[Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?

[Peter Read]

The prices quoted are usually per tonne of CO2, currently about $5 in Chicago and 20 Euros in Brussels. Multiply by 44/12 for the price /t C. 

Art 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol reads
4. Prior to the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, each Party included in Annex I shall provide, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, data to establish its level of carbon stocks in 1990 and to enable an estimate to be made of its changes in carbon stocks in subsequent years. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, decide upon modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which, additional human-induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land-use change and forestry categories shall be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Parties included in Annex I, taking into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability, the methodological work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice in accordance with Article 5 and the decisions of the Conference of the Parties. Such a decision shall apply in the second and subsequent commitment periods. A Party may choose to apply such a decision on these additional human-induced activities for its first commitment period, provided that these activities have taken place since 1990. 

Most (I think all) Parties have opted out of Art 3.4 activities in the first commitment period 2008-2012 on the grounds of uncertainty, or certainty that they would lose rather than gain by opting in.  This leaves Forestation, Reforestation and Deforestation as the only land use activities that count before 2013, in accordance with Art 3.3

3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8. 

Enjoy

Cheers

Peter



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Haard 
  To: Sean K. Barry 
  Cc: Baur Hans ; Toch Susan ; Pilarski Michael ; Miles Tom 
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?




  From   http://biocharfund.com//index.php


  Terrestrial carbon sequestration is recognised both by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as by the European Union as a viable method to reduce emissions. However, this technique to offset carbon emissions has not been taken up in the Kyoto Protocol (and its Clean Development Mechanism). Scientists, NGOs and conservation groups are therefor advocating its inclusion in a post-Kyoto agreement.


  I have talked with several us based co's and verification is an issue 


  the low value of carbon offsets is only of value to wind power and utility scale hydropower. This is why Folke's posting about the Swedish carbon tax was interesting

  On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:


    Hi Kevin,

    Those are tough questions.  I don't have the answers to them.  There is a London and a Chicago "Carbon Trading Market", so I have heard.  I've heard prices anywhere form $5 to $10 per ton of carbon.  I see Terra Preta as the only way we can reduce atmospheric carbon levels.  I see this for two main reasons:

    1) Plants that grow every year are doing the job of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere every year.  We just need to take the step of charring up a lot of that biomass (so that is doesn't decay and remit the stored carbon back into the atmosphere) and then put it into the soil for long term sequestration.  Every amount we do can offset fossil carbon emissions.

    2) Biomass carbon is distributed everywhere plants grow and people live (eating plants as food).  Charring biomass can be clean and simple.  Burying it in the ground is simple.  There are lots of people in the world who could benefit immediately from putting charcoal-in-soil if it paid them "carbon credits" to do so and lots who could still benefit anyway if it did not.  There are lots of people scattered out in many diverse places in the world.  There is lots of work to be done to solve GCC and GW.  The economics of doing that work may be better in some places than it is in others (like in the an African desert versus downtown Manhattan).

    Maybe you could find some answers to your questions and discuss what you find with us.

    Regards,

    SKB
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Kevin Chisholm
      To: Sean K. Barry
      Cc: Dan Culbertson ; Larry Williams ; Toch Susan ; Pilarski Michael ; Miles Tom ; Baur Hans
      Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:58 PM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?


      Dear Sean

      Has anyone on the List actually tried to buy and to sell Carbon Credits? 
      What would be the "Buy" and the "Sell" prices?

      Does anyone know where the present Carbon Credits are coming from?

      Do the Carbon Credits purchased balance with the Carbon Credits sold?

      Is it presently possible to make money producing char for Terra Preta

      Has the agricultural benefit of Terra Preta been quantified, and reduced 
      to dollar terms?

      Are there any Farmers anywhere in the World actually buying char to make 
      Terra Preta because of a perceived commercial benefit? If not, what is 
      the "Loss per tonne of carbon that would have to be offset" before it 
      would be commercially advantageous for the Farmer to make Terra Preta?

      Best wishes,

      Kevin

      Sean K. Barry wrote:
      > Hi Dan, Larry, Others,
      >  
      > That is a thought provoking question, Dan.  It sounds kind of like 
      > those hyped History Channel segments, "After We're Gone" or the 
      > "Aftermath".  You are right I think about the atmospheric carbon 
      > levels being wrong for our species and right for other species.  One 
      > could wonder to what species thrive in atmospheric carbon levels on 
      > Venus now, too.
      >  
      > The point is, and you said it, "Not that I personally want to become 
      > extinct don't-ya-know", but who does?  Do you even want the quality of 
      > your life to degrade?  Do you have any children?  What are you going 
      > to do to make your life better in the face of current GCC for yourself 
      > and/or them in the future?  That's the point.  "Carpe Diem" is all 
      > that we can do for anything we do, isn't it?  Global Climate Change in 
      > the near term (our lifetimes) isn't about human extinction now or soon 
      > nearly as much as it is about the human strife beginning now of the 
      > path to human extinction.
      >  
      > Larry, I hear you ...
      > "High tech toys cannot produce enough charcoal to effectively lower 
      > the atmosphere's CO2 percentages. They are to expensive to produce the 
      > quantity that is needed. Would you call it a poor return on investment 
      > or the dollar to char deal? "
      >  
      > I can't adopt that defeatist attitude.  I think it's doable.  We can 
      > produce enough charcoal and lower CO2 emissions enough to strike a 
      > balance.  I think it is a monumental worldwide undetaking to do it, 
      > too.  So?  When do we get started, I say.
      >  
      > Regards,
      >  
      > SKB
      >  
      >  




    _______________________________________________
    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: /attachments/20080315/acf387b6/attachment.html