Saturday, July 15, 2006
US Government blocks Grail search
US government policy is blocking the development of a soil carbon trading measurment methodology, according to university researchers involved in the soil sequestration issue.
"There is little impetus to overcome the verification and measurement challenges the market would require for agricultural sequestration services," according to Linda Young, Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University. The reason? "Current U.S. policy is likely to keep demand for carbon credits weak in the United States and given that the United States cannot export carbon credits to entities in countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, international demand for U.S. carbon credits will remain weak as well."
A research paper called "National and International Policies Affecting the Demand for Soil Carbon Sequestration" reveals how US Government Policy stands in the way of Soil C Credits. The paper gives an overview of the various climate change policies currently in place or being discussed around the world. It discusses how these various policies affect the market for carbon trading and the demand for soil carbon sequestration.
She concludes: "U.S. markets for agricultural carbon sequestration services will likely be small unless there is a change in U.S. federal climate-change policy. The Bush administration's climate-change policy establishes emissions reductions at roughly the same pace that they have occurred over the past twenty years due to technological advances.
"The development of the carbon market would be facilitated by the emergence of a seamless market with one set of rules for those demanding and supplying carbon credits. Market demand for agricultural sequestration services is likely to remain weak."
Australia's federal government policy follows US policy in lockstep.
See the full paper, with references, at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/CASMGSnewsletter/Dec03-2.htm
"There is little impetus to overcome the verification and measurement challenges the market would require for agricultural sequestration services," according to Linda Young, Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University. The reason? "Current U.S. policy is likely to keep demand for carbon credits weak in the United States and given that the United States cannot export carbon credits to entities in countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, international demand for U.S. carbon credits will remain weak as well."
A research paper called "National and International Policies Affecting the Demand for Soil Carbon Sequestration" reveals how US Government Policy stands in the way of Soil C Credits. The paper gives an overview of the various climate change policies currently in place or being discussed around the world. It discusses how these various policies affect the market for carbon trading and the demand for soil carbon sequestration.
She concludes: "U.S. markets for agricultural carbon sequestration services will likely be small unless there is a change in U.S. federal climate-change policy. The Bush administration's climate-change policy establishes emissions reductions at roughly the same pace that they have occurred over the past twenty years due to technological advances.
"The development of the carbon market would be facilitated by the emergence of a seamless market with one set of rules for those demanding and supplying carbon credits. Market demand for agricultural sequestration services is likely to remain weak."
Australia's federal government policy follows US policy in lockstep.
See the full paper, with references, at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/CASMGSnewsletter/Dec03-2.htm
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
On the other side of the paradigm
I have been hatching a strategy based on a ‘conversion’ model used in the marketing industry to promote new concept products. I’d be interested in your opinion about its validity in the soil science community.
First, I agree with you we need a corpus of proofs and case studies. They won’t bring the wall down on their own, but they can provide us with a battering ram. I am reading Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the self-perpetuating nature of scientific paradigms, especially their political process whereby a new way of perceiving and thinking about ‘reality’ gains popularity with the scientists on the flanks of the establishment and finally gets critical mass after reaching the Tipping Point.
Proofs are essential but on their own are not enough because a paradigm is like a set of rose coloured glasses. Phenomena seen through these paradigmic glasses can change from fact to fantasm, depending on which set of glasses are worn. You either ‘get it’ or you don’t.
Using the Bell Curve of Diffusion of Innovation as a guide, we need to identify the 2.5% of soil scientists who ‘get it’ (The Innovators, open-minded and flexible, they aggressively seek out the ‘new’) and network them and multiply their influence to recruit the 13%-15% who would be willing to entertain a new paradigm (The Early Adopters, they hate being left behind). One the Early Adopters are on board, the walls of the establishment become fragile. Success is not assured. Careers and empires have been built on the dominant paradigm. Personal prestige, the most potent investment a professional can have in the status quo, makes people fight passionately to defeat the invading idea. It becomes ideological. Sackett’s attack on David Marsh was a flash point on the paradigm battlefront.
