[Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminatingand/oroffsettingfossil carbon usage

[Folke Günther]

1 kg C is 3.666666 kg CO2  If you are paid 1 SEK ($ 0.17) for a kilo of
carbon dioxide sequestration, you should be paid 3.7 SEK  ($0.623) for a
kilo C, or $623 for a tonne.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---  

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: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
Skickat: den 14 april 2008 20:24
Till: 'Greg and April'; 'Terra Preta'; Folke Günther
Ämne: Re: [Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminatingand/oroffsettingfossil
carbon usage

 

Hi Folke,

 

How is 1kg @ $0.17 = 1 metric ton (1000 kilograms) @ $624?  Seems like this
number ought to be $170.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Folke <mailto:folke at holon.se>  Günther 

To: 'Greg and April' <mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net>  ; 'Terra Preta'
<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  

Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:12 AM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] A reward system for
eliminatingand/oroffsettingfossil carbon usage

 

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] 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. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  Barry 

To: Terra Preta <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  ; lou gold
<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>  ; Ron Larson <mailto: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


  _____  

Jag använder en gratisversion av SPAMfighter för privata användare.
16556 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
Hämta gratis SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/lsv>  idag! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080414/c53e96bd/attachment.html