One more update - the second "carbon tax" bill was effectively passed two days ago.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/triumph-divides-a-nation/story-e6frgd0x-1226167112128 Josh On Oct 14, 1:44 pm, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a couple of clarifications on Australia biochar policy: > > 1. Australia's new Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is linked to a > second piece of carbon legislation that would introduce a tax in 2012 > and cap-and-trade after that. This second bill still needs to pass in > order for the CFI to have any impact. > > 2. The CFI does not have a biochar methodology for creating offsets > yet, but one is anticipated. > > There's a bit more information > here:http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/08/australian-carbon-... > > Josh Horton > [email protected] > > On Oct 13, 5:20 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Sam (cc 2 lists): > > > 1. First, thanks for forwarding my yesterday "Geo" message to > > "Biochar-Policy". > > You raise an important question on how to proceed with getting funds for > > Biochar implementation. My immediate reaction is to support any official > > policy that is trying to accelerate CDR andBiochar, and both of your > > identifications/suggestions below are well worth supporting. I also support > > taxation - as being pushed by Jim Hansen. I would prefer that not all of > > the tax be reimbursed equally on a per capita basis; I would rather see > > some saved for supporting early demonstrations. > > > 2. I wandered around the Australian site you gave below and was pleasantly > > surprised to find Biochar specifically called out in several places. > > However, there is no actual money for credits available - only (I think) a > > registration process that allows a government-monitored sale in voluntary > > markets. Not everything, but helpful. > > There is reference to CSIRO being in charge of supporting farmers (with new > > funds). I have been most impressed by CSIRO work with Biochar. Maybe only > > the UKBRC activity at Edinburg comes close to being as complete. I heard > > the head of the CSIRO Biochar activity (Dr. Evelyn Krull) speak last month > > at the regional Biochar meeting in Kyoto - and was greatly impressed by the > > range of work they have undertaken. They will be releasing shortly a major > > report that should get us much closer to being able to match up chars with > > soils and species. This CSIRO group is well organized, and I think they > > will be well able to help Australian farmers enter the voluntary market - > > the first country to do so. > > There are now quite a few Biochar reports and literature available from > > CSIRO. I recommend one of about 56 pages from > > 2009:http://www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf > > Here is a brief quote on policy: > > "Separate evaluations should be made for the economic and environmental > > sustainability of > > alternative biochar scenarios. If the assured carbon-equivalent gain > > available using biochar is > > positive but the economic analysis for mainstream agriculture negative, > > then utilisation of > > economic instruments – most likely carbon trading or a subsidy that ensures > > biochar is used > > in soil rather than for combustion – is essential. The introduction, > > expansion or revision of > > such instruments that place a monetary value on the utilisation or disposal > > of organic waste, > > maintenance of soil quality and support for renewable and bioenergy as a > > whole may then be > > considered. > > For any biochar scenario it is possible that the agronomic value for > > biochar is sufficient to > > render the economic evaluation positive, without resorting to carbon > > markets or Government > > incentives. Then concerted research effort will be sufficient to establish > > certainty around the > > extent and realisation of such benefits. " > > > [RWL: So in sum, it is great that you brought this move towards more > > official Australian government support for Biochar to our attention - and > > we now have to see if it is enough. I had missed this big event. > > Minor point - I learned a new (mainly Australian) word - from the official > > dialog leading up to passage. This Act is apparently now immune from > > "rorting". > > > 3. I have also been to your site given below. I believe that your > > "feebates" are essentially taxes? > > > Ron > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> > > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, "biochar-policy" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:50:52 PM > > Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [geo] Biochar Nature paper > > > Question: What policy framework can best encourage biochar? > > > The Australian Government has introduced carbon > > creditshttp://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi > > > An alternative policy framework is described at the Biochar Economy, > > at:http://knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/the-biochar-economy/7y50rvz9924j/88 > > > Cheers! > > Sam Carana > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM, < [email protected] > wrote: > > > Greg and list: > > > > Thanks for bringing this two-year old (downloadable) Biochar paper from > > > "Nature" below to