| Revision as of 16:23, 17 January 2010 editArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits →Biosequestration and climate change policy: add {{syn}} tags indicating why it's not relevant here, and one that should have been there in all versions← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:01, 9 February 2023 edit undoMdewman6 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,716 edits rcats |
| (246 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT] |
|
], ], Tasmania, Australia.]]'''Biosequestration''' is the capture and storage of the atmospheric ] ] by an increased volume or quality of ] (through practices such as reforestation/preventing deforestation and genetic engineering respectively), enhanced soil carbon trapping in agriculture, as well as the use of ] biosequestration (see ]) to absorb the constant stream of ] emissions from coal-fired ]. It has been crucial to the initiation, evolution and preservation of life and is a key policy concept in the ] debate.<ref>{{Harvnb|Garnaut|2008|p=558}} p. 609 defines biosequestration as involving greenhouse gases in general.</ref> It does not generally refer to the sequestering of carbon dioxide in oceans (see ]) or rock formations, depleted oil or gas reservoirs (see ] and ]), deep saline ], or deep coal seams (see ]) (for all see ]) or through the use of industrial chemical ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{R category shell| |
|
== The importance of plants in storing atmospheric carbon dioxide == |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
] ]After ] (concentrations of which humans have limited capacity to influence) ] is the most abundant and stable ] in the atmosphere (] rapidly reacts to form water vapour and carbon dioxide). Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from about 280 ppm in 1750 to 383 ppm in 2007 and is increasing at an average rate of 2 ppm pr year.<ref>{{Harvnb|Garnaut|2008|p=33}}</ref> The world's oceans have previously played an important role in sequestering atmospheric ] through solubility and the action of ].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Raven JA, Falkowski PG |title=Oceanic sinks for atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> |journal=Plant Cell & Environment |volume=22 |pages=741–55 |year=1999 |doi=10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00419.x }}</ref> Acidification of the oceans and other factors associated with anthropogenic ] have recently decreased this capacity significantly.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Takahashi T, ''et al.'' |title=Global sea-air CO<sub>2</sub> flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects |journal=Deep Sea Research II |volume=49 |pages=1601–22 |year=2002 |doi=10.1016/S0967-0645(02)00003-6 }}</ref> This, and the likely adverse consequences for humans and the biosphere of associated ], increases the significance of investigating policy mechanisms for encouraging ''biosequestration''. |
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Reforestation, Avoided Deforestation and LULUCF== |
|
|
] and reducing ] can increase ''biosequestration'' in four ways. Pandani (Richea pandanifolia) near Lake Dobson, ], Tasmania, Australia]] The ] (IPCC) estimates that the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall ] entering the atmosphere.<ref>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change * </ref> Candell and Raupach argue that there are four primary ways in which ] and reducing ] can increase ''biosequestration''. First, by increasing the volume of existing forest. Second, by increasing the carbon density of existing forests at a stand and landscape scale. Third, by expanding the use of forest products that will sustainably replace fossil-fuel emissions. Fourth, by reducing carbon emissions that are caused from deforestation and degradation.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Canadell JG, Raupach MR |title=Managing Forests for Climate Change |journal=Science |volume=320 |issue= 5882|pages=1456–7 |year=2008 |doi=10.1126/science.1155458 |pmid=18556550 }}</ref><br />A recent report by the Australian ] found that forestry and forest-related options are the most significant and most easily achieved ] making up 105 Mt per year CO<sub>2</sub>-e or about 75 per cent of the total figure attainable for the Australian state of Queensland from 2010-2050. Among the forestry options, the CSIRO report announced, forestry with the primary aim of carbon storage (called carbon forestry) clearly has the highest attainable carbon storage capacity (77 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e/yr) and is one of the easiest options to implement compared with ] plantings, pre-1990 ], post 1990 plantations and managed regrowth.<ref>CSIRO An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Carbon Biosequestration Opportunities from Rural Land Use. Canberra. 2009. http://www.csiro.au/resources/carbon-and-rural-land-use-report.html, last accessed 8 October 2009</ref> Legal strategies to encourage this form of biosequestration include permanent protection of forests in ] or on the ], properly funded management and bans on use of ] timbers and inefficient uses such as ] ].<ref>{{cite book |author=Diesendorf, Mark |title=Climate action: a campaign manual for greenhouse solutions |publisher=University of New South Wales Press |location=Sydney |year=2009 |isbn=9781742230184 |page=116 }}</ref><br /> |
