[Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> 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 a mature tree is not harvested, it stops being a net carbon sink, and 
will fall over when overmature, and rot.
> 
> If Brazil foregoes clearing & burning or harvesting that biomass,
> then they actually do prevent carbon from going into the atmosphere.

If they harvest the trees and out them to use, they eliminate the 
immediate rotting problem, and make way for vigorous new trees that will 
sequester C.

> 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.

There is a MAJOR difference between converting harvested forest to 
pasture or building lots, and returning it to forest cover.
> 
> 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.

If they don't harvest a mature forest, the trees die and release tehir C 
through rotting. Why should they get paid to allow trees to rot???
> 
> Do you see a problem with this argument?

Sure do!! Trees do not remove C from the Biosphere, and should not get a 
Carbon Credit for doing so, when they don't. If they converted these 
trees to Terra Preta, and then reforested, this would be wonderful, and 
tehy would indeed deserve maximum payment for Carbon Credits. On the 
other hand, if they converted forest land to pasture with teh same 
quantity of carbon, they should get paid a lesser carbon credit.

Also, it is very important to distinguish between A: Carbon already in 
teh Biosphere and B: Carbon additions to the Biosphere.
> 

> 
> 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.

Thanks!! I had not realized that. It makes even more sense in Firest 
World Countries to promote TP on its agricultural merits alone, but in 
the Third World, to promote on Agricultural and possible future carbon 
credit advantages
> 
> 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.

It is indeed a complex problem, and many established interests will have 
to change if C levels in teh Biosphere are to be reduced.

Best wishes,

Kevin
> 
> 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/>
> 
>