From Deborah.Bartram at erg.com Fri May 1 13:30:44 2009 From: Deborah.Bartram at erg.com (Deborah Bartram) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:30:44 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 emission potential from wastewater treatment Message-ID: <49FAF984.830B.00E9.3@erg.com> I've been thinking about certain emission potentials from wastewater treatment. According to IPCC, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wastewater are not considered in the IPCC Guidelines because these are of biogenic origin and should not be included in national total emissions. However, what about emissions that may occur due to chemical addition to wastewater during treatment? In particular I'm thinking of methanol that may be added to a wastewater treatment system to support the denitrification process. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this! _____________________________________________________ Deb Bartram Vice President ERG 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 (703) 633-1669 (703) 263-7479 fax deborah.bartram at erg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090501/1677f254/attachment.html From sguendehou at yahoo.com Sat May 2 13:26:05 2009 From: sguendehou at yahoo.com (Sabin Guendehou) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 emission potential from wastewater treatment In-Reply-To: <49FAF984.830B.00E9.3@erg.com> Message-ID: <260170.13843.qm@web55008.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Debbie, ? The denitrification will convert NO3 in N2 and O2 in anaerobic conditions. In the wastewater treatment?process, the microorganims responsible for the release of C can use NO3 and NO2 as source of oxygen.?CH4 emissions from the organic materiel contained in?the wastewater could?decrease in contrast to CO2 emissions. ? In supporting the denitrification process,?CH3OH (which contains?easily degradable C) would also?contribute to emissions and in my view, if it is bio-methanol,?CO2 emissions should not be?reported. But, if the CH3OH is produced in?laboratory, then?emissions should be reported, maybe under Industrial Processes. ? But, the use of methanol may not have an effect on the CH4 emissions mentioned above. ? When using methanol, default emission factors may not apply and?need to be determined at plant-specific level. ? Thanks Debbie, ? Sabin? --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Deborah Bartram wrote: From: Deborah Bartram Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 emission potential from wastewater treatment To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 10:30 AM I've been thinking about certain emission potentials from wastewater treatment.? According to IPCC, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wastewater are not considered in the IPCC Guidelines because these are of biogenic origin and should not be included in national total emissions.? However, what about emissions that may occur due to chemical addition to wastewater during treatment?? In particular I'm thinking of methanol that may be added to a wastewater treatment system to support the denitrification process.? I'd appreciate any thoughts on this! ? ?_____________________________________________________ Deb Bartram Vice President ERG 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 (703) 633-1669 (703) 263-7479 fax deborah.bartram at erg.com _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090502/93b0139c/attachment.html From joy.williams at carboncapitalmarkets.com Sun May 3 17:31:15 2009 From: joy.williams at carboncapitalmarkets.com (Joy Williams) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 17:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] climate change workforce Message-ID: <20090503213115.27F45C18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi, I'm hoping someone can help me with this one - I need information on the status of the global workforce that pertains to climate change in general, trading and emission reduction projects in particular would be nice. Specifically, I am looking for information about the UK workforce compared to other geographical locations. thanks! Joy From kbickel at gmail.com Mon May 4 12:45:30 2009 From: kbickel at gmail.com (Kathryn Bickel) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:45:30 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E059E4B37@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org> References: <003301c9c4f8$54cffc60$fe6ff520$@net> <882654b20904281151p1bb8a076hff9cf5d8d61b4049@mail.gmail.com> <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E059E4B37@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org> Message-ID: <882654b20905040945m6825346evd45ba9e64e1afb92@mail.gmail.com> Hello again, I?ve received a few inquiries about the forest GHG inventory course and thought it made sense to post more information to the entire list to help clarify. I am pleased to see such interest! See below for more details? - The course will be online, through the e-learning classes offered by the GHG Management Institute (http://www.ghginstitute.org/), so anyone can enroll and take it from anywhere. - The course provides guidelines for developing organizational-level forest GHG inventories, drawing on existing national-level GHG inventory guidelines developed by the IPCC, as well as general organizational GHG inventory guidelines (e.g., the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol), forest sector organizational-level reporting guidelines (e.g., from the California Climate Action Registry and US Voluntary GHG reporting program), and forest GHG project guidelines. - The content was developed to be flexible, so that organizations with forestland have the tools to meet a range of GHG reporting goals. - Instruction is provided to help you quantify GHG emissions/removals from forests almost anywhere on the globe. - To remain consistent with widely approved international standards, the course draws on the concepts, terminology, and structure of WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Hope to see you in the course! Regards, Kathryn -- Kathryn A. Bickel Climate Change Consultant Mobile: (818) 667-6065 www.kathrynbickel.com On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Pierre Boileau wrote: > Hello Kathryn, Andres, > > There is actually a significant body of knowledge on forest inventories > available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. > > http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html > > and > > http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html > > You can also find more information on how countries are compiling their > forest GHG inventories in their National Inventories: > > http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html > > and for Canada > > http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/inventory_archi_e.cfm > > As with all reporting of sinks in national and corporate GHG inventories, > these are reported separately from inventory emission totals. > > I hope these are helpful to you and would be included in any course given > on forestry inventories. > > Regards > > Pierre > > ------------------------------ > *From:* discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: > discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathryn Bickel > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:52 PM > *To:* andres.romero at co.pwc.com > *Cc:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org; kskog at tds.net > *Subject:* Re: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks > > Dear Andres and others, > > We will soon be offering a course on forest GHG inventory accounting at the > GHG Management Institute. The course draws on existing GHG inventory > guidelines to provide comprehensive and flexible instruction showing you > specifically how to prepare a forest GHG inventory of emissions and > removals. The course will help address issues like the one you are raising. > > Regarding your question, there are no international consensus methods on > this topic to date. So, the decision to report on the GHG emissions and > removals from land is largely up to the organization itself and depends on > their overall objectives for preparing an inventory. > > There is some guidance on reporting on biologically sequestered carbon in > the GHG Protocol. Essentially, the GHG Protocol requires reporting on > direct CO2 emissions from biologically sequestered carbon (e.g., from > burning biomass/biofuels), but separately from the other direct and indirect > emissions sources. Reporting on biological sequestration (i.e., net > removals) is optional, however. There are no specific guidelines for how to > do this (some information is provided in Appendix B of the GHG Protocol). > Our course aims to fill that gap. > > I hope this is helpful and that you will check out our course when it > becomes available! > > Regards, > Kathryn Bickel > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, wrote: > >> >> Thanks Robert and Ken for your responses. >> >> I know the issues sinks accounting could rise. Just to be clear about the >> scope of my question, I'm wondering if an organization (i.e. electricity >> generating company) who owns land and forest, manage them (well defined in >> space) to assure watershed health and reservoir operating levels includes >> them or not within a GHG inventory effort. They are material assets in other >> topics for the organization, why not for a GHG Inventory?. The protocols are >> there, as stated by Ken, but with a strong focus in LULUCF projects and none >> of them (the few I've read) gives guidelines about when to include them or >> not. Should this type of organization carry on a GHG inventory including >> sinks? >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Andr?s Romero >> >> >> *"Robert D. Cormia" * >> >> 24/04/2009 11:18 AM >> Please respond to >> >> >> To >> Andres Romero/CO/ABAS/PwC at SOACAT cc >> Subject >> RE: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks >> >> >> >> >> Andres, >> >> Whiles soils and the ocean are the heavy lifter in removing CO2 from the >> atmosphere (actually - cycling CO2 from the atmosphere) they vary so much >> over the surface of the planet that the range of values would be too wide to >> fit into the precision of a GHG inventory. On a macro scale - your question >> is very germane to asking what happens if entire ecological systems / >> ecosystem services start to fail - and sinks become sources. >> >> -rdc >> >> Robert D. Cormia >> Faculty, Foothill College >> 650.747.1588 (home) >> 650.949.7456 (office) >> >> >> >> *From:* discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: >> discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] *On Behalf Of *andres.romero at co.pwc.com* >> Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:25 PM* >> To:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org* >> Subject:* [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks >> >> >> Hello everybody. I know this could sound obvious but I can't find a >> concrete answer to support it. Why a GHG Inventory / Accounting protocol >> like GHG Protocol does not include sinks (i.e. managed forests)? to >> represent an integral GHG balance, more over, if they can turn into sources >> soon. >> >> Thanks in advance for your responses. >> >> Andres Romero >> _________________________________________________________________ >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or >> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received >> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any >> computer. >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or >> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received >> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any >> computer. