Saturday, December 08, 2007

On Climate Change

With the international community meeting in Bali to discuss the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, I thought I'd mark the occasion by sharing my own thoughts on climate change. Of course, I have no reason to consider myself an expert, considering that I've only recently begun to take global warming seriously and continue to drive a SUV. To those who say that makes me unqualified to hold an opinion - may he without sin cast the first stone (Read: Unless you're living in a cave, subsisting on celery and clothing yourself in pine boughs, you are also part of the problem).

In any case - and please correct me if I'm wrong - the general gist of the Kyoto Protocol was that nations, particularly developed countries, agreed to cut their rate of carbon production to before 1990 levels. For Kyoto's successor, the major issue seems to be the extent to which developing countries should also shoulder the burden.

Developed countries argue that, for example, China is close to / has surpassed (another point that's up for debate) the United States as the leading emitter of carbon, and thus should be shouldering a large portion of the burden. Developing countries note that their rate of carbon emission per capita is much lower than that of developed countries and that the developed countries have been creating carbon for centuries, not decades, and are therefore largely responsible for the current problem.

My feeling on the matter is that any product that results in a significant emission of carbon (such as gasoline, coal-generated electricity, plane tickets, automobile, etc.) should be subject to a carbon tax. The rate of tax (per CO2 gram) should look a little something like this:

[(Nation's GDP per capita / World Average GDP per Capital) x Agreed Cost for CO2 gram = Tax]

This way, developing countries would still have to pay in, but in a way that's proportional to the wealth of their citizens. Multiply that by several billion citizens, and you still end up with a significant amount of money. Because developed countries will pay more, it'll still work out to roughly the same amount of money as if the tax was applied equally to all emitters.

So, what would we do with all of this money? Well, we would establish short, medium and long-term funds that would help encourage the use of clean technology.

Short-term funding could be used to subsidize the use of existing technologies, such as wind farms and solar cells. Medium-term funding could be used to improve emerging technologies, such as fuel cell cars and hydrogen infrastructure. Long term funding could be put towards researching fusion power - which, incidentally, could potentially power the earth for thousands of years, carbon free.

How does this differ from Kyoto or the proposed successor? Well, no one gets a free ride - there's no threshold (eg. 1990 levels) underneath which you get to skip through without paying. Also, instead of "buying credits", you actually buy something that's worthwile - hard technology that can actually solve the problems we face, rather than forcing everyone to move to the celery caves (and no, hybrid cars are just not good enough - especially considering that vehicles are only responsible for 14% of all carbon emissions).

But will our policy makers accept this idea? I fear not. More likely, any proposal that calls for both sacrifice and vision will be shouted down amidst the blame game. I'm not sure where that leaves us, but if you need to find me, I'll be googling the rates on high-altitude real estate.

Labels: , , , , , ,

9 Comments:

At 6:57 p.m., Blogger M. Simon said...

Keeping the third world in poverty is the only way we can protect our Jet Off To Bali lifestyle while keeping carbon emissions from growing too fast.

I think what we need is a bunch of despotic rulers like Pol Pot and Stalin who will not flinch at what is required to keep CO2 production near current levels.

A good atomic war might do the trick if we can't find some one willing to do mass eliminations on a more selective basis.

That is why I'm hopeful that Iran will get nuclear weapons.

You see, nuclear power is the only viable solution to CO2 induced global warming.

We also need to celebrate every person's death as a return to a carbon neutral lifestyle.

Sadly there are not enough people willing to die to save the planet. Some of them will need extra encouragement. I think special training camps with train transportation provided (very ecological if you keep them full) will be required.

 
At 11:25 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.


UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107

 
At 12:38 p.m., Blogger Ryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12:38 p.m., Blogger Ryan said...

Hey Nicole, do you have any other references to this technology? I'm punching in the link, and it's not working - I've found other references online, but nothing that really sums up how the technology works and what it's capable of.

Although we definitely need to reduce carbon levels, I think it's equally important that we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Not only are near alternatives like biofuels driving up the cost of food, but most oil comes from parts of the world with lousy human rights records.

Hence, the need for fusion... but in the mean time, we should definitely be milking existing technologies for all they're worth. That's where having a huge pot of cash to pay innovators comes in handy. Also, it's a more compelling argument for bringing in the nay-sayers - fine, don't contribute to our pool, but you don't get to use any of the technology we produce as a result.

