--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:22 AM, new.morning wrote: > > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something > > just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is > > your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 > > sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an > > old, established approach to GCC. > > > > Perhaps read a bit on this "new" concept, obviously (to you and the > > guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin. > > > > > Well in the kyoto protocols the whole 'carbon sink as forests'
So does that imply that all the other carbon sequestion / sink technologies / methods other than forests are fine with you? As they appear to be with most climate scientists? (Forests are onlyone offour major sinks.) What is your specific issue with forests? As the SinkWatch group, whose cite is your primary reply against sinks states, "Forests, soils, oceans and the atmosphere all store carbon, which moves among those different carbon pools over time; these four different carbon stores form the active carbon pool. If one of these pools absorbs more carbon than it gives off, it is called a 'sink' in the climate jargon, while a source emits more than it absorbs. Destroying forests - turning them from a sink into a source - will shift the balance within the active carbon pool towards higher concentrations in the atmosphere and lower levels of carbon stored in the world's forests, but it will not increase the overall amount of carbon that interacts with the atmosphere. Another important carbon store are the world's fossil fuel deposits. But this particular carbon store, buried deep inside the earth, is naturally separated from the carbon cycling in the atmosphere, unless humans decide to release it into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil or natural gas. Any releases from this pool of carbon will increase the amount of carbon available to the active carbon pool. This is the crucial difference overlooked by those who advocate carbon sink credits to halt climate change." There keypoint is obvious: "Any releases from this pool of carbon will increase the amount of carbon available to the active carbon pool." Not a particularly profound insight. Everyone knows that if you reforest an area, increasing carbon sinks, and then burn the wood, it is no longer a sink. If you leave it as a forest, it remains a carbon sink. Or even if you lumber the wood, its a carbon sink until the wood decays -- perhaps centuries away. While Sinkwatch raises this as apparently their sole concern about the chemical / biological aspects of forest sinks, (and forest sinks are only one of four major classes of sinks,with many sequestration available within eachsink), they raise no examples of the any releases from this forest pools of carbon." Their argument is theoretical, obvious, and not a substantive (or meant to be so, I presume) argument against reforestation. Sink Watch's other concern are the current accounting methods used for carbon credits bought by Kyoto signers to meet their pledges. Of course there are going to be issues, problems and need for refinement in any new accounting and trading system, particularly for new commodity never yet traded in world markets. That hardly implies that the overall approached is fatally flawed. I applaud the role of SinkWatch in monitoring the carbon sequestration industry and credits trading markets for shortcomings and abuses. "The aim of SinksWatch is to track and scrutinize carbon sequestration projects related to the Kyoto Protocol, and to highlight their threats to forests and other ecosystems, to forest peoples as well as to the climate." Thats how problems are fixed and systems grow stronger. Their site, your post's sole cite, allegedly against sinks, provides no flaws of great substance - that is things that cannot be corrected. No fatal flaws. Their major concern appears to be that ONLY sequestration will be used, and energy-efficiency and substitution initiatives will be stopped. Thats not going to happen. Nor is it desirable. We need to "bapears tourn" the candle of atmospheric carbon and global climate change from both ends. So Vaj, do you actually have any issues of substance - those that cannot be corrected, those that are inherently fatal flaws, in either the science or trading aspects of carbon sequestration? Or is it just all squabbling about not liking this or that (correctable) detail? I read your cite. Did you read my 10 + cites? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/