[Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminating and/oroffsettingfossil carbon usage

lou gold lou.gold at gmail.com
Mon Apr 14 08:09:50 CDT 2008


I don't know the precise figures but I'm sure that charcoal workers receive
a pretty low wage in Brazil. Just saying this to remind folks that low price
does not necessarily mean technological efficiency. It can mean exploited
labor. And, also, are these figures relative to different national
economies? Or are they adjusted for valid cross-national comparisons? For
example, everything is more expensive (and higher paid) in Scandinavia.

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Gerald Van Koeverden <vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> Are farmers in Sweden already taking advantage of this $624/ton for char
> or charcoal returned to the soil?   This seems like a very very high price.
>
> Nickolaus reported that charcoal makers in Brazil are producing charcoal
> for sale to steel makers for a mere $50/ton.
>
> The wholesale price for charcoal in North America runs at about $200/ton.
>
>
> Gerrit
>
>
> On 14-Apr-08, at 4:12 AM, Folke Günther wrote:
>
> I pointed out a method for rewarding carbon sequestration in
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/gunthercarbonsequestration032707 and
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/gunthercarbondecide
>
> In some counties, you have to pay for carbon dioxide emissions. Make it
> fair. *Pay* the sequesterer *the same amount* for doing the negative of
> emissions – sequestration! I you are free to emit whatever you want in your
> country; Stop that.
>
> In Sweden, you have to pay about 1 SEK  ($ 0.17) for the emission of 1 kg
> carbon dioxide. 1 kg char correspond to 3.67 kg carbon dioxide. Which means
> $ 624 dollars per metric tonne of char. It is rather easy to grow a crop
> that gives you 6 tonnes of char per hectare, the payment for the
> sequestration of which (in a fair world) would be about $ 3700 per hectare.
>
> Make that universal, and I think you would come down to the 350 ppm
> atmospheric carbon dioxide, the concentration that Jim Hansen consider
> fairly safe, within 20 -30 years *IF you can diminish emissions*  by 85%
> during the same time.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Folke Günther
>
> Kollegievägen 19
>
> 224 73 Lund, Sweden
>
> home/office: +46 46 14 14 29
>
> cell:               0709 710306  skype:  folkegun
>
> Homepage:     http://www.holon.se/folke
> blog: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *Från:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org>]
> *För *Greg and April
> *Skickat:* den 14 april 2008 07:50
> *Till:* Terra Preta
> *Ämne:* Re: [Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminating
> and/oroffsettingfossil carbon usage
>
>
>
> Until people are willing to buy carbon credits for the cost of actually
> sequestering carbon - then actually sequester the carbon - it isn't going to
> happen, and it will be next to useless to try.
>
>
>
> As things stand, they are going to want to deduct the cost of sequester
> the carbon from their taxes, while actually only paying what it would cost
> to buy a carbon credit ( as it currently stands ), and as such it isn't
> going to happen, any time soon.
>
>
>
>
>
> The theory of buying carbon credits is just political flim flam that feels
> good but does nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> As for the Kyoto Protocols, it's just a rob Peter to pay Paul scam.    All
> nations ( rich and poor ) have to work on the problem at the same time -
> otherwise carbon credits just transfers the carbon debt ( and favors the
> economies of undeveloped nations ) and really doesn't accomplish
> anything.
>
>
>
> The undeveloped nations say they should have their day in the sun, but,
> where is the logic of building up a large economy based of the short term
> cheap energy of petroleum when they know that they are going to spend extra,
> in order to convert it to renewable?    They should be thankful for having
> the chance to build their growing economy's on renewable in the first place,
> and learn from the mistakes of the "developed" nations, and not go through
> the renewable teething pains that the US is.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've said it a million times, until people are actually willing to pay
> what it cost, to sequester carbon, it's not going to be profitable to do
> so.    Until it's profitable to sequester carbon, the only people who are
> going to do so, are those that have some moral conviction to do
> so, otherwise, you end up with a lot of Al Gore types, that do a lot of
> talking, but when it comes down to walking the walk, they are unwilling to
> leave their air conditioned homes, because it might be a little warm
> outside.
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg H.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
>
> *To:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; lou gold<lou.gold at gmail.com>; Ron
> Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 13, 2008 22:08
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminating and/or
> offsettingfossil carbon usage
>
>
>
> Terra Preta Members,
>
>
>
> *'A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that
> sequester carbon could remove the current CO2 overshoot**. With
> simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it appears still
> feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.'"*
>
>
>
> Stopping the use of fossil carbon fuels is undeniably the only course.
> Replacement of that energy resource is the cost.  Before fossil fuel moguls
> reap those profits, milked-out of the public at slowly ever-increasing
> prices, the use of fossil carbon has to almost become like the use of
> illegal drugs.  Those dealers need to go out of business (or adapt).
>
>
>
> My best idea on eliminating the use of fossil fuels is for the US
> government to sign the Kyoto Protocol, then pay an IRS tax deduction (or
> credit) to every US citizen and/or business who will buy carbon credits on
> the world carbon trading market.  Conservation, better insulation, hybrid
> vehicles, etc. are necessary too, but they can only lower the rising trend
> lines of GHG concentrations temporarily, and will NEVER reduce emissions
> (see *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox*).  Homes, vehicles, and
> businesses could have their "carbon-footprint" audited and apply for credits
> up to that limit.
>
>
>
> Then, the government could reduce it's expenses by increasing the CAFÉ
> standards.
>
>
>
> What does anyone else think of this idea?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> SKB
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Jag använder en gratisversion av SPAMfighter för privata användare.
> 16555 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
> Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
> Hämta gratis SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/lsv> idag!
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080414/949f2dd5/attachment.html 


More information about the Terrapreta mailing list