 
At 10:23 p.m., Blogger JTL said...

I agree with you on biofuels. It's artificially driving up the cost of corn, wasting arable land and, in pracice, uses more energy than it saves (when you factor in things like making all that fertilizer, diesel for the tractors, hauling the corn around, distilling out the ethanol, etc.). It's a hoax, but it's backed by the likes of ADM... so the US government buys into it, like the pussies they are.

If we put our (and our governments') minds to work on it, we could so kick ass with renewable resources. We have wind out the wazoo -- ever been to Saskatchewan? -- and hey, you can never really ignore nuclear fission. Also, if we focus our efforts, I'd say we're about 100 years away from viable fusion reactions; sure, it's not "Mr. Fusion" from the movies, but we'll get there.

But, to quote Dr. Strangelove, "All it requires... is the will to do it." As long as we have these horsefuckers in charge of the country, though, our government'll never have the will to change a damn thing. (Kinda makes sense, seeing where Little Stephen represents.)

 
At 11:36 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cane-based biofuel is 12x more efficient than corn. However, there are still many problems, like soil degredation and water use... but Brazil uses "gasohol" for most of their vehicles now.

Technology will not solve this problem. We have to cut our consumption in (at least) half, each. For starters. But large-scale distributed generation will certainly help, but it is very dirty to manufacture solar panels, too. There is no political will to do the large-scale spending that is necessary to save the world. (I agree that making oil more expensive is a good start, but as always happens it just means that the poor and lower-middle-class will pay even more and the rich will start filling their swimming pools with crude as a status symbol. But that's another rant for another time).

 
At 12:52 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my full TP Posting:

I thought this ubiquitous carbon sink might interest you. Here's the current news and links on Terra Preta (TP)soils and closed-loop pyrolysis of Biomass, this integrated virtuous cycle could sequester 100s of Billions of tons of carbon to the soils.



Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Thanks,
Erich
UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107



SCIAM Article May 15 07;

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40



After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.

Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.

The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;

S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007

A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:

Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative

for the 2007 Farm Bill

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html

(...PLEASE!!..........Contact your Senators & Repps in Support of S.1884........NOW!!...)

Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.

Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf

The organization 25x25 (see 25x'25 - Home) released it's (first-ever, 55-page )"Action Plan" ; see; http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/documents/IP%20Documents/ActionPlanFinalWEB_04-19-07.pdf
On page 29 , as one of four foci for recommended RD&D, the plan lists: "The development of biochar, animal agriculture residues and other non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, toward the end of integrating energy production with enhanced soil quality and carbon sequestration."
and on p 32, recommended as part of an expanded database aspect of infrastructure: "Information on the application of carbon as fertilizer and existing carbon credit trading systems."

I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.



There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture and waste stream, all that farm & cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG should be returned to the Soil.

Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.

If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node

It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.



Also Here is the Latest BIG Terra Preta Soil news;

The Honolulu Advertiser: “The nation's leading manufacturer of charcoal has licensed a University of Hawai'i process for turning green waste into barbecue briquets.”

See: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707280348



ConocoPhillips Establishes $22.5 Million Pyrolysis Program at Iowa State 04/10/07

Glomalin, the recently discovered soil protien, may be the secret to to TP soils productivity;

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2003/030205.htm




Here is my current Terra Preta posting which condenses the most important stories and links;

Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.

On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons of carbon.

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.

Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel CO2 emissions as stable charcoal in the soil.

As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "

Terra Preta Soils Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X FertilityToo


This some what orphaned new soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any. I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.

The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

The economics look good, and truly great if we had CO2 cap & trade or a Carbon tax in place.


.Nature article, Aug 06: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green:
http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdf

Here's the Cornell page for an over view:
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm

University of Beyreuth TP Program, Germany http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=taxonomy/term/118

This Earth Science Forum thread on these soils contains further links, and has been viewed by 19,000 self-selected folks. ( I post everything I find on Amazon Dark Soils, ADS here):
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html



There is an ecology going on in these soils that is not completely understood, and if replicated and applied at scale would have multiple benefits for farmers and environmentalist.

Terra Preta creates a terrestrial carbon reef at a microscopic level. These nanoscale structures provide safe haven to the microbes and fungus that facilitate fertile soil creation, while sequestering carbon for many hundred if not thousands of years. The combination of these two forms of sequestration would also increase the growth rate and natural sequestration effort of growing plants.


