[Terrapreta] -----and Net Present Value of TP Benefits

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>  
> "invest or not to invest.... that is the question."
>  
> Neither Hamlet, nor Shakespeare was much of a businessman.  Invest in 
> charcoal-in-soil IS the answer.  It's like 42.  It can answer all of 
> your questions.  Not investing into charcoal-in-soil has some 
> predictable outcomes and realized opportunity costs.  Accountants and 
> fiduciaries, bean counters, whoever, I think the decision to adopt TP 
> is not to be made only on present day or present value economics (or 
> maybe it is for just some?).

Go talk to a Farmer, and try to convince him to invest his limited 
resources in Terra Preta. Farmers are generally pretty sensible people. 
They will want to know what they will get in return if they invest in 
Terra Preta. If teh answer is not positive, they will not invest.
>  
> The science behind the climate trends and its causation by human 
> activity is very compelling.  Compelling enough that this kind of 
> human activity should be changed radically and/or stopped real soon.

Be careful here. The CONSENSUS is saying something, but what they are 
saying is simply CONSENSUS. It is not science.
> I don't think economics now prove this.  I do think economics will 
> prove it out in the end, though.

It might, but then it might not. I don't feel that we know.
> The consequences of inaction on this front will have radical effects 
> on world economics in the long run.  The best businessmen, the ones 
> around the longest, saw/see into the future the furthest.

Merely because a Businessman makes most money does not mean he is doing 
the right thing. Look at the utter shambles in teh financial community, 
where huge fortunes have been made. Now it seems to be a question of 
"Apres moi, le deluge."
>  
> Your well managed lands would not likely benefit as much from TP as 
> would my "never farmed" or "ignored for 60 year" lands.
> Do you think that is possible?

It is very possible, and from what I feel now, very likely.
> Fallow land might be in better fertile shape than heavily farmed land, 
> even if well-managed.

We are not talking "fallow land." Fallow land is land that is basically 
"up to scratch", but is purposefully being rested, as part of a 
rebuilding program.
> That land certainly will not be polluted with too much industrial 
> chemicals, nor will it lack SOM like heavily fertilized, heavily 
> cropped, and degraded land.

I have one block of rundown farm land, last farmed about 60 years ago. 
Soil texture is wonderful, like earthworm castings, but it does not hold 
water, because of lack of organics. I have another block that is 
basically a rotted shale, that compacts solidly after tilling. The 
seaweed addition made a remarkable difference to it. I am guessing I 
will get an even greater benefit from the addition of both charcoal and 
seaweed to another part of this block. This is a "deficient soil", and 
the seaweed have a potential to fix some of its deficiencies.
>  
> Just and observation and I hope you do not mind my saying this.  But, 
> doing a "Net Present Valuation" on Terra Preta formation is really 
> kind of shallow and short sighted in my opinion.  The greater 
> potential benefits from TP are mostly in the out years and lack real 
> measurability.

If they are only "potential benefits" and I cannot have a reasonable 
expectation of them contributing to a return on investment, then I will 
not factor them into a NPV calculation. If the TP does give sufficient 
benefit, tehn I will invest; if not, I won't.
> The benefits include many things, beyond and still including all of 
> the potential agricultural benefits.  What do you think the NPV of the 
> Terra Preta formations was that the ancient Amazonian peoples built?  
> Aren't these TP sites in Amazonia still accruing benefits thousands of 
> years later?

They may or may not . I don't know. At any rate, I am not investing in 
them, and they will not influence my investment decisions.
> Could they have foreseen in their NPV stuides that Terra Preta would 
> someday save the world from thermal runaway in the atmosphere and the 
> oceans?

When they invested in Terra Preta, they invested for their present 
purposes. I propose to do what they did.
>  
> I think appreciating the value of building large Terra Preta 
> formations now requires a deep look into our future.

I, and most Farmers, don't have the luxury of making investments that 
don't pay off in the present. Try going to a Banker with a proposition 
won't have an assured payoff now. TP will only "catch on" when a Farmer 
can sell it to a Banker.

Best wishes,

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080316/98304c01/attachment.html