|
|
], ].]] |
|
|
As a result of lobbying by the developing country caucus (or ]) in the ] (associated with the ] (UNCED) in ], the non-legally binding ] were established in 1992. These linked the problem of ] to ] and inadequate ] and stated that the "agreed full incremental cost of achieving benefits associated with forest conservation...should be equitably shared by the international community" (para1(b)).<ref>United Nations. Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests. A/CONF.151/6/Rev1. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro. 1992.</ref> Subsequently the ] argued in the 1995 ''Intergovernmental Panel on Forests'' (IPF) and then the 2001 ''Intergovernmental Forum on Forests'' (IFF), for affordable access to environmentally sound technologies without the stringency of ]; while developed states there rejected demands for a forests fund.<ref>{{cite book |author=Humphreys, David |title=Logjam: Deforestation and the Crisis of Global Governance |publisher=Earthscan |location=London |year=2006 |page=280 |isbn=1-84407-301-7 }}</ref> The expert group crated under the ] (UNFF) reported in 2004, but in 2007 developed nations again vetoed language in the principles of the final text which might confirm their legal responsibility under international law to supply finance and environmentally sound technologies to the developing world.<ref>United Nations. Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests. United Nations 22 Oct. 2007. A/C.2/62/L.5.</ref><br />] are seen here in the striking "herring bone" deforestation patterns that cut through the rainforest. |
|
|
NASA, 2008.]] In December 2007, after a two year debate on a proposal from ] and ], state parties to the ] ] (FCCC) agreed to explore ways of reducing emissions from deforestation and to enhance forest carbon stocks in developing nations.<ref>United Nations. 2007. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_redd.pdf accessed 10 November 2009.</ref>The underlying idea is that developing nations should be financially compensated if they succeed in reducing their levels of ] (through valuing the ] that is stored in ]); a concept termed 'avoided deforestaion (AD) or, ] if broadened to include reducing forest degradation (see ]). Under the free market model advocated by the countries who have formed the ''Coalition of Rainforest Nations'', developing nations with ] would sell carbon sink credits under a ] system to ] Annex I states who have exceeded their emissions allowance.<ref name=Humphreys08_434>{{Harvnb|Humphreys|2008|p=434}}</ref> ] (the state with the largest area of tropical rainforest) however, opposes including avoided deforestation in a ] mechanism and instead favors creation of a multilateral development assistance fund created from donations by developed states.<ref name=Humphreys08_434/>For REDD to be successful science and regulatory infrastructure related to forests will need to increase so nations may inventory all their forest carbon, show that they can control land use at the local level and prove that their emissions are declining.<ref>{{cite journal |title=On the road to REDD |journal=Nature |volume=462 |issue=7269 |pages=11 |year=2009 |month=November |pmid=19890280 |doi=10.1038/462011a }}</ref><br /> ], 2009. Deforestation in ].]] The ] ] (UNFCCC) Article 4(1)(a) requires all Parties to "develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the Conference of the Parties" as well as "national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources" "removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol." Under the UNFCCC reporting guidelines, human-induced greenhouse emissions must be reported in six sectors: energy (including stationary energy and transport); industrial processes; solvent and other product use; agriculture; waste; and ''land use, land use change and forestry'' (]).<ref>Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2006, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2004: Accounting for the 108% Target, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.</ref>The rules governing accounting and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from LULUCF under the] are contained in several decisions of the Conference of Parties under the UNFCCC and ] has been the subject of two major reports by the ] (IPCC).<ref>IPCC. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. IPCC. Hayama, Japan 2003.</ref> The Kyoto Protocol article 3.3 thus requires mandatory LULUCF accounting for afforestation (no forest for last 50 years), reforestation (no forest on 31 December 1989) and deforestation, as well as (in the first commitment period) under article 3.4 voluntary accounting for cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation and forest management (if not already accounted under article 3.3).<ref>{{cite journal |author=Hohne N, Wartmann S, Herold A, Freibauer A |title=The rules for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol—lessons learned for the future climate negotiations |journal=Environmental Science and Policy |volume=10 |pages=353–69 |year=2007 |doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.001 }} at p. 354</ref><br /> |
