[Terrapreta] : the vaule of Carbon Negative tons vs. Carbon Neutral tons

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Ron,

I'm all over your #3 discussion point.  I think we can make the argument that a "carbon negative ton" is more valuable to climate remediation than a "carbon neutral ton" ...

    Carbon negative tons (let's try Carbon banked or Carbon restorative tons) - Pros/Cons List for Global Climate Remediation:

        - Pro: It alone can cure the problem and reduce the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere and reduce the consequent
          "radiative forcing" (a.k.a. Cure the Problems: real Rx for Global Climate Change and Global Warming).  The best medicine.

        - Pro: Provides resilient ecological benefits to the soil, and the plants and animals growing on the soil (the biome).

        - Pro: Provides agronomic and economic benefits to people living in poverty and starvation in under-developed countries of
          the world (Non Annex I countries).  We can prevent our pollution from being their undoing.  We can show them how to live,
          instead of letting them die.

        - Pro: It is the ONLY thing we can use to dig ourselves out of the hole we are in with flooding the atmosphere with CARBON!
          
        - Con: We just have to clean as much CARBON out of the atmosphere as we can and put it back into the ground.  It will be
          a massive clean-up operation.  We better get at it.


    Carbon neutral tons - Pros/Cons List for Global Climate Remediation

        - Con: It’s a half measure, which will only stave off the inevitable collapse of "global living systems" from causes related
          to the runaway heating (e.g. Polar Bears and Artic Ice Walruses).  This level of (in)action will only be able to "stave off" the
          effects for a time, probably a very short time.

        - Con: Its Rx for the symptom and NOT A CURE: like putting on your baseball cap to prevent "heat-stroke", instead of
          getting into the shade and drinking some water.  Carbon neutral tons only prolong the period before the effects are felt.
          It's a PAY LATER TOO kind of deal with Carbon neutral tons (comparatively less valued).

        - Con: There are no side benefits to "soothing oneself" with Carbon neutral tons; no restorative processes in soil, with plants,
          with better food health for humans and animals, and improved economic conditions for poor nations.  All of these could
          improve along with the atmosphere, but NOT with only Carbon neutral tons.  None of that happens with Carbon neutral
            tons.  They are blowing in the wind.  No good investment was made.


I've got lots more.  Does anybody else want to add to these lists and we can hash out the argument for this?

    "Carbon Negative Tons have Greater Net Value Than Carbon Neutral Tons"


Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
  To: MMBTUPR at aol.com<mailto:MMBTUPR at aol.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] A New Theory of Climate Change


   
  Lewis (cc "terrapreta" list members)

  1.  Thanks for your message.  I don't think we need to say more about evidence, but my belief is that losing the arctic ice cap is the big one.  The cap is already smaller than any year in recorded history and 3-4 more weeks of melting to go.  I have been tracking the thickness - which is declining much faster than the areal extent.  I predict in 2015 we will see a September ice-free arctic - 30-some years earler than predicted by Al Gore.  We are "helped" here by the plight of the polar bears.

  2.  I understand we all come at the terra preta concept for different reasons (mostly climate, soils, and cost of energy - maybe most thinking the latter includes peak oil/gas, jobs, national security, and balance-of-payments?).  But we should all keep in mind that we need all three funding sources to pay for the faster placement of more char in the ground.  Those who argue for only one or two rationales being important are going to slow down the "terrapreta" process.

  3.  My main reason for supporting your message, though, is to see whether you or anyone can give an iron-clad justification for paying more for carbon-negative carbon credits than for carbon-neutral ones?  I have a gut feeling that retiring a CO2 molecule is worth more than not inserting another - but have been unable to prove such.  This is at the heart of the "energy" side of this three-way economic analysis.  I am assuming that no carbon credits will ever go to badly-produced char - and that char producers will get more for their char from the climate-sponsors if the pyrolysis gases were used productively rather than being wasted.  But will they give more for a carbon-negative tonne than for a carbon-neutral tonne?  

  4.  Side note - I just read that the Norwegian Statoil is re-inserting CO2 into their depleted oil wells at $45/tonne CO2 (>$120/tonne C), as their national CO2-release penalties are about the same.  They get more production, but there are a limited number of wells to accept the world's CO2 through undergorund sequestration.  We on this list can be thinking of prices higher than today's roughly 20 Euros per ton CO2 as on the European exchange.  

  Lewis - again thanks.

  Ron

  You said today:
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: MMBTUPR at aol.com<mailto:MMBTUPR at aol.com> 
    To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
    Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:13 AM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] A New Theory of Climate Change


                        to  Terrapreta List          from  Lewis L Smith


            <snip>
  _______________________________________________
  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/20070903/4aced9f7/attachment.html