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >> www.ghgnetwork.org >> >> To post message: >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >> >> To unsubscribe: >> http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > -- > Kathryn A. Bickel > Climate Change Consultant > Office: (818) 779-7861 > Mobile: (818) 667-6065 > www.kathrynbickel.com > > This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering > the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify > the sender immediately by email and delete the original message immediately. > The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any > errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or > any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090504/666111b2/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon May 4 15:26:58 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Message-ID: <20090504192658.C518BC18063@milkyway.forumone.com> I think the simplest answer to your question is that there are a multitude of types of projects that can result in sequestration/offsets that need to be addressed on a project-specific basis. General protocols cannot reasonably address all of these. A utility that owns/manages throusand of acres of forested land should not get credit for these lands as a sink UNLESS the utility takes some specific action to enhance the carbon takeup of the forest above the existing baseline condition. Regardless of who owns the forests, they are already capturing carbon and will continue to do so to varying degrees for the forseeable future. Aforestation and reforestation projects represent something new and are "additional" beyond "business as usual" forest management. Forestry experts can reasonably forecast the uptake of carbon by woody plants and soils to the extent that they can provide reasonable and verifiable estimates of carbon sequestration. I am well out of my element here, but some mature forests may actually be carbon neutral - the emissions from decaying wood and termite activity may be offseting the carbon uptake by growing vegetation. The IPCC and a draft(?) USEPA Climate Leaders GHG protocol do address forestry as a sink. Another reason for the absence of sequestration protocols is perhaps that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use simply overwhelms the ability of existing stands of vegetation to serve as effective sinks. For dimensions of the issue, consider that a typical, 500 MW coal fired power plant emits about 3 million MTCE per year. How many acres of vigorous growth would be required to offset these emissions? I don't really know, but if one assumed at some point in time carbon storage reached 100 MT/AC, that equates to 30,000 acres. In my energy hungray nation, CO2 emissions exceed CO2 uptake at a ratio of about 7:1. In a state such as California, the ratio is about 15:1. Therefore, while sinks should be part of the solution, the main focus has to be on emissions. Here is a nice source of documents, some of which address forestry and sequestration. http://www.capcoa.org/climatechange/documents Warmest Regards, Dennis From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon May 4 17:10:46 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 17:10:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Old growth forests are valuable carbon sinks Message-ID: <20090504211046.D2F60C18059@milkyway.forumone.com> I guess I'm going to be banned from the network for admitting I am not an "expert." Here is a link to an interesting abstract that suggests that old growth forests contine to amass carbon. The analogy is like having a massive bank account - even a small interest rate provides large absolute growth. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/osu-ogf091008.php From gsmith at ert.net Mon May 4 17:12:02 2009 From: gsmith at ert.net (Gordon Smith) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:12:02 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks In-Reply-To: <20090504192658.C518BC18063@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090504192658.C518BC18063@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Having worked on forest carbon offsets for 15 years, and having done corporate inventories, I can share my experience dealing with this issue. Most entity accounting protocols provide for exclusion of de minimus emissions that are ancillary to the entity's primary activity. Removal of shrubbery around a power plant would be an example of a minor, excluded emission. In some cases, entities own significant areas of land. Sequestration on these lands (or emissions) can be a significant component of the entity's emissions. These sinks should be included in the entity's inventory, as a part of making the inventory accurate. I've worked on a couple inventories where inclusion of lands changed the entity from being counted as a net source to being a net sink. However, such sinks are business-as-usual and would count as offsets. These business-as-usual sinks definitely are not tradable, even though they are included in the corporate inventory. regards, Gordon Gordon Smith, Ph.D., Managing Partner Ecofor LLC 13047 12th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177-4108 USA voice: +1 206.784.0209 gsmith at ecofor.org On May 4, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Dennis M. O'Regan wrote: I think the simplest answer to your question is that there are a multitude of types of projects that can result in sequestration/ offsets that need to be addressed on a project-specific basis. General protocols cannot reasonably address all of these. A utility that owns/manages throusand of acres of forested land should not get credit for these lands as a sink UNLESS the utility takes some specific action to enhance the carbon takeup of the forest above the existing baseline condition. Regardless of who owns the forests, they are already capturing carbon and will continue to do so to varying degrees for the forseeable future. Aforestation and reforestation projects represent something new and are "additional" beyond "business as usual" forest management. Forestry experts can reasonably forecast the uptake of carbon by woody plants and soils to the extent that they can provide reasonable and verifiable estimates of carbon sequestration. I am well out of my element here, but some mature forests may actually be carbon neutral - the emissions from decaying wood and termite activity may be offseting the carbon uptake by growing vegetation. The IPCC and a draft(?) USEPA Climate Leaders GHG protocol do address forestry as a sink. Another reason for the absence of sequestration protocols is perhaps that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use simply overwhelms the ability of existing stands of vegetation to serve as effective sinks. For dimensions of the issue, consider that a typical, 500 MW coal fired power plant emits about 3 million MTCE per year. How many acres of vigorous growth would be required to offset these emissions? I don't really know, but if one assumed at some point in time carbon storage reached 100 MT/AC, that equates to 30,000 acres. In my energy hungray nation, CO2 emissions exceed CO2 uptake at a ratio of about 7:1. In a state such as California, the ratio is about 15:1. Therefore, while sinks should be part of the solution, the main focus has to be on emissions. Here is a nice source of documents, some of which address forestry and sequestration. http://www.capcoa.org/climatechange/documents Warmest Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon May 4 23:44:05 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG inventory and sinks Message-ID: <20090505034405.C6645C1807B@milkyway.forumone.com> Gordon: I can't see how a business as usual approach can at once be an offset and possibly make an entity a net sink, but then those offsets are at the same time not tradeable. That seems internally inconsistent. In the US it may be a moot point since USEPA seems to be headed down the road of including only point and fugitive emissions (plus some other interesting concepts on engine production) in the proposed GHG inventory reporting for those entities emitting over 25,000 MTCE. To my knowledge, there is no provision for offsets and no provision for de minimis emissions. It is difficult to forecast whether EPA's current inventory proposal will lead to a parallel cap 'n trade regime. But it seems to be headed in that general direction and along the lines of the Acid Rain rovisions of the CAAA. Will a voluntary program like Climate Leaders continue? Probably. If so, that begs the question as to how the two programs will interact, if at all. Dennis From alex at ahmedia.co.za Thu May 7 02:56:37 2009 From: alex at ahmedia.co.za (Alex Hetherington) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 02:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Namibian emissions factor Message-ID: <20090507065637.B6EA3C1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Colleagues I am wondering if anyone has a recent emissions factor for Namibian electricity generation. I will appreciated any feedback. All the best. Alex From Karen.TREANTON at iea.org Mon May 11 03:03:58 2009 From: Karen.TREANTON at iea.org (TREANTON Karen, IEA/ESD3) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:03:58 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Namibian emissions factor In-Reply-To: <20090507065637.B6EA3C1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090507065637.B6EA3C1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Dear Alex, The IEA estimates emission factors based on our energy balances. Most of the electricity in Namibia comes from hydro - only a little comes from coal and oil. As a result, the factor is quite low. We estimate it to be about 76 grammes of CO2/kWh in 2006. These estimates are published in "CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion". For more information please go to www.iea.org. Regards. Karen Treanton Head of Energy Balances, Prices and Emissions Section Energy Statistics Division International Energy Agency 9 rue de la Federation 75739 Paris Cedex 15 France tel. (33 1) 40 57 66 33 fax. (33 1) 40 57 66 49 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Alex Hetherington Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 08:57 To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Namibian emissions factor Dear Colleagues I am wondering if anyone has a recent emissions factor for Namibian electricity generation. I will appreciated any feedback. All the best. Alex _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rhey at climateactionreserve.org Wed May 13 21:22:14 2009 From: rhey at climateactionreserve.org (Climate Action Reserve) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Climate Action Reserve Releases Mexico Project Protocols for Public Comment Message-ID: <20090514012214.98496C18004@milkyway.forumone.com> Public Comments for Draft Landfill and Livestock Project Protocols for Mexico due June 12 The Climate Action Reserve is pleased to release the draft Landfill and Livestock Project Protocols for Mexico for public review and comment. These protocols are adapted versions of the current Landfill and Livestock protocols for the U.S. and will provide a standardized approach for quantifying and monitoring the greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from landfill and livestock methane destruction projects within the Mexican states. The protocols will define what types of projects are eligible to receive credits, describe how to quantify emission reductions, and describe how to monitor and verify projects so that project emission reductions can be verified by the Reserve. Please visit the Reserve website to download the draft protocols and