|
|
] from space. Australia is a major producer of fossil fuels and has significant problems with deforestation.]] ]. NASA, 2008.]] |
|
|
As an example, the ''Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory'' (NGGI) prepared in compliance with these requirements indicates that the ] accounts for 69 per cent of Australia’s emissions, ] 16 per cent and ] six per cent. Since 1990, however, emissions from the energy sector have increased 35 per cent (stationary energy up 43% and transport up 23%). By comparison, emissions from LULUCF have fallen by 73%.<ref>Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2006, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Analysis of Recent Trends and Greenhouse Indicators 1990 to 2004,Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.</ref> However, questions have been raised by Andrew Macintosh about the veracity of the estimates of emissions from the LULUCF sector because of discrepancies between the Australian Federal and ]s’ land clearing data. Data published by the ''Statewide Landcover and Trees Study'' (SLATS) in Queensland, for example, show that the total amount of land clearing in Queensland identified under SLATS between 1989/90 and 2000/01 is approximately 50 per cent higher than the amount estimated by the ]’s ''National Carbon Accounting System'' (NCAS) between 1990 and 2001.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Macintosh, Andrew |title=The National Greenhouse Accounts and Land Clearing: Do the numbers stack up? |publisher=Australia Institute |pages=19–20 |year=2007 |month=January |id=Research Paper No. 38 }}</ref><br /> |
|
|
Satellite imaging has become crucial in obtaining data on levels of ] and ]. ] ] data, for example, has been used to map tropical deforestation as part of ]’s Landsat ''Pathfinder Humid Tropical Deforestation Project'', a collaborative effort among scientists from the ], the ], and NASA’s ]. The project yielded deforestation maps for the ], ], and ] for three periods in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.<ref>Earth Observatory. NASA Tropical Deforestation Research http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Deforestation/deforestation_update4.php accessed 12 November 2009.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Enhanced photosynthesis == |
|
|
]]Biosequestration may be enhanced by improving ] by modifying ] genes in plants to increase the catalytic and/or oxygenation activity of that enzyme.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Spreitzer RJ, Salvucci ME |title=Rubisco: structure, regulatory interactions, and possibilities for a better enzyme |journal=Annu Rev Plant Biol |volume=53 |issue= |pages=449–75 |year=2002 |pmid=12221984 |doi=10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135233 |url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135233?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dncbi.nlm.nih.gov}}</ref> |
|
|
One such research area involves increasing the Earth's proportion of ] photosynthetic plants. C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 1% of its known plant species,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Bond WJ, Woodward FI, Midgley GF |title=The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire |journal=New Phytologist |volume=165 |issue=2 |pages=525–38 |year=2005 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01252.x }}</ref> but account for around 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Osborne CP, Beerling DJ |title=Nature's green revolution: the remarkable evolutionary rise of C4 plants |journal=Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. |volume=361 |issue=1465 |pages=173–94 |year=2006 |month=January |pmid=16553316 |pmc=1626541 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2005.1737 |url=http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16553316 |format={{dead link|date=December 2009}}}}</ref> |
|
|