If the idea has legs it will get up.
The second concept we must deal with is the phenomenon of observer as active ingredient in the scientific experiment. Now black letter law scientists dispute this because they think it undermines their credibility, but quantum physics brought with it a set of very defensible propositions that say the scientist can determine or influence the outcome in a wide range of unavoidable ways, from establishing the assumptions on which the hypothesis is built to their physical and mental presence.
I believe a scientist who believes XYZ to be the case will find that indeed it is. This situation is part of the human condition and the only difference between scientists is their degree of self-awareness.
This may sound like humus to you, but the principle I draw from it is that it’s not enough to prove the earth revolves around the Sun, as Copernicus discovered. Listeners have got to have the “ears to hear”. (Christ) Hence the conversion model which holds that some are rusted on to one set of beliefs and unavailable to us (Unavailables), some are loosely aligned with the status quo and are available (Availables), and some will cling to our position as soon as they discover it because they were searching for something like it. (Searchers)
The trick then is to identify who’s who in the zoo. Find the Searchers (Innovators on our bell curve), link them, network them, give them a voice, and amplify it through involvement in activities and through communications media and events. By this means attract as many Availables as we can. This process takes place over time. It can be rapid or slow, depending on how well we identify and categorise players.
I have started the process with “An Open Letter To Soil Scientists” to let the community know that it is the fulcrum point in this issue – they are critical to the outcome and have an opportunity (I believe) to play a role on behalf of society.... Or at least to think about it. They’re not going to get rich doing it, none of us is, but we will be richly rewarded in psychic coin. And who knows what awaits us on the other side of the paradigm?
“Amplifying activities” for Searchers and Converting Availables to get involved in could include:
• helping to gather, consolidate and interpret studies that support the new paradigm
• assisting with fielding technical questions from non-scientists joining the movement
• assisting with lobbying presentations to senior decision makers
• assisting to develop or select the most appropriate measurement methodology (I need help here big time)
• speaking at for a
• contributing papers
• advising of links and studies
• advising the movement’s spokespeople
• helping spread the word among scientists
The harvest is plentiful, but many hands to make light work.
"Bringing in the sheaves, bringing in the sheaves, we shall come rejoicing...."
First, I agree with you we need a corpus of proofs and case studies. They won’t bring the wall down on their own, but they can provide us with a battering ram. I am reading Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the self-perpetuating nature of scientific paradigms, especially their political process whereby a new way of perceiving and thinking about ‘reality’ gains popularity with the scientists on the flanks of the establishment and finally gets critical mass after reaching the Tipping Point.
Proofs are essential but on their own are not enough because a paradigm is like a set of rose coloured glasses. Phenomena seen through these paradigmic glasses can change from fact to fantasm, depending on which set of glasses are worn. You either ‘get it’ or you don’t.
Using the Bell Curve of Diffusion of Innovation as a guide, we need to identify the 2.5% of soil scientists who ‘get it’ (The Innovators, open-minded and flexible, they aggressively seek out the ‘new’) and network them and multiply their influence to recruit the 13%-15% who would be willing to entertain a new paradigm (The Early Adopters, they hate being left behind). One the Early Adopters are on board, the walls of the establishment become fragile. Success is not assured. Careers and empires have been built on the dominant paradigm. Personal prestige, the most potent investment a professional can have in the status quo, makes people fight passionately to defeat the invading idea. It becomes ideological. Sackett’s attack on David Marsh was a flash point on the paradigm battlefront.
If the idea has legs it will get up.
The second concept we must deal with is the phenomenon of observer as active ingredient in the scientific experiment. Now black letter law scientists dispute this because they think it undermines their credibility, but quantum physics brought with it a set of very defensible propositions that say the scientist can determine or influence the outcome in a wide range of unavoidable ways, from establishing the assumptions on which the hypothesis is built to their physical and mental presence.
I believe a scientist who believes XYZ to be the case will find that indeed it is. This situation is part of the human condition and the only difference between scientists is their degree of self-awareness.
