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

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Greg,

You do not seem to understand the Kyoto Protocol because you do not refer to the treaty in any way to support what you say, nor any references, nor make any arguments based on information found in the actual tereaty or actual events and activites realted to the treay.  >From you, it's all just vaguely a scam.  This seems to me, I'm sorry, an ignorant position.

No, China is not the biggest polluter in the world.  We in the USA still are, by a wide margin yet.  China is a developing country and its growth in CO2 emissions is outpacing ours, though.

We won't save ourselves without the whole world participating.  Annex I , developed, and underdeveloped nations are decided for 2008 to 2012 under the existing Kyoto framework.  I think we can work within the current system.  So, we re-negotiate the lines in 2009 for 2012.  We need to get third world, non-Annex I countries, involved, in a big way, to sequester carbon now and pay them to do it, as much and as fast as we can.

It seems you are in the same "pissing contest" over equities in the current Kyoto Treaty, just like GW, and doing nothing productive by not participating, or being willing to participate, just like GW.

The United Nations has set up a Clean Development Mechanism CDM Executive Board to make all decisions about "carbon credits".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol>  ... Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner.  Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonn> Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects ("CDM Projects") in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs.  (A similar scheme called "Joint Implementation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Implementation>" or "JI" applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_States> and Eastern Europe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe>).

It's not the "wild-west" of carbon trading with lots of corruption, as you might like us to envision and neither buyers nor earners of "carbon credits" decides anything about where any money goes or how is gets used.

I'm not saying that funds wouldn't be messed with, but, at least then some kind of accountability ( how ever flawed ) will be in place.

Jesus Christ!  You're kidding, right?  You can sure bet that if Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Carl Rove, GW, Rumsfeld, Haliburton, Monsanto, the Defense Department, or anybody in the Black Water organization had anything to say about it, ALL of the funds would be "messed with".  Give me a break.
What kind of "scam" do you think those characters might be perpetrating on the US servicemen of this and the US public in general over "The Iraq War Scam"?!  You don't seem opposed to paying for that war.  How do you lose your nerve when others want you to pitch in to another "war"?

Worst of all, do you realize that had we paid as much for climate remediation as we have for that damned Iraq War, that we could be well on our way to making climate remediation occur within the century, rahter than pissing off the whole bleeding world?  Do you realize that with another 10-25 years or so of doing nothing to stop this GW/GCC problem, that we won't have a chance to stop the progression into much worse conditions (think Venus-like climate) ?

You know?  Your opinion is welcome.  You sound like a naysayer, though, plain and simple, Greg.  Without support for your views, other than diatribe, you will not convince, nor persuade.  I don't think you are persuasive amongst this group.  Not me, anyway.  I don't suppose this matters to much to you, though.

Regards,

SKB




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminating and/oroffsettingfossil carbon usage


  I understand the KP all to well, and that's why I said it was robbing Peter to pay Paul, the rest is interspaced at the ******************.


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
    To: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
    Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:16
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] A reward system for eliminating and/oroffsettingfossil carbon usage


    Hi Greg,


    I don't think you understand how the Kyoto protocol is designed to work or how it can work.  Favoring the economies of undeveloped nations is the key to success with Kyoto.  Annex I countries, the developed ones, the primary source polluters of CO2, CH4, and N2O into the atmosphere, need to enlist the help (with pay) of the rest of the undeveloped world to not use any more fossil fuels, clean up the atmosphere, and find a way so that everyone on the planet can get and have the energy and the food they need without polluting.

    **************************

    When was China declared an Annex I country ( they are after all the biggest polluters in the world )?

    Ok, skip that, at what point does an Annex II county become an Annex I country?

    When does an undeveloped country officially become a developed country?    

    When they have the ability to build nuclear weapons?    Fine let's move China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, South Africa ( and since they are well on their way, let's include Iran ) up from Annex II to Annex I status - since if they can afford a nuclear weapons program, they can obviously afford to help pay for developing world wide renewable power.

    When the average person in their population lives like the average American?    Two things make this a poor standard.