obtain additional information, including updates during the protocol process (http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how-it-works/protocols/protocols-in-progress). Please submit comments no later than 5:00 PM PDT on June 12, 2009. Submit comments in Word or PDF format via the Reserve website. If you have questions about the expansion of the Landfill or Livestock Project Protocols to Mexico, please contact Derek Markolf at 213-542-0280 or derek at climateactionreserve.org. The Climate Action Reserve is a U.S. private nonprofit organization representing international interests in addressing climate change and bringing together participants from the government, environment and business sectors. It works to ensure environmental benefit, integrity and transparency in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting and reduction and progressive movement in GHG emissions policy nationally and in the Western U.S. The Climate Action Reserve is parent to three programs, the California Climate Action Registry, Climate Action Reserve and Center for Climate Action. As the subsequent organization of the California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve continues building on the California Registry's reputation as a respected and internationally recognized leader in climate change issues. From Pat.F.Coleman at aecom.com Thu May 14 22:25:44 2009 From: Pat.F.Coleman at aecom.com (Coleman, Pat (UMA)) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:25:44 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] I am looking for a copy of paper. The University of Toronto does not have it Message-ID: <413B6B34A87DF143B590ED1808F121D602C589AF@MIS-EX.umagroup.local> S.A. Thorneloe, 1993 "Methane from Waste Water Treatment," in International IPCC Workshop Proceedings: Methane and Nitrous Oxide Methods in National Emissions Inventories and Options for Control (Bilthoven, Netherlands: RIVM, 1993), pp. 115-130. Pat Coleman, Ph.D. P.Eng. Chief Engineer - Wastewater Treatment Pat.F.Coleman at aecom.com AECOM. 220 Advance Blvd. Brampton, ON, L6T 4J5 M:647.637.2898 T: 905.459.4780 Brampton T. 905.747.7595 Markham www.aecom.com My email has changed to Pat.F.Coleman at aecom.com. Please update your address books accordingly. Effective October 2008, Earth Tech, Gartner Lee, TSH and UMA are known collectively as AECOM. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering solutions that enhance and sustain the world's built, natural, and social environments. This communication is intended for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Any communication received in error should be deleted and all copies destroyed. Please consider the environment before printing this page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090514/cc6475c0/attachment.html From smitha at landcareresearch.co.nz Mon May 18 23:25:36 2009 From: smitha at landcareresearch.co.nz (Ann Smith) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Message-ID: <20090519032536.728D6C18005@milkyway.forumone.com> Can any one help with a reference or guidance to the following issue please. CO2 gases used for carbonated beverages or as a layer over the top of wine where the inclusion of emissions is dependent on the method of obtaining the CO2? i.e. if recovered from a fermentation process, does not count but if created from minerals i.e. fossil fuels or dolomite then it is counted. What about recovering CO2 from fossil fuel production and then using it for carbonation? Is that counted as an emissions source or not. Thanks, Ann From Ron.Masters at shell.com Tue May 19 12:12:05 2009 From: Ron.Masters at shell.com (Ron.Masters at shell.com) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:12:05 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages In-Reply-To: <20090519032536.728D6C18005@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <4E2F34128E2BE44D9ED5C4C49079EF60647DC0@houic-s-02344.americas.shell.com> Beverages are very short-term storage--perhaps weeks or months at best. Interestingly, Shell's plan to divert some CO2 delivery from soft drink manufacturing and greenhouse flower production into underground sequestration has generated a public outcry in Barendrecht NL. Apparently it's ok to put fossil-fuel derived CO2 into food or decoration--where it will return immediately into the atmosphere--but not ok to put it back into the earth, where it has been stored for millions of years. The following text is a quote from a Shell press release, available on line at http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/04/20/barendrechters-stand-up-to-shell-plan-to-bury-co2-under-town/ Pernis, Europe's biggest refinery, can process 416,000 barrels of oil a day and produces about 1 million tons of CO2 a year. The plant already delivers about 400,000 tons of CO2 as a feedstock to local industries and another 150,000 tons to carbonated-beverage makers in the region. Shell plans to store 400,000 tons of CO2 a year at Barendrecht, the equivalent to 5.4 million euros worth of European Union carbon dioxide permits, based on the April 17 spot price of 13.40 euros a ton on the BlueNext exchange. Ron Masters ron.masters at shell.com +1 713 245 7829 voice +1 832 260 1497 cell +31 20 588 6113 Internet No problem is so big that it can't be made more complex. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]On Behalf Of Ann Smith Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:26 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Can any one help with a reference or guidance to the following issue please. CO2 gases used for carbonated beverages or as a layer over the top of wine where the inclusion of emissions is dependent on the method of obtaining the CO2? i.e. if recovered from a fermentation process, does not count but if created from minerals i.e. fossil fuels or dolomite then it is counted. What about recovering CO2 from fossil fuel production and then using it for carbonation? Is that counted as an emissions source or not. Thanks, Ann _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090519/c337e1b7/attachment.html From Atlantic at ecosite.co.uk Thu May 21 04:11:33 2009 From: Atlantic at ecosite.co.uk (Eric Johnson) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:11:33 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Message-ID: <004101c9d9eb$c1a46c10$44ed4430$@co.uk> Just over a year ago I spoke to a group of industrial gas companies, many of them CO2 suppliers, and several told me that some soft-drink companies are skittish about taking CO2 from industrial sources such as refineries. Even though it's not, people tend to think it is somehow unclean. A shame, really, but that's what several said, and they were talking about major bottlers, such as 'the pause that refreshes'. =================== Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting Obstgartenstrasse 14 8136 Gattikon Switzerland Tel +41 44 772 1079 Email atlantic at ecosite.co.uk From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Ron.Masters at shell.com Sent: 19 May 2009 18:12 To: Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Beverages are very short-term storage--perhaps weeks or months at best. Interestingly, Shell's plan to divert some CO2 delivery from soft drink manufacturing and greenhouse flower production into underground sequestration has generated a public outcry in Barendrecht NL. Apparently it's ok to put fossil-fuel derived CO2 into food or decoration--where it will return immediately into the atmosphere--but not ok to put it back into the earth, where it has been stored for millions of years. The following text is a quote from a Shell press release, available on line at http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/04/20/barendrechters-stand-up-to-shell-pl an-to-bury-co2-under-town/ Pernis, Europe's biggest refinery, can process 416,000 barrels of oil a day and produces about 1 million tons of CO2 a year. The plant already delivers about 400,000 tons of CO2 as a feedstock to local industries and another 150,000 tons to carbonated-beverage makers in the region. Shell plans to store 400,000 tons of CO2 a year at Barendrecht, the equivalent to 5.4 million euros worth of European Union carbon dioxide permits, based on the April 17 spot price of 13.40 euros a ton on the BlueNext exchange. Ron Masters ron.masters at shell.com +1 713 245 7829 voice +1 832 260 1497 cell +31 20 588 6113 Internet No problem is so big that it can't be made more complex. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]On Behalf Of Ann Smith Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:26 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Can any one help with a reference or guidance to the following issue please. CO2 gases used for carbonated beverages or as a layer over the top of wine where the inclusion of emissions is dependent on the method of obtaining the CO2? i.e. if recovered from a fermentation process, does not count but if created from minerals i.e. fossil fuels or dolomite then it is counted. What about recovering CO2 from fossil fuel production and then using it for carbonation? Is that counted as an emissions source or not. Thanks, Ann _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090521/d9437b8b/attachment-0001.html From grobertson02 at fs.fed.us Thu May 21 10:51:25 2009 From: grobertson02 at fs.fed.us (Guy Robertson) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:51:25 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: <004101c9d9eb$c1a46c10$44ed4430$@co.uk> Message-ID: Hello everybody, I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). I'd think that these are simply mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious debate or consideration of this policy option. If so, is it merely a symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? Regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090521/3dfe763e/attachment.html From gregc at fcstone.com Thu May 21 10:22:16 2009 From: gregc at fcstone.com (Greg Clark) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:22:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Message-ID: <20090521142216.7FF9BC18007@milkyway.forumone.com> Ann, We have the same issue with Ethanol plants here in the states. The CO2 released from the fermentation process for wine or alcohol production was CO2 the was initially sequestered from the atmosphere supporting plant growth. Re-Releasing this CO2 back into the atmosphere during fermentation leads to no net gain in CO2 emissions. However, from fossil fuel sources you are adding to the atmospheric CO2 levels because you don't have that initial sequestration upstream in the process. The question then becomes what scope do you count that emission? Greg Clark Director of Commercial Operations FCStone Carbon gregc at fcstone.com From jpbarton at xtra.co.nz Thu May 21 16:37:48 2009 From: jpbarton at xtra.co.nz (James Barton) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:37:48 +1000 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Fw: Gases used to carbonate beverages Message-ID: <15846.54091.qm@web96002.mail.aue.