Kevin, Crispin and list: This is to also answer the two following messages from yourselves. I did not find them helpful - as they assume the only economics relate to the carbon credit. They assume nothing (repeat nothing) about the value to the user in outyear ag benefits. Tell me how farmers in the world will react to news that (for example) land worth zero today can be brought up to a productivity level the same as other existing ag land nearby (same rainfall etc.) Let's say that land can, after applying biochar be worth $500/ha rather than $0/ha. If those farmers have a discount rate of 5% or 50% will make a big difference on how much they will be willing to spend per tonne of biochar and how many tonnes per ha (which could be in rows or holes - not uniformly scattered). Which discount rate are you using for these out-year benefit computations? You can't prove biochar is worthless by talking to this list only about credits of $6/tonne CO2.
More below. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:29:17 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon Dear Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves Cc: Kevin Chisholm Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon Kevin and list: See below ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin" < [email protected] > To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" < [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:34:01 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon Dear Ron You mention $16 and $27 per tonne CO2 equivalent. I presume you are referring to a payment that one would receive when showing that one has earned a tonne of CO2 equivalent. [RWL: Yup - examples only - hopefully larger.] <blockquote> # Prices seem to vary all over the place to purchase carbon credits. What is the present price that a biochar producer could expect to receive as a carbon Credit for the biochar he produced? It is one thing to hope for future price increases for Carbon Credits, but is that realistic? Would you perhaps have a graph that shows the price trend for CarbonCrdits that you could share with the Lists? </blockquote> [RWL2a: See m y opening remarks. The price trend for credits has nothing to do with anything under discussion - especially about black carbon.] <blockquote> 1: Where would one apply to get such payments? [RWL: Anywhere one can. Numerous stove promoters on this list already getting some.] # OK!! Can you tell the Stoves and Biochar Lists where they could apply to get Carbon Credit payments for the biochar they produce? </blockquote> [RWL2b: I am not in that business. If I were them I probably would keep that answer to myself - but feel free to ask stove sellers (whi ch are maybe only for displaced CO2 - not char .] <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> 2: Who would be eligible to receive such payments? [RWL: Anyone who can prove they deserve them.] </blockquote> <blockquote> # That makes sense. 3: What conditions must be met, before the payments would actually be made? [RWL: Whatever is acceptable to the presumably willing buyer of the credits.] </blockquote> <blockquote> # That does not make sense at all! Surely there must be some rules or standards that must be met to ensure that the Carbon Credits are real. If not, then the entire system is open to fraud. </blockquote> [RWL2c: I have made no comments about an open market - and those don't yet exist. Of course, when we have organized markets accepting char as a vehicle, there will then be stringent rules . IBI and others are developing them now. The point in this dialog (referring back to $16 and $11) is that biochar from stoves can have a higher value (because of black carbon improvements) than b iochar from some other sources.] <blockquote> I am concerned that with the state of the World Economy, Governments will lose their interest in longer term Climate Change Concerns, and would put their priorities on addressing short term and more immediate concerns. [RWL: We disagree.] </blockquote> <blockquote> # What is your basis for disagreement? Kyoto seems to be dead in the water. At the last meeting, I believe that most Governments said "We will do something about controlling CO2 emissions sometime after 2020, but we will not say what we will do, and when we will do it." Is this a reasonable summation? If you feel not, what would you feel is? </blockquote> [RWL2d: I am more of an optimist than you . Arctic ice totally disappearing in a year or two could be the wake-up call. No yours is not a reasonable summation from my perspective. A lot of people are working to promote a meaningful price, And we don't need all governments to agree; I have hopes for a number of EU countries. And you didn't do more than repeat an opinion- which happens to differ from mine. Obviously I can't give proof of anything happening in the next few years - and that is why we should agree to disagree. ] <blockquote> What are your views on the future of Carbon Credit payments? [RWL: They will slowly creep up in price (maybe in time to do some good). Biochar credits from char-making stoves look like the easiest to sell of any. </blockquote> <blockquote> # The recent report on the important impact of Black Carbon on climate change would seem to reduce the relative importance of the CO2 parameter. As I understand it, most "generally accepted Climate Change Models" were calibrated under the assumption that BC was a minor or insignificant factor, and the model factors were adjusted to