    1)    Even at 100% efficiency, there is not enough raw material in this world, to even come close.
    2)    The "Average American" is fast becoming a myth.


    The KP doesn't say what the threshold is that separates the Annex II from Annex I, and I can promise you this, Annex II countries that are developed in all but in name ( like China ) are going to muddy those waters all they can.

    As far as everyone on the planet having energy and food we still can't even fully take care of our own, and now we have to take care of everyone else as well?    

    No Deal!

    *****************************


    It is a BIG task.

    We have to pay to help convert the undeveloped countries economies on renewable energy and pay to do it here to.  Now.  This investment alone in off shore carbon sequestration will do more for our economy than anything else we could do.  The US could corner the market on renewable energy technology and global climate remediation technology and export it all over the world.  We could export that easier and better than democracy any day and we would make trillions of dollars doing it, instead of spending trillions of dollars trying to spread democracy.

    Patriotic isn't good enough for this job, Greg.


    Sean, this goes way beyond patriotism.    There is a reason why lifeguards are told that if it becomes an issue between saving the drowning person and saving them selves, they are to save them selves - even at the expense of KO'ing the drowning man and dragging him in the unconscious person so he can't drown the lifeguard who is trying to save him.

    That is exactly what is happing on a global scale now.

    Let me see if I can put it at another level.

    You like the rest of us on this list is learning how make Terra Preta.    How fast would you be able to make any reasonable progress, if for every pound of char you produce, not only would you have to get a permit to make it, but you then had to turn over 10% of your production so everyone else on the list can use it as they see fit.

    ( please pardon me for using list names, it's only to put it in perspective )

    Let's see, Lou wants to repeatedly heats and cools the char to test for how much volatile material it collects even when setting in the air from prolonged periods of time - let's not forget that he will need fuel to heat the char with so there is even more CO2 produced, and because his experiment lasts for several years, and has to be repeated several times, he will need to find out if more char makes a difference - so now you also have to supply a larger amount ( just to make sure ).

    Tom is hungry, so uses his portion to cook a nice steak - but he's not telling the rest of us that - it's probably being called " Testing of emission levels of incandescent char ".

    Folke?    Well, he wants to see how much CO2 is made from his portion.

    What about good old Greg?    Well he says that his first part never reached him, so now you have to send him some more, and when you do, it wasn't of the quality that he needed for his testing.

    See how this is going?

    According to the KP, the Annex II countries don't have to account in anyway for the funds it receives, and Annex I countries can not specify who get's the funds or even what it used for, beyond the fact that it's climate related, and Annex II countries don't have to give full accounting. 


    If the world wants the U.S. to help others, then they need to let the U.S. set up it's own set of guidelines so that what funds that come from the U.S. is used in the right place - not upgrading the down town weather station computer from Windows XP to Windows Vista and finding out that there is a hardware incompatibility.    I'm not saying that funds wouldn't be messed with, but, at least then some kind of accountability ( how ever flawed ) will be in place.



    Where were we?    Oh yes, carbon credits, and how they supposedly help Annex II countries ( and reduce the use of fossil fuel ).


    Did you ever notice how several Annex II countries managed to qualify for European Union status even though they didn't quite meet all the requirements?    It wasn't because of their good looks.    There is a provision in the EU treaty, that basically gives members a rate break to each other - including carbon credits.

    How is it that Germany is using it's carbon credits, to support it's coal mining industry?

    See what I mean?    Feel good, achieve nothing political flim flam.


    Most of the KP, is based on a number of intangibles, that " are to be decided at a later date ", when they meet in the follow up Conference of the Parties, and they went how many years just trying to decide what qualified as a carbon credit?


    The KP ( for good and for ill ), is just an extension of the United Nation, and the UN couldn't find it's own ass without a map, compass, and a GPS unit to show then where they are, and a Boy Scout to show them how to get there ( and that's on a good day - on a bad day it just isn't going to happen so they need someone else to wipe it for them ).


    Greg H.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080414/68a6e6cd/attachment-0001.html