Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
Need to convert this lot:
Quote:
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming says that the best way to combat Global Warming is to encourage farmers to cultivate deep-rooted perennial grass species and crops that can lock vast amounts of carbon up in the soil.
...
The Carbon Coalition aims to promote organic carbon contained in agricultural soils as a carbon sink to earn tradeable credits on the greenhouse emissions market. Farmers would then be paid up to AUS$3,000 per hectare for “sequestering” carbon in the soil.
|
|
Well done Michael.
I can already see one problem with the new thread structure. My response to this news does not belong in the news thread. (Suggestions please Hypography). But here goes:
The argument to try to convert agriculturalists seems straightforward:
Why stop at credits for the carbon in plants?
Good greenkeepers already know the benefits of horticultural charcoal. In your soil it will make your inputs more productive, improve water retention, and reduce soil erosion and nitrate leaching. You win every way.
Charcoal should attract further carbon credits. At present you may have to lobby for this to be accepted, but the argument is strong because black carbon has a residence time in soil far in excess of what plants sequester. Representations are being made to the UN to add black carbon to the Kyoto protocol.
Do not pay market prices for charcoal. Instead make your own black carbon by pyrolysing all waste from the perennials (mowings, prunings, windfall, etc.) and other crops.
There is a range of technologies to do this, suitable for small-scale early DIY experiments right up to large-scale grower co-operatives.
Some of the higher technologies use excess energy from pyrolysis as a heat source (e.g. for grain drying) or electricity generation, attracting further carbon credits for renewable energy and cutting your fuel bills.
Black carbon also reduces natural emissions from soil of methane and nitrous oxide. These are both strong greenhouse gases. A combination of research into how to verify the reductions and persistent lobbying could attract yet more credits further down the line.
Improvements and the best references to support the argument, anyone?
M