In leaves of C3 plants, captured ] of solar energy undergo ] which assimilates ] into ] (triosephosphates) in the ] of the ] cells. The primary CO<sub>2</sub> fixation step is catalysed by ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (]) which reacts with O2 leading to ] that protects ] from ] but wastes 50% of potentially fixed carbon.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Leegood RC. |title=C4 photosynthesis: principles of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and prospects for its introduction into C3 plants |journal=J. Exp. Bot. |volume=53 |issue= 369|pages=581–90 |year=2002 |doi=10.1093/jexbot/53.369.581 |pmid=11886878 }}</ref> The C4 photosynthetic pathway, however, concentrates CO<sub>2</sub> at the site of the reaction of ], thereby reducing the ''biosequestration''-inhibiting photorespiration.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Mitsue Miyao |title=Molecular evolution and genetic engineering of C4 photosynthetic enzymes |journal=J. Exp. Bot. |volume=54 |issue=381 |pages=179–89 |year=2003 |doi=10.1093/jxb/54.381.179 |pmid=12493846 }}</ref> A new frontier in crop science consists of attempts to ] C3 staple food crops (such as wheat, barley, soybeans, potatoes and rice) with the "turbo-charged" photosynthetic apparatus of C4 plants.<ref>{{cite book |author=Beerling, David |title=The Emerald Planet: How Plants Changed Earth's History |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |pages=194–5 |isbn=0-19-954814-5 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biochar == |
|
|
] (charcoal created by ] of ]) is a potent form of longterm (thousands of years) ''biosequestration'' of atmosphereic C02 derived from investigation of the extremely fertile ] soils of the ].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Laird, David A. |title=The Charcoal Vision: A Win–Win–Win Scenario for Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, while Improving Soil and Water Quality |journal=Agronomy J |volume=100 |pages=178–81 |year=2008 |doi=10.2134/agrojnl2007.0161 }}</ref> Placing biochar in soils also improves water quality, increases soil fertility, raises agricultural productivity and reduce pressure on ].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W |title=Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal – a review |journal=Biology and Fertility Soils |volume=35 |pages=219 |year=2002 |doi=10.1007/s00374-002-0466-4 }}</ref> As a method of generating ] Rob Flanagan and the EPRIDA biochar company have developed low-tech cooking stoves for developing nations that can burn agricultural wastes such as rice husks and produce 15% by weight of biochar; while BEST Energies in NSW Australia have spent a decade developing an ] technology that can combust96 tonnes of dry biomass each day, generating 30-40 tonnes of biochar.<ref>{{Harvnb|Goodall|2008|pp=210–31}}</ref>A parametric study of ''biosequestration'' by Malcolm Fowles at the ], indicated that to mitigate global warming, policies should encourage displacement of coal with biomass as a power source for baseload electricity generation if the latter’s conversion efficiency rose over 30%, otherwise ''biosequestering'' carbon from biomass as a cheaper mitigation option than ] by CO<sub>2</sub> capture and storage.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Fowles M |title=Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bio-energy |journal=Biomass and Bioenergy |volume=31 |pages=426–32 |year=2007 |doi=10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.01.012 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Improved agricultural and farming practices == |
|
|
] Zero-till farming practices occur where there is much ] but ] is not used, so that the carbon-rich organic matter in soil is not exposed to atmospheric oxygen, or to the leaching and erosion effects of rainfall. Over grazing is reduced by moving cattle and sheep away from grazed areas for several months.<ref>{{Harvnb|Goodall|2008|pp=236–47}}</ref> Ceasing ploughing has been alleged to encourage more ] to become predators of wood-eating (and C02 generating) ], allows weeds to regenerate soils and helps slow water flows over the land.<ref>{{cite book |author=Andrews, Peter |title=Beyond the brink: Peter Andrews' radical vision for a sustainable Australian landscape |publisher=ABC Books for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation |location=Sydney |year=2008 |page=40 |isbn=0-7333-2410-X }}</ref><br />Dedicated biofuel and biosequestration crops, such as switchgrass (]), are also being developed.<ref>Biotechnology Industry Organization (2007). pp. 3-4.</ref> It requires from 0.97 to 1.34 GJ fossil energy to produce 1 tonne of switchgrass, compared with 1.99 to 2.66 GJ to produce 1 tonne of corn.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Dale B, Kim S |title=Cumulative Energy and Global Warming Impact from the Production of Biomass for Biobased Products |journal=Journal of Industrial Ecology |volume=7 |issue=3-4 |pages=147–62 |year=2004 |doi=10.1162/108819803323059442}}</ref> Given that switchgrass contains approximately 18.8 GJ/ODT of biomass, the energy output-to-input ratio for the crop can be up to 20:1.<ref>{{cite book |author=Samson, R., ''et al.'' |chapter=Developing Energy Crops for Thermal Applications: Optimizing Fuel Quality, Energy Security and GHG Mitigation |editor=Pimentel, David |title=Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks |publisher=Springer |location=Berlin |year=2008 |pages=395–423 |isbn=1-4020-8653-9 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
