[Terrapreta] carbon sequestration but where is TP?

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Brian,

I have read again, recently, about the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), about Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism (JI/CDM), about the CDM Excutive Board (CDM EB) and third party Designated Operational Entities (DOE), and about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

No where have I seen that there is ANY requirement for a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of a carbon sequestration or emissions reduction project before a project can be approved by the CDM EB.

"Project-based mechanisms allow actions that reduce GHG emissions from, or enhance sinks beyond, what would otherwise occur to receive "credits" for the emissions mitigated."

"The most important factor of a carbon project is that it establishes that it would not have occurred without the additional incentive provided by emission reductions credits."

"Outline of the project process 
An industrialized country that wishes to get credits from a CDM project must obtain the consent of the developing country hosting the project that it will contribute to sustainable development. Then, using methodologies approved by the CDM Executive Board (EB), the applicant (the industrialized country) must make the case that the carbon project would not have happened anyway (establishing additionality), and must establish a baseline estimating the future emissions in absence of the registered project. The case is then validated by a third party agency, called a Designated Operational Entity (DOE), to ensure the project results in real, measurable, and long-term emission reductions. The EB then decides whether or not to register (approve) the project. If a project is registered and implemented, the EB issues credits, called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs, equivalent to one metric tonne of CO2 reduction), to project participants based on the monitored difference between the baseline and the actual emissions, verified by the DOE."

The project does not have to be profitable nor are there any provisions that it must "do no harm".  It only needs to show that there will be resulting and measurable reductions in GHG emissions or enhancement of carbon sinks.  The credits (CERs) are only paid when the measurements show that there are reductions from baseline levels.  It is most important that these reductions are shown to be able to occur ONLY with the CDM and would not have occurred otherwise.

Only Kyoto Signatories can participate in CDM projects, George!  USA and Australian interests MUST have foreign Kyoto signatory partners in both Annex I and Developing countries to even participate.

The actual bar is lower than your pro-pounded LCA!

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Hans<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 6:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] carbon sequestration but where is TP?




  "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> wrote: 
    But, do you really think that it is an absolute MUST for the IPCC to 
    make TP formation an approved CDM project?

    YES! This is my point. TP may have merit to remedy GHG's, TP may 
    have merit in the soil but part of the issue is that there is no 
    complete data one way or another. And its not even that there is complete data...but virtually NO data. Until that data is present...assuming TP does any good is just that, an assumption (or hypothesis). Edward keeps saying that his data will be out in 2008...great...something to sink our teeth into. 

    Let me give an example...blood letting was ASSUMED to be a quality 
    practice to rid people of disease for 100's of years...how well did 
    that work out? Was there any LCA done on blood letting? Was there 
    any rigerous testing done on blood letting? If there was...I wonder 
    how long blood letting would have lasted?

    Maybe there is possible merit in the other benefits that TP has to 
    offer beyond its possible use as a GHG mitigation strategy?  Do you 
    think the IPCC, which is formed under a charter of the United 
    Nations, might be directed by the UN to see value in TP that exceeds 
    merely what the IPCC endeavors to accomplish?  GHG mitigation is not 
    the only World problem the UN tries to address and in the view of 
    some, maybe not even the most serious problem.  TP can address some 
    issues towards solving some of these other of the World's problems 
    too; like starvation, arable land degradation, and unemployment.  
    These surely could be thrown in to the Life Cycle Analysis of a 
    "biochar into soil" venture, too?

    In this case, I would use the motto of the Dr. "First do no harm". 
    Show me some data where you are first doing no harm and second, 
    helping the system and I will PROMISE that people will flock to TP. 
    This is why we need LCA's to show the precise #'s.

    And just to add to this comment. Without an LCA, how does anyone 
    expect to get paid to sequester carbon?          CC buyer "well do 
    you have complete accounting of all C and N and S?"  CC seller "No 
    we just assume that it does what we say it does". CC buyer, "Well 
    come back when you have that data. Bye."

    Your challenges seem to downplay any possible value to TP without a 
    complete LCA, and/or beyond GHG mitigation.  Do you think that 
    suggests that an LCA is the only way to go?  Do you think that your 
    way to proceed is what we all need to see, hear, and adopt before we 
    would proceed?  Your edict on the matter leaving us only our choice 
    to ignore?

    My comments are directed to the original comment of why TP isnt 
    included in carbon sequestration, not soil enhancement. And particularily to the IPCC leaving out TP as a sequestering method.  

    And to your question...YES we do need to see and hear some data before we go headfirst into the whole of the world making charcoal expecting to 
    sequester carbon. Yes that is my position...as it should be...as it is in the IPCC...as it should be with all of the forum members. 

    Im sure you, Sean, and all the others on the forum feel that TP has alot of merit, as do I. But as a scientist, a hypothesis isnt enough to go on...I need data rigorously challenged to move the hypothesis further along. 



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

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071012/8a027b9b/attachment.html