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

[lou gold]

Hi Guys,

Is it really carbon negative independent of its application? Turning it into
the soil is one thing, burning it would be another. Can carbon be
manufactured in a form that would work only as a soil amendment?

Would it make more sense to target the farmer with a rebate for sequestering
carbon in the soil? That would increase its market value and promote a
carbon economy of sequestration and restoration.

Just wondering.

lou

On 9/3/07, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
>
>  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 N*eutral*Tons"
>
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *To:* MMBTUPR at aol.com ; 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
> *To:* 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b9700ff5/attachment.html