''Biosequestration'' can also be enhanced by farmers choosing crops species that produce large numbers of ]. Phytoliths are microscopic spherical shells of ] that can store carbon for thousands of years.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Parr JF, Sullivan LA |title=Soil carbon sequestration in phytoliths |journal=Soil Biology and Biochemistry |volume=37 |pages=117–24 |year=2005 |doi=10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.06.013}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biosequestration and climate change policy == |
|
|
] till cleaner forms of power generation are established. The Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant in Þingvellir, ]]] ]Industries with large amounts of C02 emissions (such as the ]) are interested in ''biosequestration'' as a means of offsetting their ] production.<ref> Tom Fearon. Australia’s ‘massive advantage’ in bio-sequestration. Environmental Management News. Monday, 3 August 2009 </ref> In Australia, university researchers are engineering ] to produce ] (hydrogen and biodiesel oils) and investigating whether this process can be used to ''biosequester'' carbon. Algae naturally capture sunlight and use its energy to split water into hydrogen, oxygen and oil which can be extracted. Such ] production also can be coupled with ] using salt-tolerant marine algae to generate fresh water and electricity.<ref>Guy Healey. Pond life fuels bio research The Australian. July 23, 2008</ref><br /><br /> Many new bioenergy (]) technologies, including cellulosic ethanol biorefineries (using stems and branches of most plants including crop residues such as corn stalks, wheat straw and rice straw) are being promoted because they have the added advantage of ''biosequestration'' of C02.<ref>International Energy Agency (2006). p. 8.</ref> The ] recommends that a carbon price in a ] scheme could include a financial incentive for ''biosequestration'' processes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Garnaut|2008|p=558}}</ref> <br /><br />Garnaut recommends the use of ] biosequestration (see ]) to absorb the constant stream of ] emissions from coal-fired ] and ] until renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power, become more established contributors to the grid.<ref>{{Harvnb|Garnaut|2008|p=432}}</ref> Garnaut, for example, states: "Some algal biosequestration processes could absorb emissions from coal-fired electricity generation and metals smelting."<ref>Ross Garnaut. The Garnaut Climate Change Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and Melbourne 2008 ISBN 9780521744447. p432</ref> The ] Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (] Programme) is a collaboration between ], ] and ] under which a trust fund established in July 2008 allows donors to pool resources to generate the requisite transfer flow of resources to significantly reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.<ref>United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries *.</ref> The UK government's ] on the economics of climate change argued that curbing ] was a "highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions".<ref>{{cite book |author=Stern, Nicholas Herbert |title=The economics of climate change: the Stern review |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge, UK |year=2007 |page=xxv |isbn=0-521-70080-9 |url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm}}</ref> |
|
|
{{off topic|Carbon tax}} |
|
|
] in a recent book and open letter to President Obama about policies to reduce carbon emissions, has advocated phasing out coal-fired power plants that lack adequate carbon capture and storage (through either ]{{syn}} or ''biosequestration''{{syn}} in the form of, for example, ] biosequestration (see ]){{syn}}. In his open letter to Obama for example he advocates a "Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2".<ref>James Hansen. Letter to Obama http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf accessed 10 Dec 2009.</ref> In ''Storms of My Grandchildren'', similarly, Hansen discusses his ''Declaration of Stewardship'' the first principle of which requires "a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester carbon dioxide".<ref>{{cite book |author=Hansen, James |title=Storms of My Grandchildren |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=London |year=2009 |isbn=1408807459 |page=242 }}</ref> Hansen also argues for imposing a ] at source on those who mine carbon as oil, gas or coal to provide a regular dividend to members of society (equal shares on a per capita basis) at a level inversely proportional{{syn}} to their carbon footprint, thus encouraging, he claims, amongst other things, agricultural and forestry practices improved in terms of their carbon trapping potential.<ref>James Bone. Climate scientist James Hansen hopes summit will fail. Timesonline December 3, 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece accessed 10 Dec 2009.</ref> <ref>James Randerson Nasa climate expert makes personal appeal to Obama. The Guardian, Friday 2 January 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen accessed 10 Dec 2009</ref><ref>James Hansen. accessed 1o Dec 2009.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Kloor K |title=The Eye of the Storm |journal=Nature Reports Climate Change |date=26 November 2009 |doi=10.1038/climate.2009.124 |url=http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.124.html |pages=139}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Philosophical basis of biosequestration == |