This may sound like humus to you, but the principle I draw from it is that it’s not enough to prove the earth revolves around the Sun, as Copernicus discovered. Listeners have got to have the “ears to hear”. (Christ) Hence the conversion model which holds that some are rusted on to one set of beliefs and unavailable to us (Unavailables), some are loosely aligned with the status quo and are available (Availables), and some will cling to our position as soon as they discover it because they were searching for something like it. (Searchers)
The trick then is to identify who’s who in the zoo. Find the Searchers (Innovators on our bell curve), link them, network them, give them a voice, and amplify it through involvement in activities and through communications media and events. By this means attract as many Availables as we can. This process takes place over time. It can be rapid or slow, depending on how well we identify and categorise players.
I have started the process with “An Open Letter To Soil Scientists” to let the community know that it is the fulcrum point in this issue – they are critical to the outcome and have an opportunity (I believe) to play a role on behalf of society.... Or at least to think about it. They’re not going to get rich doing it, none of us is, but we will be richly rewarded in psychic coin. And who knows what awaits us on the other side of the paradigm?
“Amplifying activities” for Searchers and Converting Availables to get involved in could include:
• helping to gather, consolidate and interpret studies that support the new paradigm
• assisting with fielding technical questions from non-scientists joining the movement
• assisting with lobbying presentations to senior decision makers
• assisting to develop or select the most appropriate measurement methodology (I need help here big time)
• speaking at for a
• contributing papers
• advising of links and studies
• advising the movement’s spokespeople
• helping spread the word among scientists
The harvest is plentiful, but many hands to make light work.
"Bringing in the sheaves, bringing in the sheaves, we shall come rejoicing...."
Convincing boffins it is being done
I enjoyed reading your email this morning and the letters to scientists.
In the few discussions that I have had with soil scientists the main obstacle to their acceptance of soil as a carbon sink is their belief that soil cannot hold the amount of carbon that you and I know that it can. At a recent conference I spent an hour with a scientist telling him about what has been achieved by good land managers e.g. 0.5% to 5% O.M. level in a few years. I also told him about the methodologies that these farmers use. While sceptical, he was interested. The bottom line with most soil scientists is that measurements have generally been on traditionally managed (equals industrial agriculture) farms where soil carbon levels are low and declining. Therefore, I believe the first effort should be to collect enough data to convince the boffins that building soil carbon levels at high rates can and is being done. Only then will they take any notice.
I noticed on the Carbon Coalition site a few weeks ago that you asked for farmers to send their data on carbon sequestration to you. Did this happen? This is what needs to be done. I am about to start collecting information from the sources that I have including my Brookside Labs colleagues. Also one of my NZ colleagues will be in the US shortly to attend the annual Brookside Consultant’s Convention and he will be discussing these issues with attendees and the Lab Director (also a former President of the US Soil Scientists Association – or similar title).
Rod Rush
Armidale
In the few discussions that I have had with soil scientists the main obstacle to their acceptance of soil as a carbon sink is their belief that soil cannot hold the amount of carbon that you and I know that it can. At a recent conference I spent an hour with a scientist telling him about what has been achieved by good land managers e.g. 0.5% to 5% O.M. level in a few years. I also told him about the methodologies that these farmers use. While sceptical, he was interested. The bottom line with most soil scientists is that measurements have generally been on traditionally managed (equals industrial agriculture) farms where soil carbon levels are low and declining. Therefore, I believe the first effort should be to collect enough data to convince the boffins that building soil carbon levels at high rates can and is being done. Only then will they take any notice.
I noticed on the Carbon Coalition site a few weeks ago that you asked for farmers to send their data on carbon sequestration to you. Did this happen? This is what needs to be done. I am about to start collecting information from the sources that I have including my Brookside Labs colleagues. Also one of my NZ colleagues will be in the US shortly to attend the annual Brookside Consultant’s Convention and he will be discussing these issues with attendees and the Lab Director (also a former President of the US Soil Scientists Association – or similar title).
