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

[Mark Ludlow]

Isn't the issue simply whether TP agriculture is a reoccurring expense or a
revenue generator(i.e. productivity enhancer)? That's the first question my
clients would ask. People invest in their own lives, not in global
abstractions.

 

Mark

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:59 AM
To: Sean K. Barry
Cc: Miles Tom; Todd Jones; Michael Pilarski; Toch Susan; Baur Hans
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] -----and Net Present Value of TP Benefits

 

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/20080316/8019f74f/attachment-0001.html