this way because the vast bulk of the current burden of carbon in the atmosphere was put there by the industrialized and developed countries, not by the developing countries.  We are being asked to pay to clean up our own mess.  They are being paid to help us do this.

This is the sense of the "Carbon Trading Scheme" that has been envisioned by the Kyoto Protocol Treaty.

I hope this helps, Kevin.  I am fairly sure I understand it correctly, but if anyone sees this differently, then I'd be glad to discuss it.

Regards,

SKB


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle


  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
  > 


  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070606/fb55cb3c/attachment.html