Rod Rush
Armidale
"Thank you for your open letter to soil scientists."
On 12/7/06 10:40 AM, "Declan McDonald" wrote:
Thank you for your open letter to soil scientists. I understand that recent talks in The Hague faltered because the USA is keen to support C sequestration in the soil (amongst other methodologies) whereas the Europeans are keen to pursue reduction in emissions. Whilst as a member of the carbon coalition I am committed to the path of C sequestration in soil, I support the European position which recognises that in addition to sequestration opportunities, we must reduce emissions. The fact that we continue to pump about 3 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year demonstrates the need to put the brakes on emissions. It also makes the measurement of the various pools of carbon increasingly problematic. The figures below come from a paper by Rattan Lal, Professor of Soil Science at Ohio State University in 2004. Under natural conditions, organic carbon cycles between five global C pools: Atmospheric 760 Pg; Geologic 5,000 Pg; Oceanic 38,000 Pg; Soil 2,500 Pg; Biotic 560 Pg.(* Pg = petagram = 1 billion tonnes).The total soil carbon pool is over four times that of the biotic pool which is comprised of all above ground life forms. Nutrients cycling principally between the soil and biotic pools maintain fertility, and soil and plant health. It is important to realise that carbon sequestration in the soil is most effective in temperate and cool climates. In tropical and subtropical systems, warmer temperatures result in higher respiration, higher levels of biological activity in soil, and higher mineralisation of soil organic carbon. In these areas, humification efficiency is low. The fertility of tropical / subtropical systems is mainly held in above ground biomass which explains the fecundity of such systems in their natural state and the rapid exhaustion of soils that frequently results from land clearing. In contrast, the fertility of temperate systems is principally held in the pool of soil organic carbon. In cool and moist climates, humification efficiency is high providing good opportunities for sequestration of carbon in the soil.
--
Posted by Declan McDonald to Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Thank you for your open letter to soil scientists. I understand that recent talks in The Hague faltered because the USA is keen to support C sequestration in the soil (amongst other methodologies) whereas the Europeans are keen to pursue reduction in emissions. Whilst as a member of the carbon coalition I am committed to the path of C sequestration in soil, I support the European position which recognises that in addition to sequestration opportunities, we must reduce emissions. The fact that we continue to pump about 3 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year demonstrates the need to put the brakes on emissions. It also makes the measurement of the various pools of carbon increasingly problematic. The figures below come from a paper by Rattan Lal, Professor of Soil Science at Ohio State University in 2004. Under natural conditions, organic carbon cycles between five global C pools: Atmospheric 760 Pg; Geologic 5,000 Pg; Oceanic 38,000 Pg; Soil 2,500 Pg; Biotic 560 Pg.(* Pg = petagram = 1 billion tonnes).The total soil carbon pool is over four times that of the biotic pool which is comprised of all above ground life forms. Nutrients cycling principally between the soil and biotic pools maintain fertility, and soil and plant health. It is important to realise that carbon sequestration in the soil is most effective in temperate and cool climates. In tropical and subtropical systems, warmer temperatures result in higher respiration, higher levels of biological activity in soil, and higher mineralisation of soil organic carbon. In these areas, humification efficiency is low. The fertility of tropical / subtropical systems is mainly held in above ground biomass which explains the fecundity of such systems in their natural state and the rapid exhaustion of soils that frequently results from land clearing. In contrast, the fertility of temperate systems is principally held in the pool of soil organic carbon. In cool and moist climates, humification efficiency is high providing good opportunities for sequestration of carbon in the soil.
--
Posted by Declan McDonald to Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Prediction and digital mapping of soil carbon storage in the Lower Namoi Valley
Prediction and digital mapping of soil carbon storage in the Lower Namoi Valley
Budiman Minasny A , D , Alex. B. McBratney A , M. L. Mendonça-Santos B , I. O. A. Odeh A and Brice Guyon C
A Faculty of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, The University of Sydney, JRA McMillan Building A05, NSW 2006, Australia.