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: James Barton To: Ann Smith Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2009 9:25:14 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages There are considerable practical issues of additionality with this one. Has anyone got a robust estimate of the global quantities of carbonated beverages produced in 1990 (i.e. as a base year) broken down by quantities and types produced by self-carbonation through fermentation and those produced with added CO2? Do the major global corporates involved with the production of cola flavored beverages disclose the sources of the gases they use for carbonation? I do note that the surge effect in Guinness is claimed to be though nitrogen gas dissolved in the cans, bottles etc., and not from CO2. ________________________________ From: Ann Smith To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Tuesday, 19 May, 2009 3:25:36 PM Subject: [GHG Network] Gases used to carbonate beverages Can any one help with a reference or guidance to the following issue please. CO2 gases used for carbonated beverages or as a layer over the top of wine where the inclusion of emissions is dependent on the method of obtaining the CO2? i.e. if recovered from a fermentation process, does not count but if created from minerals i.e. fossil fuels or dolomite then it is counted. What about recovering CO2 from fossil fuel production and then using it for carbonation? Is that counted as an emissions source or not. Thanks, Ann _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/70833fbb/attachment.html From sgonzale at inia.cl Thu May 21 19:03:38 2009 From: sgonzale at inia.cl (sgonzale at inia.cl) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:03:38 -0400 (CLT) Subject: [GHG Network] N2O emissions when applying N through the irrigation system? Message-ID: <10171.201.246.87.58.1242947018.squirrel@webmail.inia.cl> Dear all: Can anybody gives me an advice about how to account for N2O emissions from N applied to soils along with irrigation waters, a very frequent practice of presurized irrigation systems? I found no reference on this issue in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Best regards, Sergio Gonz?lez From Saggars at landcareresearch.co.nz Thu May 21 21:59:16 2009 From: Saggars at landcareresearch.co.nz (Surinder Saggar) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:59:16 +1200 Subject: [GHG Network] N2O emissions when applying N through the irrigation system? In-Reply-To: <10171.201.246.87.58.1242947018.squirrel@webmail.inia.cl> References: <10171.201.246.87.58.1242947018.squirrel@webmail.inia.cl> Message-ID: In my opinion it could be treated as emissions from N applied in farm effluent irrigation. Surinder -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of sgonzale at inia.cl Sent: Friday, 22 May 2009 11:04 a.m. To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] N2O emissions when applying N through the irrigation system? Dear all: Can anybody gives me an advice about how to account for N2O emissions from N applied to soils along with irrigation waters, a very frequent practice of presurized irrigation systems? I found no reference on this issue in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Best regards, Sergio Gonz?lez _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz From Sheila.Scott at gcal.ac.uk Fri May 22 04:01:18 2009 From: Sheila.Scott at gcal.ac.uk (Scott, Sheila) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:01:18 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions factor for biodiesel Message-ID: Can anyone point me in the direction of any work relating to a GHG emissions factor for biodiesel being used as an alternative to fossil fuel, equivalent to the 2.63 kg CO2/litre for fossil fuel diesel, please? I've read a number of reports that mentioned that CO2 can be regarded as carbon neutral, but although they generally say that NOx emissions increase by up to 5-10%, they don't specify a figure just for N2O. Also is there a significant quantity of CH4 released as a result of incomplete combustion? Thanks. Sheila Sheila Scott Research Fellow/Project Officer Caledonian Environment Centre Glasgow Caledonian University 5th Floor, Buchanan House Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA T: +44 (0) 141 273 1431 F: +44 (0) 141 273 1430 E: sheila.scott at gcal.ac.uk The Centre has a dedicated team of professionals with a wide range of experience in waste and resource management, sustainability, carbon management, community engagement and training. W: www.caledonian.ac.uk/environment This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and e-mail confirmation to the sender. Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number SC021474 Times Higher Education award winner 2008: outstanding international student support http://www.gcal.ac.uk/news/pressoffice/releases/241008.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/8b3be618/attachment.html From joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com Thu May 21 23:39:46 2009 From: joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com (Joseph Pallant) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:39:46 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: References: <004101c9d9eb$c1a46c10$44ed4430$@co.uk> Message-ID: Dear Dr. Robertson and network, Greetings. I'm assuming that you are referring to the fact that once a sector is capped, there can be no production of offsets due to actions in that sector, because any such reductions would be accounted for under the cap. I would have to say that many people are not aware of this reality, and thus make the statements about Renewable Energy offsets you are referring to. In reality, the tradable carbon benefit of renewable energy production in a capped system derives from the lowering of emissions at a capped entity to below their cap. In a situation where allowances are granted for free, rather than auctioned or purchased, any excess allowances derived from switching to wind from coal could be traded as a "carbon credit". In the case where allowances must be purchased, a regulated entity benefits from having to buy less. I have a feeling that the sentiments your describe are due the past reality of an uncapped USA and Canada where voluntary offsets could be derived from Renewable Energy projects, plus the rather inane view (in my humblest of opinions) that a tonne of Renewable Energy offset is somehow more valid and pure than a tonne offset in another way. This too shall pass. Great dialogue here on the network, team, keep it up. Sincerely, Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Guy Robertson wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy > production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon > emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). I'd think that these are simply > mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious > debate or consideration of this policy option. If so, is it merely a > symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? > > > Regards, > > _________________________________________________________ > > Guy Robertson PhD > Sustainability Program Lead > Forest Service Research > Washington Office > PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 > grobertson02 at fs.fed.us > _________________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090521/134d70c6/attachment.html From stuart.cerne at enecore.com Thu May 21 22:05:20 2009 From: stuart.cerne at enecore.com (Stuart Cerne) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:05:20 +0800 Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: References: <004101c9d9eb$c1a46c10$44ed4430$@co.uk> Message-ID: <50ABF992E5EB4FE185DD66FFA0A01E95@ibmf588e463226> Dear Guy, In principle this is the basic idea behind CDM.of course not any renewable project will generate carbon credits, it has to be additional etc.the basic concept is that certain renewable projects will not be build because their IRR is simply too low to justify the investment so unless there is a source of carbon revenue they will not exist.therefore the carbon credits "generated" by those projects is the equivalent emissions that would exist had the same power been generated in a business as usual scenario..if this is a solar project in an area where only coal power exist and this solar project is additional, then it is an easy calc.this is a very simplistic idea, hope is answers your questions. BR Stuart _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Guy Robertson Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:51 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? Hello everybody, I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). I'd think that these are simply mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious debate or consideration of this policy option. If so, is it merely a symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? Regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/97fa6ba9/attachment.html From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Fri May 22 07:32:15 2009 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 04:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: References: <004101c9d9eb$c1a46c10$44ed4430$@co.uk> Message-ID: <699997.15956.qm@web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> For those interested in this topic, of how renewables interface with offset and cap-and-trade markets, I point you to the following papers (which I have sent to the Network before, for those that are older members). The last two articles are available only to those with a subscription to Energy Policy, but the pre-peer review discussion paper versions can also be downloaded by those that do not have access to the journal. mg Gillenwater, M., ?Taking green power into account,? Environmental Finance, October 2008. ?Ensuring Offset Quality: Integrating High Quality Greenhouse Gas Offsets Into North American Cap-and-Trade Policy.? Offset Quality Initiative, July 2008. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Discussion paper versions Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets, [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets, [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program Tel +1 202 997 3335 (office & mobile) Fax +1 206 350 2018 michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org ________________________________ * An independent non-profit organization not associated with Princeton University. ________________________________ From: Joseph Pallant To: Guy Robertson Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:39:46 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? Dear Dr. Robertson and network, Greetings. I'm assuming that you are referring to the fact that once a sector is capped, there can be no production of offsets due to actions in that sector, because any such reductions would be accounted for under the cap. I would have to say that many people are not aware of this reality, and thus make the statements about Renewable Energy offsets you are referring to. In reality, the tradable carbon benefit of renewable energy production in a capped system derives from the lowering of emissions at a capped entity to below their cap. In a situation where allowances are granted for free, rather than auctioned or purchased, any excess allowances derived from switching to wind from coal could be traded as a "carbon credit". In the case where allowances must be purchased, a regulated entity benefits from having to buy less. I have a feeling that the sentiments your describe are due the past reality of an uncapped USA and Canada where voluntary offsets could be derived from Renewable Energy projects, plus the rather inane view (in my humblest of opinions) that a tonne of Renewable Energy offset is somehow more valid and pure than a tonne offset in another way. This too shall pass. Great dialogue here on the network, team, keep it up. Sincerely, Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Guy Robertson wrote: Hello everybody, I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). I'd think that these are simply mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious debate or consideration of this policy option. If so, is it merely a symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? Regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/59f96940/attachment-0001.html From carbosur at adinet.com.uy Fri May 22 07:25:31 2009 