[Stoves] Is this Off Topic?? Fwd: Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown

[Nikhil Desai]

Tom:

I wonder where you have seen stove projects financed by "carbon credits
based on fossil fuel offsets." I am not aware of any.

To my knowledge, CDM and voluntary carbon projects are for reductions in
CO2 and other qualified GHG emissions WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES as
approved by either the inter-governmental authorities (CDM) or
self-proclaimed authorities (Gold Standard).

There is no specific requirement that the GHG emission reductions come from
changes in fossil fuels use, UNLESS such use is in the "baseline". I know
of no such stove project, though I would very much like to see one - e.g.,
improved coal heating stoves Asia or South Africa.

When the baseline - existing and future use in absence of the intervention
- is only biomass, the requirement I am aware of is that reduction in CO2
(rather, all Kyoto gases) emissions have to be adjusted for fNRB -
"fraction Non-Renewable Biomass:" If biomass fuel use within the project
boundaries is currently deemed to be "renewable" or "sustainable", it is
assumed to be "carbon-neutral".

This is an anti-poor, irrational requirement. It leads to all kinds of
gaming and discourages or eliminates carbon finance for "efficient biomass
stoves" projects. But this is the irony of IPCC calculus - biomass is
assumed to be renewable, so fuel emissions from biomass are to be reported
not in the emissions inventories but only in LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use
Changes, and Forestry) if they lead to deforestation.

I would be more than happy to generate opposition to this ideological
decision by IPCC, that is then followed under CDM. It does not matter where
the CO2 absorbed by new vegetation comes from -- fossil fuels or biomass
fuels. Similarly, the CO2 emission reduction by lower biomass use should
not be deducted for some presumed "renewable biomass fraction" (i.e.,
1-fNRB).

It is now nearly 30 years since AES Corporation around here created an
offsets project by investing in a Guatemala forestry project to offset the
emissions from its coal or gas power project in Connecticut. (How a
forestry offset project in Guatemala allowed emissions in the USA to
increase
<http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/>,
REDD-Monitor 9 October 2009. That was a valid "fossil fuel offset" project,
though as the REDD-Monitor piece concludes,


"For at least the first ten years of the AES-CARE project, emissions from
the power plant vastly exceeded the carbon sequestered in the AES-CARE
project. At the same time, CARE diverted resources from poverty alleviation
to carbon monitoring. Given that the project had been running since the
1970s it’s is difficult to see how the project could possibily be
considered to be additional. In effect AES wrote a cheque which allowed
emissions to continue."


There were similar projects in the 1990s under bilateral initiatives such
as USIJI (US Initiative for Joint Implementation), but after Kyoto became
effective, such experimentation stopped. All official carbon credit
projects (under CDM) and all voluntary carbon projects that I am aware of
were simply based on emissions within project boundaries.

Stove projects are relatively new, and as I discovered today from Ci-Dev,
UK buys credits from stove projects and retires them (i.e., plain grants),
while Sweden and Switzerland buy credits (based on fNRB) and uses them
toward national commitments for GHG emission reductions. They would be
hard-pressed to argue that it is only the fossil CO2 that they are using
these credits against; there are non-fossil fuel GHG emissions in their
national inventories.

I come from the old school thought in science and law - before talking
substance, get the process (incl. definitions) right.

Nikhil













------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*


On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:35 AM, <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Paul,
>
>
>
> This topic is relevant. Several stove suppliers have made the investment
> in certification and third party verification of carbon credits based on
> fossil fuel offsets. If biochar is included it could provide additional
> benefits which we should account for even if there is currently little or
> no monetary benefit for carbon sequestration. Some stove suppliers have
> created carbon offset markets based on their own (sometimes internal)
> verification system for biochar and sold the “offsets” to voluntary
> contributors. If this is going to become a credible “voluntary” standard
> than the protocol for measuring and accounting for biochar must be
> consistent.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170912/2c039fc9/attachment.html>