The reason TP has elicited such interest on the Agricultural/horticultural side of it's benefits is this one static:

One gram of charcoal cooked to 650 C Has a surface area of 400 m2 (for soil microbes & fungus to live on), now for conversion fun:

One ton of charcoal has a surface area of 400,000 Acres!! which is equal to 625 square miles!! Rockingham Co. VA. , where I live, is only 851 Sq. miles

Now at a middle of the road application rate of 2 lbs/sq ft (which equals 1000 sqft/ton) or 43 tons/acre yields 26,000 Sq miles of surface area per Acre. VA is 39,594 Sq miles.

What this suggest to me is a potential of sequestering virgin forest amounts of carbon just in the soil alone, without counting the forest on top.

To take just one fairly representative example, in the classic Rothampstead experiments in England where arable land was allowed to revert to deciduous temperate woodland, soil organic carbon increased 300-400% from around 20 t/ha to 60-80 t/ha (or about 20-40 tons per acre) in less than a century (Jenkinson & Rayner 1977). The rapidity with which organic carbon can build up in soils is also indicated by examples of buried steppe soils formed during short-lived interstadial phases in Russia and Ukraine. Even though such warm, relatively moist phases usually lasted only a few hundred years, and started out from the skeletal loess desert/semi-desert soils of glacial conditions (with which they are inter-leaved), these buried steppe soils have all the rich organic content of a present-day chernozem soil that has had many thousands of years to build up its carbon (E. Zelikson, Russian Academy of Sciences, pers. comm., May 1994). http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/carbon1.html




All the Bio-Char Companies and equipment manufactures I've found:

Carbon Diversion
http://www.carbondiversion.com/


Eprida: Sustainable Solutions for Global Concerns
http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4

BEST Pyrolysis, Inc. | Slow Pyrolysis - Biomass - Clean Energy - Renewable Ene
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html


Dynamotive Energy Systems | The Evolution of Energy
http://www.dynamotive.com/

Ensyn - Environmentally Friendly Energy and Chemicals
http://www.ensyn.com/who/ensyn.htm

Agri-Therm, developing bio oils from agricultural waste
http://www.agri-therm.com/

Advanced BioRefinery Inc.
http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/

Technology Review: Turning Slash into Cash
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17298/


3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. (Edward Someus)
WEB: http://www.terrenum.net/

The company has Swedish origin and developing/designing medium and large scale carbonization units. The company is the licensor and technology provider to NviroClean Tech Ltd British American organization WEB: http://www.nvirocleantech.com and VERTUS Ltd.
http://www.vertustechnologies.com

The International Agrichar Initiative (IAI) conference held at Terrigal, NSW, Australia in 2007. ( http://iaiconference.org/home.html ) ( The papers from this conference are now being posted at their home page)
.

If pre-Columbian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using "Slash & CHAR" verses "Slash & Burn", it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.

Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.

We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.




Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com

 
At 8:49 a.m., Blogger Ryan said...

"Technology will not solve this problem. We have to cut our consumption in (at least) half, each."

Your points regarding bio-fuels and the less-than-perfect nature of solar power are well taken, but I disagree with the notion that technology can't solve this problem.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't advocate putting all of our eggs in the technology basket, but I do think that fusion power and other forms of improved technology can eventually lift us out of this crisis.

This isn't so much a vote in favour of technology as it is a vote against human nature. The problem with reducing consumption is that you are essentially asking nations to go against their national interest, and everyone needs to comply equally in order for it to work. By doing so, you create an international-scale "Prisoner's Dilemma" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/) in which the best case scenario requires all parties to cooperate, but there are dire consequences if even one party refuses.

I don't think a carbon tax necessarily would impact the poor more than others. Look at the GST, another consumption tax. Most of the products that are basic necessities are GST-free, and many lower-income families receive GST rebates. On the other hand, big spenders must pay much more GST than a poor family. The wealthy assume more of the cost, but the benefits (clean air, lower temperatures) are shared equally.

Nicole: Thanks very much for sharing the bio-char research. If I'm doing investing in 2008, I'd like to see if I can't find a way to invest in one of the companies that's working on this.

 
At 12:08 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dynamotive Energy Systems | The Evolution of Energy
http://www.dynamotive.com/

Is the only one I've found selling stock

 

Post a Comment

<< Home