From: carbosur at adinet.com.uy (Daniel Martino) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:25:31 -0300 Subject: [GHG Network] N2O emissions when applying N through the irrigation system? In-Reply-To: <10171.201.246.87.58.1242947018.squirrel@webmail.inia.cl> References: <10171.201.246.87.58.1242947018.squirrel@webmail.inia.cl> Message-ID: <49D10226023E95FC@> (added by postmaster@adinet.com.uy) Dear Sergio, IPCC does not provide different emission factors for different types of N fertilizers. I believe that in your case, if you are using tier 1 method, you should proceed in the same way as with any other N fertilizer, this is, by multiplying the amount of N applied by the emission factor of 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg N (this is the factor adopted by IPCC Guidelines 2006). Then you would also need to account for indirect emissions in the same way as you would do with any other type of N fertilizer. Of course this tier-1 method has a very large uncertainty (+100% / -50%). One component of this uncertainty is the differences that may occur between different types of fertilizers. You may also have your own emission factor, and in this case you may apply a tier 2 method to reduce the uncertainty. Or, you may have a calibrated model to apply tier 3. Best regards, Daniel At 08:03 PM 5/21/2009, sgonzale at inia.cl wrote: >Dear all: > > >Can anybody gives me an advice about how to account for N2O emissions from >N applied to soils along with irrigation waters, a very frequent practice >of presurized irrigation systems? I found no reference on this issue in >the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. > > >Best regards, > >Sergio Gonz?lez > > >_______________________________________________ >Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >www.ghgnetwork.org > >To post message: >Discuss mailing list >Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > >To unsubscribe: >http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Fri May 22 12:26:50 2009 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Discussion group posting problems Message-ID: <68470.80941.qm@web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Network Members, I have heard from a few of you that you have not had your submissions to the discussion list go through. It appears that our listserv system is having some problems, which we have not diagnosed yet. I apologize to anyone who has experienced this problem. If you submit a post and do not receive an explicit rejection notice, then you can assume there was a problem. I encourage you to assume it was an error and resubmit your message. Hopefully, it will work on the second attempt. We are moving over the Network's list to the new GHG Management Institute membership program website this summer. I think you will be impressed with the increased functionality and benefits provided. And if all goes well, that will solve our technical problems we are having. Thank you for your patience, Michael [moderator] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/cd08a2c5/attachment.html From grobertson02 at fs.fed.us Fri May 22 08:41:50 2009 From: grobertson02 at fs.fed.us (Guy Robertson) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:41:50 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: <699997.15956.qm@web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael and everybody, Thanks for the references. I note in the first article ("Taking Green Power into Account"): ...renewable energy projects cannot be awarded offset credits. Although some may find this result unfair, the price placed on GHG emissions created by the emissions cap still incentivises renewable energy projects by reducing the cost of the electricity they produce compared with that from fossil fuel-fired generators. Any desire by society to promote renewable energy further can then be achieved using other policies (eg, renewable portfolio standards or feed-in tariffs) [top of p.2]. The other articles appear to support this conclusion, though I haven't had a chance yet to read them in detail. This matches my initial thoughts on the matter, at least as applied under a cap and trade system (voluntary markets may be another matter). Is this result generally recognized in policy debates? In professional circles? regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ "Michael Gillenwater \[moderator\]" 05/22/2009 07:32 AM To Joseph Pallant , Guy Robertson cc discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? For those interested in this topic, of how renewables interface with offset and cap-and-trade markets, I point you to the following papers (which I have sent to the Network before, for those that are older members). The last two articles are available only to those with a subscription to Energy Policy, but the pre-peer review discussion paper versions can also be downloaded by those that do not have access to the journal. mg Gillenwater, M., ?Taking green power into account,? Environmental Finance, October 2008. ?Ensuring Offset Quality: Integrating High Quality Greenhouse Gas Offsets Into North American Cap-and-Trade Policy.? Offset Quality Initiative, July 2008. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Discussion paper versions Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets, [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets, [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Michael Gillenwater GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program Tel +1 202 997 3335 (office & mobile) Fax +1 206 350 2018 michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org * An independent non-profit organization not associated with Princeton University. From: Joseph Pallant To: Guy Robertson Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:39:46 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? Dear Dr. Robertson and network, Greetings. I'm assuming that you are referring to the fact that once a sector is capped, there can be no production of offsets due to actions in that sector, because any such reductions would be accounted for under the cap. I would have to say that many people are not aware of this reality, and thus make the statements about Renewable Energy offsets you are referring to. In reality, the tradable carbon benefit of renewable energy production in a capped system derives from the lowering of emissions at a capped entity to below their cap. In a situation where allowances are granted for free, rather than auctioned or purchased, any excess allowances derived from switching to wind from coal could be traded as a "carbon credit". In the case where allowances must be purchased, a regulated entity benefits from having to buy less. I have a feeling that the sentiments your describe are due the past reality of an uncapped USA and Canada where voluntary offsets could be derived from Renewable Energy projects, plus the rather inane view (in my humblest of opinions) that a tonne of Renewable Energy offset is somehow more valid and pure than a tonne offset in another way. This too shall pass. Great dialogue here on the network, team, keep it up. Sincerely, Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Guy Robertson wrote: Hello everybody, I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). I'd think that these are simply mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious debate or consideration of this policy option. If so, is it merely a symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? Regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/79e3d283/attachment.html From tward at transprove.com Fri May 22 12:54:00 2009 From: tward at transprove.com (Tom W) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] connecting to a small grid Message-ID: <20090522165400.EA9BBC1805F@milkyway.forumone.com> When I've estimated GHG emissions from electricity in the U.S. I've usually used eGrid average emissions factors multiplied by kWh consumed. In doing so I've used the grid average emissions, since the amount of electricity used has always been fairly constant over time and has been very small with respect to the grid capacity. What about a facility that currently generates its own electricity and is currently unconnected to the grid? What if this facility connects to a grid? The grid in question is fairly 'small' with power coming from hydro sources as well as fossil fuel sources (e.g. natural gas turbine, large diesel generators). Should I be using the GHG Protocol "Guidelines for Quantifying GHG Reductions from Grid-Connected Electricity Projects"? Are there things we can do that influence whether our grid power would include more or less of the hydro? Thanks From cberendt at gmail.com Fri May 22 10:08:40 2009 From: cberendt at gmail.com (Chris Berendt) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:08:40 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: <699997.15956.qm@web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <004101c9d9eb$c1a46c10$44ed4430$@co.uk> <699997.15956.qm@web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am not sure the CDM policy here has been correctly represented - I would call everyones attention to the CDM B negative policy that would allow for both RECs and CERs as REC under the policy do NOT factor into baseline calc for financial additionality and thus the impact of a REC or feed-in-tariff or tax incentive on IRR does not count under the CDM. To see how U.S. practitoners in the REC markets have been dealing with the issue - I would point folks toward the REC Master PSA drafted by attorneys in this space who lead the ABA EMA and ACORE in REC market issues. The Master REC PSA is now in widespread use mainly by utilities who are running long-term REC RFPs, while not intended as the definitive answer to the question of how to account for indirect emission reductions created by renewable output backing down (usually gas CTs) other units in the dispatch order, it is intended to bring sunlight to the issue and force optimal disclosure. http://www.renewableenergymarkets.com/docs/presentations/2008/ABA-EMA-ACORE%20National%20REC%20Agreement_Jeremy%20Weinstein.pdf We believe the Master REC PSA does about as much as can be done in real world transactions regarding clear disclosure of attributes and environmental instruments transacting, to do more in the compliance markets to deal with these the issues would require changes in the state organic laws that created the RPSs in the first place. For full disclosure, the author of this email was a Co-Chair of the ABA EMA ACORE REC Master PSA Working Group, is a Vice Chair of the ABA Renewable Energy Resources Committee and the Energy & Carbon Trading and Finance committee as well as co-chair of the ACORE Markets Committee Thanks again to Michael and GHG Institute team for giving us all such a great vehicle for discussion and debate. Best, Chris On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Michael Gillenwater [moderator] wrote: > For those interested in this topic, of how renewables interface with offset > and cap-and-trade markets, I point you to the following papers (which I have > sent to the Network before, for those that are older members). > > The last two articles are available only to those with a subscription to > Energy Policy, but the pre-peer review discussion paper versions can also be > downloaded by those that do not have access to the journal. > > mg > > Gillenwater, M., ?Taking green power into account,? Environmental Finance, > October 2008. > > ?Ensuring Offset Quality: Integrating High Quality Greenhouse Gas Offsets > Into North American Cap-and-Trade Policy.? Offset Quality Initiative, July > 2008. > > Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and > offsets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. > > Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and > emission markets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages > 2120-2129. > > Discussion paper versions > > Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and > offsets, [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy > Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. > > Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and > emission markets, [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental > Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. > > ________________________________ > Michael Gillenwater > GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* > > Princeton University > Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program > > Tel +1 202 997 3335 (office & mobile) > Fax +1 206 350 2018 > michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org > ________________________________ > * An independent non-profit organization not associated with Princeton > University. > > > ________________________________ > From: Joseph Pallant > To: Guy Robertson > Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:39:46 PM > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? > > Dear Dr. Robertson and network, > Greetings. I'm assuming that you are referring to the fact that once a > sector is capped, there can be no production of offsets due to actions in > that sector, because any such reductions would be accounted for under the > cap. I would have to say that many people are not aware of this reality, and > thus make the statements about Renewable Energy offsets you are referring > to. > In reality, the tradable carbon benefit of renewable energy production in a > capped system derives from the lowering of emissions at a capped entity to > below their cap. In a situation where allowances are granted for free, > rather than auctioned or purchased, any excess allowances derived from > switching to wind from coal could be traded as a "carbon credit". In the > case where allowances must be purchased, a regulated entity benefits from > having to buy less. > I have a feeling that the sentiments your describe are due the past reality > of an uncapped USA and Canada where voluntary offsets could be derived from > Renewable Energy projects, plus the rather inane view (in my humblest of > opinions) that a tonne of Renewable Energy offset is somehow more valid and > pure than a tonne offset in another way. > This too shall pass. > Great dialogue here on the network, team, keep it up. > Sincerely, > Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA > President and CEO > CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. > Vancouver, BC, Canada > +1-778-994-5673 > joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com > > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Guy Robertson > wrote: >> >> Hello everybody, >> >> I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy >> production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon >> emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). ?I'd think that these are simply >> mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious >> debate or consideration of this policy option. ?If so, is it merely a >> symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> _________________________________________________________ >> >> Guy Robertson PhD >> Sustainability Program Lead >> Forest Service Research >> Washington Office >> PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 >> grobertson02 at fs.fed.us >> _________________________________________________________ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >> www.ghgnetwork.org >> >> To post message: >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >> >> To unsubscribe: >> http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > -- > Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA > President and CEO > CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. > Vancouver, BC, Canada > +1-778-994-5673 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Christopher Berendt, Esq. (571) 217-4818 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or other use of a transmission received in error is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify me at cberendt at gmail.com From derik at climateactionreserve.org Fri May 22 16:56:00 2009 From: derik at climateactionreserve.org (Derik Broekhoff) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:56:00 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? In-Reply-To: References: <699997.15956.qm@web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Guy, With respect to voluntary markets, I understood your original question to be aimed at the possibility that an electric utility might voluntarily buy an offset from renewable energy project that causes emission reductions at the utility's own smokestacks. This would result in double-counting, even without a cap-and-trade system (with the offset credit, the reduction would show up twice in the utility's GHG balance sheet). It points up the potential ownership issues involved anytime an offset is based on indirect emission reductions (i.e., occurring at sources not owned or controlled by the project developer). On the thread about additionality and the CDM, the CDM's decision about RECs, feed-in tariffs, etc. was almost certainly based on the desire to avoid creating a perverse incentive for developing countries to refrain from establishing laws and regulations that would promote renewable energy more generally. Avoiding such perverse incentives has been a general goal of the CDM, and current CDM rules state that laws passed in developing countries after November 2001 to promote emission-reducing technologies are ignored in assessing additionality for any kind of CDM project (cf. http://www.cdmrulebook.org/PageId/1628). It's questionable whether this same logic should really apply to voluntary offsets in a U.S. domestic context. Derik Broekhoff Vice President, Policy Climate Action Reserve 523 W. Sixth Street, Suite 428 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 542-0299 derik at climateactionreserve.org From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Guy Robertson Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 5:42 AM To: Michael Gillenwater [moderator] Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? Michael and everybody, Thanks for the references. I note in the first article ("Taking Green Power into Account"): ...renewable energy projects cannot be awarded offset credits. Although some may find this result unfair, the price placed on GHG emissions created by the emissions cap still incentivises renewable energy projects by reducing the cost of the electricity they produce compared with that from fossil fuel-fired generators. Any desire by society to promote renewable energy further can then be achieved using other policies (eg, renewable portfolio standards or feed-in tariffs) [top of p.2]. The other articles appear to support this conclusion, though I haven't had a chance yet to read them in detail. This matches my initial thoughts on the matter, at least as applied under a cap and trade system (voluntary markets may be another matter). Is this result generally recognized in policy debates? In professional circles? regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ "Michael Gillenwater \[moderator\]" 05/22/2009 07:32 AM To Joseph Pallant , Guy Robertson cc discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? For those interested in this topic, of how renewables interface with offset and cap-and-trade markets, I point you to the following papers (which I have sent to the Network before, for those that are older members). The last two articles are available only to those with a subscription to Energy Policy, but the pre-peer review discussion paper versions can also be downloaded by those that do not have access to the journal. mg Gillenwater, M., "Taking green power into account ," Environmental Finance, October 2008. "Ensuring Offset Quality: Integrating High Quality Greenhouse Gas Offsets Into North American Cap-and-Trade Policy ." Offset Quality Initiative, July 2008. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Discussion paper versions Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets , [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Gillenwater, M., 2007. Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets , [Discussion paper] Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program Tel +1 202 997 3335 (office & mobile) Fax +1 206 350 2018 michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org ________________________________ * An independent non-profit organization not associated with Princeton University. ________________________________ From: Joseph Pallant To: Guy Robertson Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:39:46 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Offset credits for renewable energy? Dear Dr. Robertson and network, Greetings. I'm assuming that you are referring to the fact that once a sector is capped, there can be no production of offsets due to actions in that sector, because any such reductions would be accounted for under the cap. I would have to say that many people are not aware of this reality, and thus make the statements about Renewable Energy offsets you are referring to. In reality, the tradable carbon benefit of renewable energy production in a capped system derives from the lowering of emissions at a capped entity to below their cap. In a situation where allowances are granted for free, rather than auctioned or purchased, any excess allowances derived from switching to wind from coal could be traded as a "carbon credit". In the case where allowances must be purchased, a regulated entity benefits from having to buy less. I have a feeling that the sentiments your describe are due the past reality of an uncapped USA and Canada where voluntary offsets could be derived from Renewable Energy projects, plus the rather inane view (in my humblest of opinions) that a tonne of Renewable Energy offset is somehow more valid and pure than a tonne offset in another way. This too shall pass. Great dialogue here on the network, team, keep it up. Sincerely, Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Guy Robertson wrote: Hello everybody, I keep on seeing references to carbon offset credits for renewable energy production (e.g. wind energy) that could then be sold as offsets to carbon emitters (e.g. coal-fired power plants). I'd think that these are simply mistakes, but their frequency leads me to ask whether there is any serious debate or consideration of this policy option. If so, is it merely a symptom of fuzzy thinking, or am I missing something here? Regards, _________________________________________________________ Guy Robertson PhD Sustainability Program Lead Forest Service Research Washington Office PH 703-605-1071; FX 703-605-5131 grobertson02 at fs.fed.us _________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. Vancouver, BC, Canada +1-778-994-5673 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090522/6688724d/attachment-0001.html From yoseph1assefa at yahoo.com Sat May 23 03:16:49 2009 From: yoseph1assefa at yahoo.com (Yoseph Assefa) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 00:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Biocarbon projects Message-ID: <297458.48945.qm@web51805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dear all, I join the GHG network very recently expecting to learn more from group. I am based in the most affected part of the globe (Sub Saharan Africa) from climate change (despite its controversy) with very limited capacity of on adaptation strategy. Africa is benefiting very small from