[Terrapreta] Net Present Value vs. Net Future Value of Terra

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Lou

lou gold wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I agree very much with the general drift of what you suggest about 
> subsidies BUT I think that we need to face the fact that in the modern 
> world EVERYONE is feeding at the public through. EVERY successful 
> economic enterprise is at some level made possible only as the result 
> of a law, a program, a certification, a subsidy, a whatever that 
> originates in government. That why there is so much lobby activity.
>
> The question, it seems to me, is not about subsidies but about best 
> practices and how to promote them. I see no way for terra preta to 
> become real without a massive infusion of public funds.

What you are saying is that TP is basically unsound, and cannot stand on 
its own, and that nothing will happen to TP without massive support 
funding.  I don't think you can say that at this point in time. On the 
other hand, if you were right, then we should probably forget about TP, 
because it is a waste of public funds if it can only come about with a 
massive infusion of public funds.

Why don't we first find out where TP will work, and where it won't work, 
and what it will do, and what it will not do, and where it is economic 
and where it isn't, before we take positions?

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> lou
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net 
> <mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>> wrote:
>
>     I also agree with Kevin's approach to making terra preta or charcoal
>     sequestration economical. First, we need to find TP's real efficacy in
>     the soil and then we need to sell farmers on that efficacy. Without
>     either of these steps terra perta is just an academic curiosity.
>
>     I would warn those, however, who are depending on governments for
>     hand-outs to make TP economical (I know, the discussion uses the term
>     "carbon credits" but these are government subsidies no matter what you
>     call them.) that such subsidies always end in tears for legitimate
>     farmers (I do not include the huge American Agri-businesses as
>     "legitimate farmers". They are farmers of privilege, of gov't
>     largess).
>     It drives them out of business. It has happened over and over again.
>
>     Typical  gov't economics goes something like this: If the price is too
>     high, the gov't caps it; that nips any incentive to make more in order
>     to get the price lower; If the price is too low, they subsidize it;
>     then, market will simply increase the excess creating a larger
>     glut. No
>     matter what a gun does in the market, it makes things worse.
>
>     As the write this, the US Federal Reserve, with money it doesn't have
>     (or money it dilutes [or steals] from everyone owning a dollar), much
>     like the gambling hedge funds and banks, the Fed is gambling resources
>     to support the worst of businesses (banks mostly) and the worst of
>     borrowers. And, at the same time, it is sacrificing the welfare of the
>     best and most efficient businesses and individual savers. Just the way
>     the gov't works. The government has nothing it doesn't take from
>     others.
>     Economically, it can only make things worse on balance.
>
>     Jim
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Terrapreta mailing list
>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org