[Terrapreta] Complement & Combine (don't Counterpose) TP for Carbon Sequestration & TP for Agronomics

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Mark,

I'm sorry if you think our discussion is ill-focused on climate mitigation.

I don't know how to put this more simply.

A Terra Preta Nova opportunity represents ...

    1) Soils renewal and world-wide agricultural improvement on more arable land.
    2) Replacement of some of the dwindling fossil fuel source with a renewable resource. 
+  3) Effective removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and long-term sequestration as charcoal-in-soil.
--------
    All three together is what I am trying to focus on

I think doing all three together is a good possible business model.  I think that it has a great chance of fixing some of the worlds more significant problems.  I think the three thrusts can be worked together to multiply the benefits of all of them.

Just look at what Edward Someus is doing for a good example of working effectively on the Terra Preta Nova project, I think.

Regards,

SKB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Ludlow<mailto:mark at ludlow.com> 
  To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Terra Preta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'Jim Joyner'<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 
  Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:19 PM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Complement & Combine (don't Counterpose) TP for Carbon Sequestration & TP for Agronomics


  Hi Sean,

   

  My only claims to agricultural experience are growing up in the Midwest, planting a garden and manufacturing and selling marine-derived agricultural amendments and phytochemicals. I'm not a farmer. But like everyone else in this world, I depend on the soil.

   

  Certainly, persistently pushing the discussion toward climate mitigation generates lots of posts; unfortunately most of the posts are of the "my opinion is bigger than your opinion" variety; there must be a better forum for this kind of sophomoric wrangling.

   

  Consensus is built upon foundations of common beliefs. Why is so much energy devoted to divisive discourse? Eventually, those seriously interested in the utility of char will be driven away, in disgust.

   

  Best,

  Mark

   

  From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
  Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:45 PM
  To: mark at ludlow.com; 'Terra Preta'; 'Jim Joyner'
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Complement & Combine (don't Counterpose) TP for Carbon Sequestration & TP for Agronomics

   

  Hi Mark,

   

  I respect your agricultural experience and your purpose to focus on agronomics related to Terra Preta soils.  I do not separate Climate Mitigation issues from Terra Preta, however.  I strongly believe, think, and have mentioned some ideas where there is "synergy" and positive feedbacks to be had between agro-economics, dealing with climate mitigation, continuing to feed a growing population in the world, and supplying renewable energy (vs. depleting, more costly, polluting, fossil fuel consumption).

   

  In the "Big Picture", I think the agronomics of Terra Preta is necessarily included, and in the end (the "out years") will be vitally important.

  Right now, knowledge says, I think, that we don't yet know enough about the agronomics of TP to use it on a large scale yet.  Yet, we also do know that we don't have much time to deal with the climate.  Making TP (for carbon sequestration use) on a large scale NOW, and fast, is something that is right NOW possibly as vital and might even be that which allows us to get to or make easier that vital "feed the world" problem later.  Do you know what I mean?

   

  The plus is the non-interference between the efforts on both parts.  Some can sequester carbon with charcoal-in-soil and some can make fields grow more food with charcoal-in-soil,  Both groups can cross paths cooperatively, not competitively, and for the benefit of each other.

   

  Regards,

   

  SKB

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

    From: Mark Ludlow<mailto:mark at ludlow.com> 

    To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Terra Preta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'Jim Joyner'<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 

    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:17 PM

    Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Carbon tax

     

    Hi Sean,

     

    The Kyoto Protocol is provisional, not absolute. It's likely to be succeeded by any number of more responsive agreements. Surely, GHG emitters will need some form of carrot/stick motivation; but what will that look like 25-years from now?

     

    Once more, I plead for focus of this List to be more Agrocentric. Or am I the one that's off-key?

     

    Mark

     

    From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:46 PM
    To: mark at ludlow.com; 'Terra Preta'; 'Jim Joyner'
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon tax

     

    Hi Mark,

     

    You know, I don't know any reason why US farmers could not earn "carbon credits" other than that we live in the largest emissions per capita nation in the world.  And, ... the Kyoto Protocol, which is where the "cap and trade" with "carbon credits" is coming from, is not set up that way.

    The USA, a developed, industrialized, heavy emitter nation is Annex 1.  Other developing nations (Non-Annex 1 countries), who do not have the heavy emissions (yet!), are the TARGET zone for emissions reductions actions (because its cheapest there?) through the UN "Carbon Development Mechanism".

     

    Now, we can technically do that kind of stuff here in the US.  We can build the actual "Clean Development Mechanism" technologies.  We could retrofit our own fossil fuel power plants and vehicles with them, and etc.  We should do that.  I see that.  I'm am going to do some of this.

     

    But, that's not the way the Kyoto Protocol trading is set up, so we can't earn "carbon credits" here, in the US, doing that.  Or, should I say we can't earn them doing that here, in the US?!  We can export for sale, though, the CDM technology to Non-Annex 1 countries.  Did you know that that is another provision of the Kyoto Protocol, too?  Signatores are expected to develop and share CDM technologies with ALL other participator nations.  

     

    This is out of the article Tom Miles just referenced about "carbon credits" traders ...

     

    The trade in developing-world credits results from a provision of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism. A 10-member U.N. board vets proposed projects to ensure their environmental legitimacy. The independent auditors accredited by the U.N. act as the board's field inspectors, traveling the globe to certify whether a project is up to snuff.

