U.S.-FocUSed Biochar report - BioEnergy Lists
U.S.-FocUSed Biochar report - BioEnergy Lists U.S.-FocUSed Biochar report - BioEnergy Lists
only account for 4.5% of members’ emissions. CCX has approved offset methodologies for, agricultural soil carbon,rangeland soil carbon, energy efficiency and fuel switching, forestry carbon (but only for afforestation, longlivedwood, and managed forest projects),renewable energy, among others. CCX had more than 350 members in2008, including both significant direct emitters, negligible direct emitters such as office-based businesses, andoffset developers and aggregators. CCX traded 22.9 million tCO 2 e in 2007, at a market value of USD 72.4 million.(Katoomba Group 2010).Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)RGGI consists of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, NewYork, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It establishes a regional carbon market, requiring states to stabilize powersector emissions by 2014, than reduce by 2.5% every year from 2015 to 2018. The first compliance period beganin January 2009. Offsets from both within and outside of the member states, including afforestation but not includingagricultural soil carbon projects, are conditionally allowed according to a sliding scale percentage that isdependent on the price of allowances. (Katoomba Group 2010).Oregon StandardThe Oregon Standard requires new power plants in the state of Oregon to reduce CO 2 emissions 17% below themost efficient combined cycle plant. Offsets are allowed. (Katoomba group 2010).California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)AB 32’s cap & trade system covers about 85% of California’s emissions, and provides linkage to the Western ClimateInitiative. Offsets from forestry and agriculture are allowed. Implementation of AB 32’s many action itemsbegan in 2010. (CARB 2010).Western Climate Initiative (WCI)WCI consists of the U.S. states of California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Montana andthe Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario. It aims to reduce emissions frommembers to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. WCI’s first phase will begin in 2012, and its second phase, coveringfurther sectors of the economy, will begin in 2015. Limited use of offsets is permitted. By 2012, WCI will coverapproximately 886 MtCO 2 e per year. (Katoomba Group 2010).Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (MRP)MRP consists of the U.S. states of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and the Canadianprovince of Manitoba. Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, and Ontario are observers. MRP will begin in 2012 with aregional cap & trade system affecting approximately 1107 MtCO 2 e per year. (Katoomba Group 2010).The Climate RegistryThe Climate Registry is a “new governance” multi-state, tribal, and company effort to improve the quality andtransparency of emissions data through reporting, accounting, and verification. It includes the District of Columbiaand 39 U.S. states, 3 Native American tribes, 6 Mexican states, 8 Canadian provinces, and more than 200private companies. The Registry is not a carbon market, but its presence is a major facilitating factor for thedevelopment of a future carbon market. (Katoomba Group 2010).72U.S.-Focused Biochar Report:Assessment of Biochar’s Benefits for the United States of America
UNCERTAINTY IN CARBON MARKETSAt present, carbon markets are rife with macro-scale uncertainties that go well beyond offset projectspecificrisks. These uncertainties, which can destabilize the price of offset projects that produce emissionsreductions well into the future, are detailed in this section. While the uncertainties are substantial, they are notnecessary fixtures of a carbon market per se. Rather, they all stem from the political uncertainties surroundingthe establishment of carbon markets as permanent fixtures of the global financial system. If politicians succeedin establishing a functioning, mandatory, long-term global carbon market, many of these uncertainties will disappearor be greatly reduced. On the other hand, to the extent that emissions agreements continue to have shortlife spans and only near-term targets, these uncertainties will persist.No country has committed to emission reductions beyond 2012. In two years, the driving force behind theestablishment of both international and domestic carbon markets will evaporate. (Lokey 2009). Efforts to providea new climate treaty to contain emissions post-2012 have thus far been unsuccessful. (Doyle & Wynn 2010).Countries will meet again at the end of 2010 to attempt another round of negotiations. In the absence of bindingemissions targets, compliance carbon markets will collapse. This has a dramatic effect on the current pricing ofoffset credits that will be generated post-2012 in multi-year offset projects: post-2012 CERs are worth very little incomparison to pre-2012 CERs. (Lokey 2009).The United States is the present “elephant in the room” of the global carbon market. As both the largestdeveloped country emitter of GHGs, as well as the only developed country in the world that is not a party to theKyoto Protocol, its actions have massive impacts on the carbon market. Entry of the United States into a bindinginternational agreement, backed up by a domestic carbon market such as that contemplated in ACESA, wouldsignificantly increase global demand for emissions offsets. (Lokey 2009, CBO 2009).Advanced developing countries (ADCs) will be the “elephants in the room” in the coming decades. Asrapidly developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil become developed, they will eventually need tomake the switch from producers of global carbon offsets to capped, Annex 1 type countries. No one is certainexactly when or how this will happen. When it does happen, demand for emissions offsets will increase due tothe need of ADC-based entities to reduce emissions to comply with new caps. There is a possibility that thesuccessor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol will begin taking steps toward this transition through the utilizationof carbon intensity targets, which cap and reduce the GHG emission per unit of GDP ratio rather than