relate observed temperature rise to anthropogenic CO2. Now that BC could have a "forcing effect" perhaps 2/3 as great as the present forcing effect attributed to CO2, recalibrating the models to reflect the increased importance of BC will inherently diminish the importance of CO2 as a factor in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Accordingly, it would seem reasonable to project a significant decline in "Carbon Credit Revenue" to biochar producers. Does this seem reasonable? If not, why not? </blockquote> [RWL2e: Re sentence #1: Tami Bond , in the quoted article (which this started out to be about) put major emphasis on CO2. Re your second sentence, all the models lump effects together under CO2e, n ot simply CO2 . Re the last "reasonable" - You have it all wrong. I presume because you are still a climate denier and are looking for every way possible to make your denier view seem more reasonable. ] <blockquote> # Concerning carbon credits for biochar from char-making stoves, would you have an approximate idea of the value of the carbon credits per tonne for such biochar? Would you have an approximate idea of the annual tonnage of biochar that is sold in connection with a carbon credit payment. </blockquote> [RWL2f: Re #1, See my opening remarks. To repeat - there is no single value appropriate to all buyers and sellers of credits. This is a voluntary market - not a tax. If we were talking a subsidy, I think $100/tonne char ($35/tonne CO2) would make a huge difference - and is totally justified on strictly moral/ethical grounds (thinking of all our obligations to our children and grand-children and to developing countries. The US will benefit a lot more from paying such a subsidy - as the economy will suffer much worse from ocean rise, varied rainfall, size of storms, e tc. Re #2 sentence - I have no idea and doubt anyone does. I do hear people saying that char is in short supply. Such data will be partly available with an open market. Your whole line of questioning has nothing to do with BC from stoves and whether BC should be an important reason for near term action to promote cleaner char-making stoves. ] <blockquote> # As we all know, "adequate carbon credit payments" could lead to a huge increase in biochar production and use. However, if it is unreasonable to believe that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon, then stoves and biochar must rise on their own inherent merits, without such support. Holding onto a false hope can only result in disappointment. </blockquote> [RWL2g: Re #1 - We agree. The reason that this is not happening is that too many do not see the ethics and morality of moving faster (on this I presume we disagree) Re#2 - Agree with last part of sentence - and not with the first on timing. Re #3 - Disagree. Assuming failure, as you seem to be doing, is a self-fulfilling prophecy - to stop all progress and accept ocean rise, etc with costs much greater than the costs of credits. Ron] <blockquote> Best wishes, Kevin Ron] Thanks very much. Kevin <blockquote> ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon Dean and list: Tami's is one huge report (232 pages in a major journal sounds like a world record). I spent quite a few hours today trying to grasp the topic - and know now I had better give up. The Black Carbon problem is going to take experts like Tami to bring its importance into the world of stoves. There may be an argument that if a stove can prove $16/.tonne CO2, you might have a chance at proving up to (or even more than?) $27/tonne CO2e, if you are in the right place on the globe. (These numbers based on numbers given in terms of W/sqm.) I recommend casual readers getting quickly to the figures at the extreme end of the report/paper. There is a lot of useful numercal geographic and sources comparisons there. As Crispin has indicated the intentional large scale annual burning of large parts of Africa look like a good place to instead harvest and get useful energy and biiochar instead (through stoves and more). Congratulations on arranging to have Tami be the ETHOS key-noter. I think she may have been at the first! Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Still" <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05:27 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon Dear Friends, Tami is the keynote speaker at ETHOS this year and it will be interesting to hear what she's been learning! All Best, Dean On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Dear Friends A new and I would say major major paper on the atmospheric impact of black carbon particles is available for download. We know at least two of the authors here on ‘Stoves’. Profs Tami Bond and Philip Hopke (the aethalometer builder who said he was a minor contributor) are frequent contributors on the subject of emissions testing. The paper is important because it is the first really detailed examination of the effects of atmospheric heating by Black Carbon (BC). The abstract is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract and the paper is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf It is not behind a paywall but it is large (40 MB). Times to get your hands dirty with BC! Regards Crispin _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote> _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/ _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote> _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote>
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