the list's attention. I admire the work of Wolff, > > > Amonette (corresponding author, responsible for the Excel work), etal. But > > > I think they went overboard on being conservative. They say: " Wherever > > > possible, conservative assumptions were used to provide a high degree of > > > confidence that our results represent a conservative estimate of the > > > avoided > > > GHG emissions achievable in each scenario.". I know three of the five > > > authors; one of them gave a (much less-documented) estimate that was an > > > order-of-magnitude higher. Tim Lenton has repeated this higher number. I > > > believe the most recent paper by Jim Hansen, which I think proposes 100 > > > GtC > > > of new standing forests, is assuming larger land use change than is > > > assumed > > > in this paper, or by those promoting BECCS. In my view, there is probably > > > one Gha available for reforestation and the paper limits the agroforestry > > > total to 170 Mha (all with latitude less than 25 degrees). They also > > > assume > > > only about 4 tC/ha-yr to be available (with about half going into char - > > > about 30% of their total annual combined carbon neutral and carbon > > > negative > > > peak). I believe we will do appreciably better than this assumed 400 grams > > > C/sqm-yr in the tropics (with about half of this parameter being available > > > for sequestration). > > > Resources that receive little/zero consideration in this paper include > > > a. The ocean - having an NPP roughly equal to that of land. Mangroves > > > have always been highly regarded for char making - and can be harvested > > > sustainably. Artificial nutrient upwelling and macroalgae are not > > > mentioned. > > > b. Freshwater microalgae - which provides potential access to the Gha of > > > deserts. > > > c. Fire-prevention possibilities (possibly another 1 GtC/yr) > > > d. Conversion of considerable pasture and idle land (there is only a > > > minimum assumed conversion of farm land - as noted above for agroforestry. > > > As noted above considerably higher values than 4 tC/ha-yr are in the > > > literature.) > > > e. Potential for improved bioenergy species productivity (little past > > > emphasis by geneticists on energy crops). > > > f. There is little on the ability to manage forests to increase (maybe > > > double or triple?) annual productivity by keeping the canopy open, using > > > multiple species and multiple levels in forests, and employing a lot of > > > people for coppicing etc.. > > > g. Little emphasis on emphasizing the advantages of more extensive > > > reforestation of tropical areas - where annual productivity can triple > > > that > > > in temperate zones. (But we can do both, where temperate land is idle.) > > > h. No assumed increase in soil productivity due to Biochar application > > > (and the terra preta literature talks of double and triple soil > > > productivity > > > increase). > > > i. HTC - hydrothermal conversion (of moist resources, such as MSW, > > > feedlot effluent, etc) - where HTC proponents talk about a potential for > > > half of future carbon sequestration via that route. > > > j. The use of charcoal-making stoves for the half of the world now > > > predominantly getting their energy (very inefficiently) from biomass. This > > > can be expanded readily to larger scale operations presently having zero > > > fossil fuels. > > > k. The potential role of Biochar for supporting (intermittent) wind and > > > solar - as biomass can provide needed energy storage. > > > l. I believe they show soil organic carbon (SOC) decreasing - and most > > > Biochar analysts assume an increase. > > > m. Any sense of political urgency - as being pushed by the 350 ppm > > > movement (including Dr. Hansen) > > > n. No discussion of what can happen with new policies that might come > > > out of different politics. > > > > None of the above dozen possible resource expansion areas requires > > > cutting existing forests, nor use of peat regions. > > > > I am also looking into the details of the paper's comparisons with > > > combustion, etc. I think this may also have been conservative. For > > > instance if one has added annual productivity after applying char, credit > > > should be given for that additional annual growth (even if cut annually) > > > and > > > standing biomass. I believe no such credit is given although it would be > > > the > > > main claim for a new forest. > > > > There are a few other similar Biochar papers striving to get at the > > > details. It is on these details that we must now concentrate - and the > > > Wolff-Amonette paper contains as much or more detail as any I have seen. > > > To > > > repeat, their arguments are well supported - albeit mostly using the most > > > conservative number in a spectrum. I am only declaring that our CDR world > > > is large enough to have both conservative and more optimistic views being > > > discussed. I would love to have further conversation with anyone on this > > > list re my concerns on this paper being overly conservative. > > > > Thanks again to Greg for bringing this excellent paper to the list's > > > attention. > > > > Ron > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: "Greg Rau" < [email protected] > > > > To: "geoengineering" < > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
