>Subject: HM carbon
>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:48:28 -0500
>
>Good conversation on methane,
> Folks have probably heard about the permafrost in old swamps
>melting in Siberia and other arctic regions. Yet one more source, in
>addition to the frozen hydrates on the ocean floor, for major climate
>changes to happen quickly.
> About five years back I put a lot of time into researching and
>building model scale anaerobic digesters to make methane for fuel.
> It was an interesting project, intellectually rewarding and so on.
>The gas is a good heating source.
> Today, in most of the 'climate change mitigation' work going on at
>the state/fed level, methane capture and combustion for power from
>liquid manure systems is given very high priority....much higher than
>building up stable soil carbon.
> The reason I finally quit my late night research into power from
>methane from manure was the realization that the only production method
>that lends itself to significant power generation is confinement.
>Whether dairy or swine, confinement farming is the only practical way
>to feed plug-flow digesters the daily shot of liquid manure they need.
>The 'environmental benefits' of methane capture disapear pretty quickly
>when the production model is fossil farming.
> An interesting side note is the effect that liquid slurry from
>liquid manure has on the soil. Around here, in Vermont, where liquid
>manure pits are the unfortunate norm, the spreading of liquid manure is
pretty tragic.
>First is the N2O and CH4 and ammonia emissions from the liquid pits. (I
>live 150 feet from a neigbor's pit.) Second is the soil compaction
>from the tanker trucks. Third, seeing the worms rush to the surface
>and die by the millions after the liquid hits the soil....
> Jerry Brunetti calls the application of liquid manure to soil a
>"collision of ecologies." Anaerobic meets aerobic.
> Methane capture from existing landfills seems worthwhile, but
>proposals to keep on shipping large amounts of organic matter to
>landfills in order to capture the methane miss the point that diverting
>the organic stream prior and composting would give us a more realistic
>cycling of minerals, esp. carbon, to soils.
> On the homestead scale, anaerobic digesters have been used pretty
>successfully. Jean Pain invented a batch digester imbedded in a
>compost pile with plastic pipe for a heat exchanger. The compost pile
>heated his house, and the digester fueled his cooking stove and powered
>a small generator for all of his electricity.
> Concerning tipping points. James Lovelock's speculates in his new
>book, The Revenge of Gaia, that we've already crossed the rubicon.
>His advice is to adopt nuclear power so we can keep the lights on while
>our cities sink, and prepare for the small group of human survivors to
>move North, where a few breeding pairs will provide the genetic base
>for the future of humanity. Other scientists talk about a 10 year
>window to get things under control. In a hundred years, even optimistic me
has trouble
>imagining any sort of stability with C02 at 750 or a thousand ppm. I'm of
>the opinion that we had better get busy eliminating emissions (from
>combustion and from the destruction of soil fertility) and capturing
>the excess atmospheric carbon in soils right now, just to be prudent.
> Lovelock points out that the last time there was this much carbon
>in the atmosphere was the Eocene, 55 million years ago. I am a big fan
>of Gaia theory, and of Lovelock's thinking in general. The thing that
>he seems to miss almost entirely is that there is a carbon sink on
>earth that can buy us a few decades to get this combustion habit of
>ours under control....the soil. And it needs carbon.
>The point bears repeating that current C02 levels are at almost 380 ppm.
>If we include other GHG that are looking higher than 'historically'
>normal, than the C02 equivalent might be in the neighborhood of 420
>ppm. Pre industrial ice-core samples levels fall into the 270-280 ppm
range.
> Almost all discussion about climate change 'solutions' today fall
>into the trap of problem solving and technological fixes. It's amazing
>to me how rarely the two words "carbon" and "cycle" appear together in
>climate change discussions. Ecological literacy is low.
> Allan Yeomans has done some interesting math. An increase of 1.6%
>in soil organic matter to a depth of 1 foot on the worlds ag/ranching
>lands would restore atmospheric concentrations of C02 to pre-industrial
levels.
>As graziers, our ability to build topsoil is probably the single most
>valuable gift anyone on earth has to offer.
> Over the years I've run carbon taxing through the HM policy
>formation process a few times. It bears out, and could probably use
>some real concentrated creativity by thinking people. A carbon tax, in
>which emissions of carbon compounds would be heavily taxed, would have
>the interesting effect of welding the human economy to the carbon
>cycle....or cycle of life. Taxation based on effective mineral cycling
>is a good idea in my book. To be effective, the carbon tax would
>supplant almost all other taxes....property, income, sales and so on.
>All govt. revenue would be generated from the taxation of fossil fuels,
>and resource management practices that resulted in net releases of C.
> Carbon taxes are being mentioned more and more frequently in the
>US these days, even by some Repub. politicians. There are a number of
>European countries allready doing this to a limited extent, Sweden for one.
> If we are serious about stabilizing the climate, in a necessarily
>holistic way, I think that we would do well to put some serious thought
>into C tax, and then some serious pressure on our politicians. Anyone
>up for some online policy analysis/formation?
>Best,
>Abe
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized online radio with MSN Radio powered by Pandora
http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
Dick Richardson
Professor
The University of Texas at Austin Phone 512-471-4128
Integrative Biology FAX 512-232-3402
Biology Labs, 114A
1 University Station, MS A6700
205 W. 24th Street
Austin, Texas 78712-0253
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.