--- 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/
 


Reply via email to