|
|
The arguments for ''biosequestration'' are often shaped in terms of economic theory, yet there is a well-recognised quality of life dimension to this debate.<ref>{{cite book |author=Schumacher, E. F. |authorlink=EF Schumacher |title=]: a study of economics as if people mattered |publisher=Abacus |location=London |year=1974 |page=112 |isbn=0-349-13139-2 }}</ref> ''Biosequestration'' assists human beings to increase their collective and individual contributions to the essential resources of the ].<ref>{{cite book |author=Davies, Geoffrey F. |title=Economia: new economic systems to empower people and support the living world |publisher=ABC Books for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation |location=Sydney |year=2004 |pages=202–3 |isbn=0-7333-1298-5 }}</ref> The policy case for ''biosequestration'' overlaps with principles of ], ] and ], as well as ], ] and ] protection, ], ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Barriers to increased global biosequestration == |
|
|
], Tasmania, Australia.]] ], Kings Creek, USA.]] The ] notes many barriers to increased global ''biosequestration''. "There must be changes in the accounting regimes for ]. Investments are required in research, development and commercialisation of superior approaches to ''biosequestration''. Adjustments are required in the regulation of land use. New institutions will need to be developed to coordinate the interests in utilisation of ''biosequestration'' opportunities across small business in rural communities. Special efforts will be required to unlock potential in rural communities in developing countries."<ref>{{Harvnb|Garnaut|2008|p=582}}</ref> Saddler and King have argued that ''biosequestration'' and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions should not be handled within a global ] because of difficulties with measuring such emissions, problems in controlling them and the burden that would be placed on numerous small-scale farming operations.<ref>Saddler H and King H. Agriculture and Emissions Trading: The Impossible Dream. Australia Institute Discussion Paper 102. Australia Institute, Canberra. 2008.</ref> Collett likewise maintains that ] credits (post-facto payments to developing countries for reducing their ] rates below an historical or projected reference rate), simply create a complex market approach to this global public health problem that reduces transparency and accountability when targets are not met and will not be as effective as developed nations voluntarily funding countries to keep their rainforests.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Collett M |title=In the REDD: A conservative approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation |journal=CCLR |volume=3 |pages=324–39 |year=2009}}</ref><br /> |
|
|
The ] has argued that poor developing countries could be pressured to accept ] projects under the ]'s ] in order to earn ] simply to pay off the interest on debt to the ].<ref>Lohmann L. The Carbon shop: Planting New Problems. Briefing paper, Plantations Campaign, World Rainforest Movement, Moreton-in-March (UK) and Montevideo (Uruguay). 1999. p3.</ref>Tensions also exist over forest management between the sovereignty claims of nations states, arguments about ] and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; the ] (FPP) arguing the anti-deforestation programs could merely allow financial benefits to flow to national treasuries, privilege would-be corporate forest degraders who manipulate the system by periodically threatening forests, rather than local communities who conserve them.<ref>{{Harvnb|Humphreys|2008|p=439}}</ref> The success of such projects will also depend on the accuracy of the baseline data and the number of countries involved. Further, it has been argued that if ''biosequestration'' is to play a significant role in mitigating ] then coordinated policies should set a goal of achieving global forest cover to its extent prior to the industrial revolution in the 1800s.<ref>{{Harvnb|Humphreys|2008|p=440}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== References == |
|
|
{{Reflist|2}} |
|
|
*{{cite book |last=Garnaut |first=Ross |title=The Garnaut Climate Change Review |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge, UK |year=2008 |isbn=0-521-74444-X |url=http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.htm |ref=harv}} |
|
|
*{{cite book |last=Goodall |first=Chris |title=Ten Technologies to Save the Planet |publisher=Green Profile |location=London |year=2008 |isbn=1-84668-868-X |ref=harv}} |
|
|
*{{cite journal |last=Humphreys |first=D |title=The politics of 'Avoided Deforestation': historical context and contemporary issues |journal=International Forestry Review |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=433–42 |year=2008 |ref=harv |doi=10.1505/ifor.10.3.433}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|