[Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle

[lou gold]

Hi Duane,

Perhaps we are missing something from each other's messages? It seems to go
round and round in a tedious way.

Here's what I know: only a portion of the carbon "sunk" in a living tree is
transferred to the sink of construction. A very large portion, considered as
waste and slash is burned. For example, Brazil is a major emitter of GHG and
20% of its emissions come from burning the forest in the process of
deforestation. The new plantation, if one is planted (very rare) takes a
long time to recover the volume of CO2 that has been released. Also trees
are planted as a crop which means they will be cut again releasing another
increment to the atmosphere. The new growth sequestration and the volume
sunk into construction never catch up with the release through
deforestation.

BUT, if all burning was converted into char that is returned to the soil
that indeed would be an act of human industry -- one that might both improve
agricultural productivity,  create a new local economy and reduce the need
for further deforestation. As I understand it, that is the dream of Terra
Preta.

The question is how is the introduction of the new technology is to be
financed and what will be the way that it can be made more profitable than
illegal logging? An assistance fund somehow tied to a carbon credit scheme
is Brazil's current proposal to the developed world. I do not understand how
you see that approach as flawed? It's important to understand that Brazil is
not Canada. There are 10s of millions living here on less than U$ 2 per day.
It would not take a huge fund to "incentivize" a switch from a deforestation
economy to a Terra Preta agricultural economy. Why wouldn't you (we) want to
do that?

lou

On 6/6/07, Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org> wrote:
>
>              Thanks for reading it Lou,
>
>
>
> You say my submission sounds like the voice of industrial forestry. I wish
> it was, as in that case I might have been paid to prepare it. I was not. I
> submitted it as a Canadian citizen concerned that Canada's forests were
> not given adequate recognition in the Kyoto protocol.
>
>
>
> As you can see the accounting method Canada uses for forest products
> assumes harvested trees are, in essence, burned on the spot releasing their
> carbon as CO2 back to the atmosphere. There is thus no incentive to try and
> contain the carbon in forest products as could be accomplished by accounting
> for carbon in forest products with ultimate conversion to biochar. I did not
> go there in the submission as I expected that just the concept of storing
> carbon in wood products would be too difficult a concept for our
> parliamentarians to understand.
>
>
>
> I was right. You might be comforted to know that the Parliamentary
> Committee, which was considering Canada's commitment to Kyoto, showed zero
> interest in the submission. They did seem to get a modest grasp on the idea
> growing trees could absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One step at a
> time.
>
>
>
> So far many proposed  actions related to greenhouse gas emissions take a
> very narrow view, protecting pet projects which might not have much to do
> with controlling greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Preserving "natural"
> forests and protecting them from human intervention is one of those pet
> goals coming from environmental organizations. Good luck with that.
>
>
>
> If we are to control greenhouse gases, then the needs of humans will need
> to be better integrated with the carbon cycle – and forests. Terra preta
> could be a breakthrough which allows, through human intervention, an
> increase in earths "capital" and overall productivity.
>
>
>
> I guess that could be the voice of human industry.
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* lou gold [mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* June 5, 2007 11:00 PM
> *To:* still.thinking at computare.org; Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle
>
>
>
> Hi Duane,
>
> OK, I read the submission. It in no way answers the assertion that more
> carbon is released into the atmosphere than is sequestered in construction.
> AND, whatever is  "sequestered"  in construction was  already sequestered in
> the tree  -- no gain there  but an enormous loss in the release of carbon
> previously
> previously in its forest sink. New growth in plantations does not offset
> it, especially since they are soon cut again in short rotations largely for
> paper products and short lived products from sawdust and wood chips.
>
> The submission sounds very much like the voice of industrial forestry.
>
> lou
>
>
>
> http://www.computare.org/Fora%20Input.htm   down the page at  "February
> 21, 2005 - Brief on the Role of Forests in Canada's Greenhouse Gas
> Inventory"
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Lou Gold

My blogs:
(English) http://lougold.blogspot.com/
(Portuguese) http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070606/ee3c4fb6/attachment-0001.html