[USCC] Fwd: Pew Center Information

[Jim McNelly]

Mike Morin wrote:



Reducing power plant emissions is not enough.
The California Plan is bunk. Trading emissions is nothing more than a
handout to administrators.

The automobile is the chief culprit. Global warming, peak oil, and noise
pollution are three great reasons to relocalize our economies and make goods
and services available within walking distance for all. To do this, we need
to change the way that resources are allocated to and within communities. I
have a plan for that. You can find it at:

<http://citnet.org/newsletters/2005-02/morin1.aspx>http://citnet.org/newsletters/2005-02/morin1.aspx

It's concise.


Hi Mike,

One thing people tend to forget about the atmospheric warming debate 
is that the Kyoto Accord only brings the rate of increase of CO2 and 
other warming gasses down to 1997 output levels.  These levels are 
hardly sustainable and reducing the outputs to these levels will 
still result in increases in global temperatures.

I have been thinking more along the lines of calling for massive 
carbon sequestration projects, transporting compost by train and ship 
to tens of millions of acres per year, planting trees, addressing 
desertification in the process.  Over the last four thousand years, 
the world has lost 27% of its arable land to desertification, which 
is man made topsoil loss, and these hundreds of billions of acres 
could use compost and biomass.

Topsoil enrichment and tree planting would result in 100 or more tons 
per acre of carbon sequestered in a few short years, and more as the 
trees grow larger.  I see few ways to support such undertakings 
without carbon credits, or even better, direct subsidies by world 
governments based upon a per acre pay basis.  Only such enormous 
global undertakings of carbon sequestration can quickly make a dent 
in the rate of atmospheric warming increase.

Meeting 1997 levels is only a way to educate governments, citizens 
and businesses about the global warming issue.  We need to be 
thinking about the more important goal of zero increase, and even 
better, reduction of atmospheric warming gasses back to levels fifty 
or so years ago, back before the major increase in world air 
temperatures.  It will take decades to convert over to renewable 
resources, as these actions require the involvement of billions of 
people and the conversion of trillions of dollars in 
infrastructure.  It will take not nearly so long to sequester carbon, 
as this will require the efforts of only tens of thousands of 
decision makers and leaders and only tens of billions of 
dollars.  While we are filling the carbon sinks with compost and 
biomass, we can work on the longer term goal of converting from 
fossil carbon fuels to renewable carbon fuels and other sustainable 
and zero impact practices. It makes no sense to me to grow biofuel 
crops without renewable nutrients anyway, and sustainable fuel crops 
have to start with quality topsoil, which requires compost.

Transportation in all of its forms is not the major culprit as you 
suggest.  In fact it represents only around 20% of the US 
contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  While I laud the local 
self reliance programs suggested in your link, people are not going 
to give up their personal transportation devices overnight. Why not 
take on fugitive methane first?  It accounts for 9% of US atmospheric 
warming gasses and this problem is one that we composters can do 
something about.  If we were to eliminate fugitive methane, that goal 
alone would allow the US to meet the Kyoto Accord levels which the 
current administration has chosen not to participate.

One source of fugitive methane is from landfills, and trust me, 
bioreactor landfills only make the fugitive methane problem worse. By 
my calculations, three times worse! It was primarily to reduce 
fugitive methane emissions that the Province of Nova Scotia first 
banned residential organics from landfills.  ALL residential 
organics.   Canada is gradually following Nova Scotia's lead, but 
here in the US, there is still foolish talk of sending organics to 
landfills to produce "more renewable energy" through landfill bioreactors.

Another source of fugitive methane is from livestock manure lagoons 
and passively stockpiled manure.  Once again, this is something that 
composters can address.

Still another source is methane from poorly aerated composting 
operations.  If a pile has 5% O2 or less for most of the time, the 
pile is decomposing anaerobically, not aerobically, generating more 
methane than heat.  Turning a pile gives it oxygen for only 30 
minutes.  Forced aeration is the only way I know of to fully ensure 
that a pile is completely aerobic.  Eventually, the passive pile and 
even the turned windrow is going to come under greater pressure to 
reduce negative impact gasses.  It is only a matter of 
time.  California has already started regulating composting 
operations and manure stockpiles.  Look at what their rules did to 
the automobile emission problem and we can get a sense of where this 
is leading.

It may be very chic to take on the automobile, especially sports 
utility vehicles, when looking for ways to deal with greenhouse gas 
emission issues, but I see more immediate benefits achieved when we 
address fugitive methane and promote carbon sequestration.  SUVs 
account for only a few percent of the US CO2 outputs but amount for 
over 50% of the politically correct crowd's blame. (ok I made up that 
last statistic)

Assuming fugitive methane is reduced and if we include the benefits 
of stabilizing nitrogen through composting, carbon sequestration of 
livestock manure, and other impacts, the US composting industry could 
achieve reductions equivalent to 20% of the US total contribution 
without reducing a single BTU of fossil fuel.  This is equivalent to 
the total amount of all emissions from transportation.

This also brings into perspective how enormous the challenge is of 
achieving even greater carbon sequestration goals.  The world puts 
into the atmosphere just over 3 billion tons of excess carbon per 
year, with the US responsible for about 25%, or 750 million tons per 
year.  In context, that means only two tons per year of carbon 
sequestered per acre in our 350 million acres of arable farmland, or 
three tons sequestered per capita, not at all an unfeasible amount 
given 200 kilos of carbon per dry tonne of compost.

Back to your original point, I vote in favor of carbon credits and 
cheer on the PEW Foundation and others that are trying to mobilize 
awareness about this important global issue. I am convinced that 
dealing with atmospheric carbon is the key issue that will determine 
whether or not we can have a sustainable civilization on this planet 
for generations to come.

This DOE site points out US sources of atmospheric warming gasses.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html



Jim~ McNelly
Renewable Carbon Management LLC
44 28th Ave N Suite J
Saint Cloud MN 56303
320-253-5076 Fax-253-4976
NaturTech, NaturSoil, CompostMan
jim at composter.com
www.composter.com