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

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Tue May 30 23:59:56 CDT 2017


Crispin, Ron:

This discussion between you two is proof that the stove enterprise seeks to
serve the funding masters, not real investor users.

Ron:

What part of the Paris Agreement requires the signatories to take excess
CO2 seriously, and how?

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91) 909 995 2080
*Skype: nikhildesai888*


On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> 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> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170531/219eaf6c/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list