overallemissions. Carbon intensity targets would allow ADCs to continue to raise their overall emissions in pursuit ofdevelopment, but would aim to reduce the rate of emissions per unit of development (Herzog 2007). It is unclearwhether ADCs would be able to use carbon offsets to meet carbon intensity targets.The number of excess allowances is unknown in a carbon market until the near end of a complianceperiod. Because the internal cost of emissions reductions by covered entities is difficult to predict in the absenceof historical data, it is also difficult to predict whether a compliance market will have a lot of excess allowancesor very few allowances for purchase as the compliance period draws to a close. As the number of allowancesbecomes known, the price of offsets can plummet or skyrocket accordingly over a very short time period. (Lokey2009).Offset price uncertainty can cause gaming behavior by offset producers. Farmers and foresters expectthat GHG prices will rise over time, provided there is a binding emissions treaty, and so are likely to delay mitigationpractices until prices rise so as to maximize GHG payments. Thus at relatively low GHG prices ($15/t CO 2 e), afforestation becomes the dominant strategy. In either case, by2055, EPA estimates that afforestation and sequestration become less feasible due to carbon saturation, harvesting,and practice reversion. At $30 and $50/tCO 2 e, biofuels dominate the mitigation scene.Biochar relevance in GHG markets in: Carbon Market Implications for Biochar73
- Page 25: 100%10%Char yeild (wt % of dry biom
- Page 28 and 29: chars acting more like lime and rai
- Page 30 and 31: ConclusionSociety has hundreds of d
- Page 34 and 35: • Free biochar particles with emb
- Page 36 and 37: Smernik (2009) has suggested that b
- Page 38 and 39: al. (2009) reported a reduction in
- Page 40 and 41: Bauer A, Black AL (1994) Quantifica
- Page 42 and 43: Shrestha RK, Lal R (2007) Soil Carb
- Page 44 and 45: Sustainability OverviewThe most com
- Page 46 and 47: • thinnings (both understory and
- Page 48 and 49: nineties, more than six million acr
- Page 50 and 51: 3. Biomass shall not come from land
- Page 52 and 53: Sustainability Protocol Purpose 181
- Page 54 and 55: • Administrative• Social• Qua
- Page 56 and 57: y Biochar.- Societal Benefits: Bioc
- Page 58 and 59: 1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres; 100 he
- Page 60 and 61: the seven in the BBTV.Continuing al
- Page 62 and 63: F2 (Expanded forestry residues; 0.1
- Page 64 and 65: projects (p 81 of his thesis) doubl
- Page 66 and 67: Other Global NPP. projections To be
- Page 68 and 69: former term, as well as “Biochar
- Page 70 and 71: Biochar relevance in GHG markets in
- Page 72 and 73: It is far easier to measure emissio
- Page 74 and 75: STEPS ANDDOCUMENTATIONRESPONSIBLE P
- Page 78 and 79: Analysis: Biochar And Carbon Market
- Page 80 and 81: Quantification of reductions for bi
only account for 4.5% of members’ emissions. CCX has approved offset methodologies for, agricultural soil carbon,rangeland soil carbon, energy efficiency and fuel switching, forestry carbon (but only for afforestation, longlivedwood, and managed forest projects),renewable energy, among others. CCX had more than 350 members in2008, including both significant direct emitters, negligible direct emitters such as office-based businesses, andoffset developers and aggregators. CCX traded 22.9 million tCO 2 e in 2007, at a market value of USD 72.4 million.(Katoomba Group 2010).Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)RGGI consists of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, NewYork, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It establishes a regional carbon market, requiring states to stabilize powersector emissions by 2014, than reduce by 2.5% every year from 2015 to 2018. The first compliance period beganin January 2009. Offsets from both within and outside of the member states, including afforestation but not includingagricultural soil carbon projects, are conditionally allowed according to a sliding scale percentage that isdependent on the price of allowances. (Katoomba Group 2010).Oregon StandardThe Oregon Standard requires new power plants in the state of Oregon to reduce CO 2 emissions 17% below themost efficient combined cycle plant. Offsets are allowed. (Katoomba group 2010).California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)AB 32’s cap & trade system covers about 85% of California’s emissions, and provides linkage to the Western ClimateInitiative. Offsets from forestry and agriculture are allowed. Implementation of AB 32’s many action itemsbegan in 2010. (CARB 2010).Western Climate Initiative (WCI)WCI consists of the U.S. states of California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Montana andthe Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario. It aims to reduce emissions frommembers to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. WCI’s first phase will begin in 2012, and its second phase, coveringfurther sectors of the economy, will begin in 2015. Limited use of offsets is permitted. By 2012, WCI will coverapproximately 886 MtCO 2 e per year. (Katoomba Group 2010).Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (MRP)MRP consists of the U.S. states of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and the Canadianprovince of Manitoba. Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, and Ontario are observers. MRP will begin in 2012 with aregional cap & trade system affecting approximately 1107 MtCO 2 e per year. (Katoomba Group 2010).The Climate RegistryThe Climate Registry is a “new governance” multi-state, tribal, and company effort to improve the quality andtransparency of emissions data through <strong>report</strong>ing, accounting, and verification. It includes the District of Columbiaand 39 U.S. states, 3 Native American tribes, 6 Mexican states, 8 Canadian provinces, and more than 200private companies. The Registry is not a carbon market, but its presence is a major facilitating factor for thedevelopment of a future carbon market. (Katoomba Group 2010).72U.S.-Focused <strong>Biochar</strong> Report:Assessment of <strong>Biochar</strong>’s Benefits for the United States of America
Change language