[Stoves] [biochar] Re: Haiti document of comments

[Ronal W. Larson]

List and Crispin:

	Responses inserted below.


> On May 27, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron
> 
> How would you assure a funder that the charcoal so produced would not enter the charcoal fuel market?
	[RWL1:  There is plentiful literature on this - which is already occurring in the voluntary credit market.  I see Co-ops as being key - to keep costs down.

> 
> What assurance can you provide that making char and not using it as fuel, would not increase the cutting of trees for the current need for cooking energy?
	[RWL2: I am strongly encouraging the “cutting of trees” - both with cooking in mind and for other purposes that would displace fossil fuels.  But payment for CDR would of course demand that this be done sustainably.   Many new trees  (and shrubs).   Again plenty of literature on this.
> 
> What discount for increased tree production would be made as the 'benefit of CO2' added to the atmosphere? Emitted CO2 increases the mass of fuel available, quite a lot. Do you envision charcoal burning stoves being credited for the additional CO2 they make available? 
	[RWL3:  a.  My discounts are all for CO2 removal - not added.  
	 b.  Yes , added CO2 increases photosynthesis - but that by no means offsets the tremendous harm of our already-added roughly 150 Gt C.
	c.  No.  Just the reverse.  They are to be credited for the CO2 removed.  Roughly half of the carbon headed for cookstove use should end up in the ground.  And the world much better off if this happens.  And more trees 50 years from now than at present - and growing faster and with more soil carbon than now.
> 
> The area of fores‎t cover on the planet has recently been updated and upgraded adding a new area about equal to 3/4 of Australia. That is new forest cover particularly in dry lands which are greening rapidly. If wood stoves replaced charcoal stoves would that growth continue to expand or stabilize?
	[RWL4:  a).  Yes, there has been some forest growth - but unlikely anywhere where char use is illegal.  Your cite on the 3/4 number?
	b).  Yes there has been some dry-land greening.  Nowhere near enough.  Also plenty of forest loss due to droughts and increased forest fires.
	c).  No - “standard” wood stoves will do little.  Definitely TLUD use with biochar will dramatically expand (much more than stabilize) photosynthesis everywhere that biochar is applied.  We need to get today’s global NPP up from about 60 Gt C/yr by at least 5 new NPP.
> 
> Will people growing fuel wood have to pay carbon dioxide emitters for the main input they require to succeed? If the CO2 concentration were to drop all C3 and C4 plants would grow more slowly and use more water per kg of biomass. Who's going to pay for that loss?
	[RWL5:  a)   No.  The reverse, as long as your “carbon dioxide emitters” means “fossil”.  Biomass energy users should be exempt from carbon taxes (which I support).
		b).  Yes again, CO2 fertilization will suffer.   But experimental evidence (for instance Terra Preta) says that biochar increases growth a lot more than the small (and likely offset by temperature increases) photosynthesis impact.
		c).  No one will pay for the loss of this highly-questionable claim of CO2-caused-increased growth.  The developed country population mostly on this list (me, for one) will pay for the reverse - cleaning up the mess I/we have made.

> 
> There’s no free lunch. 
	[RWL6:   My justification for disagreeing with your pro-CO2 perspective is of course the recent COP21 decision to take excess CO2 seriously.  Only two countries out of 195 have so far not signed (Nicaragua and Syria).  I still have hopes that the US will NOT be agreeing with your view.  COP22 placed new emphasis on the subject of this list:  soil carbon - which can have a major input from char-making stoves.

	I repeat my statement below that saying that char-making stoves should receive zero efficiency credit must be part of any discussion on whether we have two much or too little atmospheric carbon.

Ron


> Crispin 
> 
> ‎
> Crispin and cc list and Roland:
> 
> You somehow below left out of your analysis the twenty-year history on this (a stove) list re charcoal-making stoves.   Surprisingly, there are some who argue that such stoves should not be given credit for the char when establishing their efficiency ratings.  
> 
> There are some (like myself) who believe that there is a serious climate crisis demanding that stove-produced char be reserved for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) purposes.   Funding (which need not be large due to soil benefits)  should be from those (like myself) who put that excess carbon there.  The developed countries should pay for atmospheric carbon removal (based on the “polluter pay” principal) - with large benefits to both forests and farmlands.  I personally see no better way for CDR than biochar;  stove users are a most logical first-using group - to prove the soil benefits.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On May 27, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Paul and Roland
>>  
>> >Charcoal is a billion $ business and only 20% of the end price goes to the producer, who usually apply very primitive methods. 80 % is transport, bribes, intermediates etc. And there is nothing (tax) for the concerning state budget.
>> The principal reason for this situation is that:
>>  
>> Charcoal making is often illegal so the government cannot tax it.
>> It is kept illegal by those involved in the trade making a lot of noise about how bad it is and how destructive it is. It suits them to keep it illegal to block legitimate competition.
>> People cannot use more modern methods of production without being formalised as a business, which is illegal.
>> The bribes are taken by those who keep the business illegal to line their own pockets.
>> When charcoal making is legalised and supported by training and technology transfer it becomes commercially successful, the wanton destruction of the resource by outsiders is blocked, local jobs are created, local revenue is generated for the community, mafias are cut out of the equation, productivity rises, quality can be assured, long term management of forestry reserves is encouraged and defended by the local community.
>>  
>> Until those wishing to ‘save the forest’ are willing to address the fundamental reasons why the system is so inefficient and poorly managed, there is little hope. Banning charcoal production obviously doesn’t work – it just creates more opportunities for corruption and overnight theft of a community’s resources.
>>  
>> Good examples of proper management of forest resources can be found in Canada, Haiti, Chad, South Africa, Botswana and Rwanda. I am sure there are others. Of those named perhaps Chad has the most interesting story and Rwanda has the most success.
>>  
>> Best regards
>> Crispin
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> 
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170527/f3649ed5/attachment.html>