     

    These CDM people kind of are like the FDA, EPA, bureaucratic, regulatory kind of an outfit, with the CDM Executive Board of 10, vetting, and that, huh?  Well, well , well.  I guess you can either "fit 'em or gin 'em".  But, then, see, we here in the USA are not signed on to the treaty.  So, the CDM creates the value of a market, that we here in the USA are not involved in (unless you got an export license).

     

    Someone told me, or I read, that the carbon trading market is expected to be a "$500 Billion Market" within five years.  Is the USA really just going to be the ONLY country, in an otherwise civilized world, to just sit by watching it?

     

    Regards,

     

    SKB

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

      From: Mark Ludlow<mailto:mark at ludlow.com> 

      To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Terra Preta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'Jim Joyner'<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 

      Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:34 PM

      Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Carbon tax

       

      Hi Sean,

      If farmers can be subsidized for growing nothing at all, why is the notion that they could receive "carbon credits" so hard to imagine?

      Mark

       

      From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
      Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:04 PM
      To: Terra Preta; Jim Joyner
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon tax

       

      Hi Jim,

       

      I don't think I'm saying the US government needs to be involved with farmers more.  The US government can be less involved for all I care.  There is not going to be a way to earn "carbon credits" in this country, even if some new president signs the Kyoto Protocol.  The US is a developed, Annex I, industrialized country.  They pay "carbon credits" or they reduce CO2 emissions or they do both, but they cannot earn "carbon credits" under the current Kyoto Protocol treaty.  Farmers in the US will never earn "carbon credits", I don't think.

       

      Regards,

       

      SKB

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

        From: Jim Joyner<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 

        To: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 

        Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:57 AM

        Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon tax

         

        Sean, If I might add a little more to the below. . .

        You know I do not like government and that must make me sound awfully cynical (you even accused me of being a cynic). What I say comes from long experience with farmers and the government.

        I grew up in south and west Texas. Early on, under the Carter administration the processing sheds and a few large citrus farms we bought. The USDA created a market order that forced all citrus farmers to process their fruit through the sheds and receive what the sheds paid. Well, the same companies that owned the sheds then sold to themselves from the farms they owned. They established the "market price" essentially at their cost -- thus operating the farms at break even, making their profits in the sheds. Of course, this made it impossible for the independent farmers to make a profit.  The farmers were left with two choices: sell their land to the AG companies or to housing developers. But there are virtually no farmers there any more.

        President Carter essentially said this was a good thing as it gave him better control over agriculture.

        When I was in high school in west Texas (late 50s), cotton farmers were under an allotment system because it guaranteed them a market. I argued then that farmers were foolish to be on this welfare system. Today, none of those farmers or their families farm are there. It's all AG corporations.

        All those farming communities are gone, not because they were inefficient or couldn't compete, it's just that they were deemed a political expedient -- and they are gone. The same process on a larger scale is going on between large American AG business and the world's farmers. 

        So I look on with horror as I watch you talk about getting farmers once again involved with the government. This scheme to credit tax credits and carbon taxes are part and parcel of the same movement to establish control of agriculture (maybe all business) throughout the world. I can only speculate at the overall purpose and even if it consciously being done. I'm doubtful that the process can be stopped. But I do know it can't happen with out gov't force. I am warning you like I warned the farmers in south and west Texas, that if you enter into a pact with thieves, don't expect to do well unless you are willing to be one of them.

        Jim

        Jim Joyner wrote: 

        Sean,

        Are you telling me that businesses worldwide are going to get together voluntarily and create this trading system under the "guidance" if the UN?

        For carbon trading to take place, gov'ts much put in place a tax and/or they must also make provisions for tax credits, essentially, to create an artificial market. That process will be political and you can bet the folks who contribute most to their politicians will do the best.

        Jim

        Sean K. Barry wrote: 

        Hi Jim,

         

        Why do you associate "carbon trading"  with "carbon credits" as US government interference?  The Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC are under UN auspices.  When did the government of the US control the UN?  We do not even pay our dues, let alone dictate UN policy.  The United Nations is not a government that can or does put a gun to the heads of anyone, do they?

         

        Regards,

         

        SKB

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

          From: Jim Joyner<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 

          To: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 

          Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:41 PM

          Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon tax

           

          Greg,

          All I said was that the US gov't and the various state governments have denied and continue to deny, for what ever purpose, equity before the law (specifically, by making it illegal to bring class action suits with regard to the environment and, before that, to deny access to the courts on matters of simple environmental changes) and is very much at the heart of the problems we have. As a people we have very little recourse except through a politicized EPA. 

          My concern is not so much that we have lost something dear (because I have not expectations of it being returned) but that it is naive to think this same gov't is going to somehow start remedying real problems with carbon taxes/carbon credits. It is more likely to just create another useless bureaucracy that will makes things worse still.

          I mean, look at the agricultural "program" in the US. We have a farm welfare system that subsidizes the the biggest, wealthiest and least productive (in the real sense) farmers in the US to produce, e.g., products that would be much cheaper and cleaner to purchase in other countries (e.g., ethanol). This in turn distorts not only the US market by driving food costs up, but the world market by robbing third world countries of the ability to compete and earn a right living. And all this from a gov't that is essentially bankrupt in a country that only produces 90% of what it consumes. 

          And we are suppose to think that creating yet another gov't boondoggle (carbon credits/taxes) is going to make things better? 

          Subsidize stupidity and you simply get more of it.

          Jim


        _______________________________________________
        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: /attachments/20080419/7fa2e703/attachment-0001.html