B EMBRAPA-Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos, Rua Jardim Botânico 1024, 22.460-000 Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil.
C Ecole Nationale d’Ingenieurs des Travaux Agricoles de Bordeaux, 1 cours du general de Gaulle, B.P. 201, 33175 Gradignan, Cedex, France.
D Corresponding author. Email: b.minasny@usyd.edu.au
Abstract Estimation and mapping carbon storage in the soil is currently an important topic; thus, the knowledge of the distribution of carbon content with depth is essential. This paper examines the use of a negative exponential profile depth function to describe the soil carbon data at different depths, and its integral to represent the carbon storage. A novel method is then proposed for mapping the soil carbon storage in the Lower Namoi Valley, NSW. This involves deriving pedotransfer functions to predict soil organic carbon and bulk density, fitting the exponential depth function to the carbon profile data, deriving a neural network model to predict parameters of the exponential function from environmental data, and mapping the organic carbon storage. The exponential depth function is shown to fit the soil carbon data adequately, and the parameters also reflect the influence of soil order. The parameters of the exponential depth function were predicted from land use, radiometric K, and terrain attributes. Using the estimated parameters we map the carbon storage of the area from surface to a depth of 1 m. The organic carbon storage map shows the high influence of land use on the predicted storage. Values of 15–22 kg/m2 were predicted for the forested area and 2–6 kg/m2 in the cultivated area in the plains.
Keywords: soil information system, neural networks, carbon stock, carbon sequestration, organic carbon, Vertosol, digital soil mapping.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 44(3) 233–244
Submitted: 12 September 2005 Accepted: 17 February 2006 Published: 5 May 2006
Full text DOI: 10.1071/SR05136
© CSIRO 2006
Budiman Minasny A , D , Alex. B. McBratney A , M. L. Mendonça-Santos B , I. O. A. Odeh A and Brice Guyon C
A Faculty of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, The University of Sydney, JRA McMillan Building A05, NSW 2006, Australia.
B EMBRAPA-Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos, Rua Jardim Botânico 1024, 22.460-000 Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil.
C Ecole Nationale d’Ingenieurs des Travaux Agricoles de Bordeaux, 1 cours du general de Gaulle, B.P. 201, 33175 Gradignan, Cedex, France.
D Corresponding author. Email: b.minasny@usyd.edu.au
Abstract Estimation and mapping carbon storage in the soil is currently an important topic; thus, the knowledge of the distribution of carbon content with depth is essential. This paper examines the use of a negative exponential profile depth function to describe the soil carbon data at different depths, and its integral to represent the carbon storage. A novel method is then proposed for mapping the soil carbon storage in the Lower Namoi Valley, NSW. This involves deriving pedotransfer functions to predict soil organic carbon and bulk density, fitting the exponential depth function to the carbon profile data, deriving a neural network model to predict parameters of the exponential function from environmental data, and mapping the organic carbon storage. The exponential depth function is shown to fit the soil carbon data adequately, and the parameters also reflect the influence of soil order. The parameters of the exponential depth function were predicted from land use, radiometric K, and terrain attributes. Using the estimated parameters we map the carbon storage of the area from surface to a depth of 1 m. The organic carbon storage map shows the high influence of land use on the predicted storage. Values of 15–22 kg/m2 were predicted for the forested area and 2–6 kg/m2 in the cultivated area in the plains.
Keywords: soil information system, neural networks, carbon stock, carbon sequestration, organic carbon, Vertosol, digital soil mapping.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 44(3) 233–244
Submitted: 12 September 2005 Accepted: 17 February 2006 Published: 5 May 2006
Full text DOI: 10.1071/SR05136
© CSIRO 2006
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Welcome to The Holy Grail
This blogsite - set up by the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming - will report on developments in the search for a reliable, bankable methodology for measuring soil carbon for the purposes of trading in carbon credits. This is a major blockage to progress in the emergence of the Soil C Market.