the emerging market. Although the awareness is much better than two years ago (Due to the continuous support of UNDP), the number of Biocarbon projects are still very limited. As Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation is working very closely with rural communities, we have identified some potential areas for developing affforestation/reforestation projects and unique agro forestry practices with almost zero tillage. ?Currently we have two major challenges: Financing options to cover the underlining project coastMethodological loophole (challenges) for developing the projects I wonder if any one has a clue about approaching those issues. I appreciate any assistance to this end. ? Thanking you in advance ? Yoseph Assefa, Country representative, Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation www.etff.org *********************************************************************** "If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." Confucius; 551-479 BC *********************************************************************** Yoseph Assefa P.O.Box 10067 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Tel. 251-911611308 (MO) http://www.botanik.uni-halle.de/staff/71880_158548/ ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090523/48954081/attachment.html From hwhalan at envcc.com Tue May 26 09:03:37 2009 From: hwhalan at envcc.com (Whalan, Hugh) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:03:37 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects In-Reply-To: <297458.48945.qm@web51805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <297458.48945.qm@web51805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0EB95DB2DF698F42A6AEBEADDEE2D02702F5A0DD@MSE11BE2.mse11.exchange.ms> I am looking for some organizations in Africa that are implementing renewable energy/energy efficiency projects on a micro-scale (carbon stoves/pico hydro/small household solar projects etc). Can anyone point me in the direction of organizations you are working with, or organizations which have experience in this field? Thanks, Hugh From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Yoseph Assefa Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:17 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Biocarbon projects Dear all, I join the GHG network very recently expecting to learn more from group. I am based in the most affected part of the globe (Sub Saharan Africa) from climate change (despite its controversy) with very limited capacity of on adaptation strategy. Africa is benefiting very small from the emerging market. Although the awareness is much better than two years ago (Due to the continuous support of UNDP), the number of Biocarbon projects are still very limited. As Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation is working very closely with rural communities, we have identified some potential areas for developing affforestation/reforestation projects and unique agro forestry practices with almost zero tillage. Currently we have two major challenges: 1. Financing options to cover the underlining project coast 2. Methodological loophole (challenges) for developing the projects I wonder if any one has a clue about approaching those issues. I appreciate any assistance to this end. Thanking you in advance Yoseph Assefa, Country representative, Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation www.etff.org *********************************************************************** "If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." Confucius; 551-479 BC *********************************************************************** Yoseph Assefa P.O.Box 10067 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Tel. 251-911611308 (MO) http://www.botanik.uni-halle.de/staff/71880_158548/ ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090526/d2cce169/attachment.html From sguendehou at yahoo.com Tue May 26 14:17:20 2009 From: sguendehou at yahoo.com (Sabin Guendehou) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Biomass equations for tree species in Africa Message-ID: <358469.95934.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Dear Colleagues, I would really appreciate if you could provide me with the information you have on existing biomass regression equations for tree species in Africa and on any on-going projects in this field. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Sabin Guendehou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090526/234bc2b9/attachment.html From tonyknowles at gmail.com Tue May 26 16:12:14 2009 From: tonyknowles at gmail.com (Tony Knowles) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:12:14 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Biomass equations for tree species in Africa In-Reply-To: <358469.95934.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <358469.95934.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48ddf61a0905261312h33af7bb8rd6bc890b0a64ddc9@mail.gmail.com> Hi Sabin, The attachment, particularly Table 1 and 2 should help if you are focusing on southern African woodland and savanna species. Could I ask you to 'keep me in the loop' on additional replies that you may receive. I keen to establish a database of allometric equations for African tree species. Regards, Tony Knowles 2009/5/26 Sabin Guendehou : > Dear Colleagues, > > I would really appreciate if you could provide me with the information > you have on existing biomass regression equations for tree species in > Africa and on any on-going projects in this field. > > Thanks in advance for your cooperation. > > Sabin Guendehou > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- -------------------------------------------- Tony Knowles Department of Botany and Zoology University of Stellenbosch Stellenbosch, South Africa Tel: +27 (0)83 415 6239 Email: tonyknowles at gmail.com Skype: tonyknowlessa Post: Postnet Suite #188 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Scholes_allometry.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 231527 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090526/32ff6163/attachment-0001.pdf From rraymon825 at aol.com Tue May 26 18:22:23 2009 From: rraymon825 at aol.com (Dick Raymond) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Soybean Oil Carbon Footprint Message-ID: <20090526222223.66F2AC1807B@milkyway.forumone.com> I am attempting to determine the ultimate CO2 emissions from the production of soybean oil in the U.S. which includes the net emissions during the soybean plant growth, harvesting, crush process, and the refining process. Can anyone suggest any good references to help with this process. Thanks, Dick Raymond From Samantha.Hayes at leicon.com.au Tue May 26 19:11:25 2009 From: Samantha.Hayes at leicon.com.au (Hayes, Samantha) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:11:25 +1000 Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14A1502370265442BE7E1C1C35EC771307422E64@lc23excmb4.lc.local> Hi Phil, Here is a link to a good summary of emissions comparisons between internal combustion vehicles, hybrids and electric cars. It's quite a comprehensive overview of existing research - hopefully it helps. http://www.sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions.pdf Regards, Samantha Hayes -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of discuss-request at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 12:44 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Discuss Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 Send Discuss mailing list submissions to discuss at ghgnetwork.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to discuss-request at ghgnetwork.org You can reach the person managing the list at discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Electric car emissions (Jeffrey King) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0400 From: "Jeffrey King" Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions To: "Phil Jones" , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" See attached. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Phil Jones Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:45 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Electric car emissions Hi, The subject of electric cars is prominent in the press and often described as 'emissions free', which is of course dependent on the source of the electricity. Does anyone know of good sources which compare emissions from electric cars (various electricity sources) and liquid fuels? Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Blumsack_2008_PHEVs.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 207901 bytes Desc: Blumsack_2008_PHEVs.pdf Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090415/742b 4b60/attachment.obj ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe or edit subscription settings: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss End of Discuss Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 ************************************** ***************************************************************************** This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended for use by the addressee only. The confidential nature of the information contained in the email and/or file attachment is not waived, lost or destroyed if it is sent to other than the addressee. Use or dissemination of the information contained in the email and/or file attachment, by a recipient other than the addressee, may cause commercial damage to both/either the sender and/or addressee. If you are not the addressee of this email/file attachment contact the sender immediately and delete this email/file attachment. All email communications to and from this company are filtered and stored for risk management purposes in accordance with our Computer and Email Policies. Please contact our Privacy Manager on +612 8668 6947 if you would like further information about our Policies in regard to these issues. ***************************************************************************** From stephen.kenihan at iclei.org Tue May 26 23:47:25 2009 From: stephen.kenihan at iclei.org (Stephen Kenihan) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:47:25 +1000 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions factor for biodiesel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39503.192.168.0.1.1243396045.squirrel@mail.mel.iclei.org> Hi Sheila Australia has published emission factors for biodiesel in the NGA Factors workbook available at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/workbook/index.html The workbook references the NGER Technical Guidelines available at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reporting/guidelines/index.html best regards Stephen Kenihan On Fri, May 22, 2009 6:01 pm, Scott, Sheila wrote: > Can anyone point me in the direction of any work relating to a GHG > emissions factor for biodiesel being used as an alternative to fossil > fuel, equivalent to the 2.63 kg CO2/litre for fossil fuel diesel, please? > I've read a number of reports that mentioned that CO2 can be regarded as > carbon neutral, but although they generally say that NOx emissions > increase by up to 5-10%, they don't specify a figure just for N2O. Also > is there a significant quantity of CH4 released as a result of incomplete > combustion? > Thanks. > Sheila > > > Sheila Scott > Research Fellow/Project Officer > Caledonian Environment Centre > Glasgow Caledonian University > 5th Floor, Buchanan House > Cowcaddens Road > Glasgow G4 0BA > > T: +44 (0) 141 273 1431 > F: +44 (0) 141 273 1430 > E: sheila.scott at gcal.ac.uk > > The Centre has a dedicated team of professionals with a wide range of > experience in waste and resource management, sustainability, carbon > management, community engagement and training. > W: > www.caledonian.ac.uk/environment > > This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the > intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, > distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended > recipient organisation is prohibited and may > be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and e-mail > confirmation to the sender. > > > Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number > SC021474 > > Times Higher Education award winner 2008: outstanding international > student support > http://www.gcal.ac.uk/news/pressoffice/releases/241008.html > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Consultant Technical Adviser ICLEI Oceania Secretariat 4/267 Collins Street Melbourne 3000 Victoria Australia Phone +61 3 96602203 skype: skenihan From nisithad at brandix.com Wed May 27 01:00:57 2009 From: nisithad at brandix.com (Nisitha Dasanayake) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 01:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 reduction in grid electricity Message-ID: <20090527050057.C798CC18003@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi, Can somebody explain me how to determine the ghg emissions reduction from energy efficiency when the electricity is supplied from the grid. Further electricity is having both thermal and renewable sources. Are there is a methodology use by LEED green buildings to evaluate emissions reductions? Thanks Nisitha From jking at mwcog.org Wed May 27 13:45:16 2009 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeffrey King) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:16 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] FW: CO2 reduction in grid electricity Message-ID: You should look into the work of the NEEP M&V Forum. http://www.neep.org/about/SPWG_M&VStandards.html Also, see attached file developed for one of our projects to assess NOx and CO2 benefits for EERE projects in the midAtlantic US. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Nisitha Dasanayake Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:01 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 reduction in grid electricity Hi, Can somebody explain me how to determine the ghg emissions reduction from energy efficiency when the electricity is supplied from the grid. Further electricity is having both thermal and renewable sources. Are there is a methodology use by LEED green buildings to evaluate emissions reductions? Thanks Nisitha _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MWAQC NOx CO2 emissions_calculator v12beta.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 3608576 bytes Desc: MWAQC NOx CO2 emissions_calculator v12beta.xls Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090527/8973fdd6/attachment-0001.xls From Stanford.Mwakasonda at engenoil.com Thu May 28 04:07:46 2009 From: Stanford.Mwakasonda at engenoil.com (Stanford Mwakasonda) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:07:46 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects In-Reply-To: <0EB95DB2DF698F42A6AEBEADDEE2D02702F5A0DD@MSE11BE2.mse11.exchange.ms> Message-ID: <83CF2D4F5C83B04B96C4B20BD0958C4509F6EF93@ctex01.engenoil.net> Hi Hugh, Try to contact Steve Thorn, SSN South Africa; phone : +27 21 425 1465 (office) fax : +27 21 425 1463 email : steve at southsouthnorth.org Regards, Stanford Mwakasonda Cape Town, South Africa From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Whalan, Hugh Sent: 26 May 2009 03:04 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects I am looking for some organizations in Africa that are implementing renewable energy/energy efficiency projects on a micro-scale (carbon stoves/pico hydro/small household solar projects etc). Can anyone point me in the direction of organizations you are working with, or organizations which have experience in this field? Thanks, Hugh From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Yoseph Assefa Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:17 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Biocarbon projects Dear all, I join the GHG network very recently expecting to learn more from group. I am based in the most affected part of the globe (Sub Saharan Africa) from climate change (despite its controversy) with very limited capacity of on adaptation strategy. Africa is benefiting very small from the emerging market. Although the awareness is much better than two years ago (Due to the continuous support of UNDP), the number of Biocarbon projects are still very limited. As Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation is working very closely with rural communities, we have identified some potential areas for developing affforestation/reforestation projects and unique agro forestry practices with almost zero tillage. Currently we have two major challenges: 1. Financing options to cover the underlining project coast 2. Methodological loophole (challenges) for developing the projects I wonder if any one has a clue about approaching those issues. I appreciate any assistance to this end. Thanking you in advance Yoseph Assefa, Country representative, Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation www.etff.org *********************************************************************** "If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." Confucius; 551-479 BC *********************************************************************** Yoseph Assefa P.O.Box 10067 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Tel. 251-911611308 (MO) http://www.botanik.uni-halle.de/staff/71880_158548/ ******************************************************* ----------------------------------------- Engen Petroleum Limited, disclaims liability for any loss, damage or expense however caused, arising from the sending, receipt, or use of this e-mail and on any reliance placed upon the information provided through this service and does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the information. Please visit http://www.engen.co.za/home/server/common/disclaimer.asp to view the full disclaimer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090528/e163d55d/attachment.html From andres.romero at co.pwc.com Thu May 28 10:52:04 2009 From: andres.romero at co.pwc.com (andres.romero at co.pwc.com) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:52:04 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 reduction in grid electricity In-Reply-To: <20090527050057.C798CC18003@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: You could use as a starting / reference point the tool from the CDM UNFCCC site used in conjunction with some energy projects methodologies. http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-07-v1.1.pdf/history_view http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-07-v1.1.pdf It includes various approaches for the calculation of the emission factor for the displacement of grid connected electricity. It has its focus on identifiy the actual generation emissions from the grid and a range of assumptions to determine which amount of emissions from fossil fuels would be avoided. Some of the approaches requires hourly data from official sources, others are pretty straight, according to the amount and quality of data available. You should check all the conditions needed because the thermal source of your case could be excluded with this tool and this is only for CDM projects. Regards, Andres Nisitha Dasanayake Sent by: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org 27/05/2009 12:00 AM To discuss at ghgnetwork.org cc Subject [GHG Network] CO2 reduction in grid electricity Hi, Can somebody explain me how to determine the ghg emissions reduction from energy efficiency when the electricity is supplied from the grid. Further electricity is having both thermal and renewable sources. Are there is a methodology use by LEED green buildings to evaluate emissions reductions? Thanks Nisitha _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090528/8c320095/attachment.html From emmanuel.ackom at ubc.ca Thu May 28 14:52:42 2009 From: emmanuel.ackom at ubc.ca (Emmanuel Ackom) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:52:42 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects In-Reply-To: <83CF2D4F5C83B04B96C4B20BD0958C4509F6EF93@ctex01.engenoil.net> References: <0EB95DB2DF698F42A6AEBEADDEE2D02702F5A0DD@MSE11BE2.mse11.exchange.ms> <83CF2D4F5C83B04B96C4B20BD0958C4509F6EF93@ctex01.engenoil.net> Message-ID: <968D561CC52F844DA0D88EAB999A0AD5064479@exchange.forestry.ubc.ca> Hugh, You might also want to contact Stephen Karekezi, Energy, Environment and Development Network for Africa (AFREPREN/FWD), Email: stephenk at africaonline.co.ke Cheers, Emmanuel. Emmanuel Ackom, PhD Research Associate - University of British Columbia Task Coordinator - International Energy Agency Bioenergy Task 39 Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4, Canada Phone: +1(604)822 2434 Email: emmanuel.ackom at ubc.ca ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Stanford Mwakasonda Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:08 AM To: Whalan, Hugh; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects Hi Hugh, Try to contact Steve Thorn, SSN South Africa; phone : +27 21 425 1465 (office) fax : +27 21 425 1463 email : steve at southsouthnorth.org Regards, Stanford Mwakasonda Cape Town, South Africa From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Whalan, Hugh Sent: 26 May 2009 03:04 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects I am looking for some organizations in Africa that are implementing renewable energy/energy efficiency projects on a micro-scale (carbon stoves/pico hydro/small household solar projects etc). Can anyone point me in the direction of organizations you are working with, or organizations which have experience in this field? Thanks, Hugh From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Yoseph Assefa Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:17 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Biocarbon projects Dear all, I join the GHG network very recently expecting to learn more from group. I am based in the most affected part of the globe (Sub Saharan Africa) from climate change (despite its controversy) with very limited capacity of on adaptation strategy. Africa is benefiting very small from the emerging market. Although the awareness is much better than two years ago (Due to the continuous support of UNDP), the number of Biocarbon projects are still very limited. As Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation is working very closely with rural communities, we have identified some potential areas for developing affforestation/reforestation projects and unique agro forestry practices with almost zero tillage. Currently we have two major challenges: 1. Financing options to cover the underlining project coast 2. Methodological loophole (challenges) for developing the projects I wonder if any one has a clue about approaching those issues. I appreciate any assistance to this end. Thanking you in advance Yoseph Assefa, Country representative, Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation www.etff.org *********************************************************************** "If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." Confucius; 551-479 BC *********************************************************************** Yoseph Assefa P.O.Box 10067 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Tel. 251-911611308 (MO) http://www.botanik.uni-halle.de/staff/71880_158548/ ******************************************************* ________________________________ Engen Petroleum Limited, disclaims liability for any loss, damage or expense however caused, arising from the sending, receipt, or use of this e-mail and on any reliance placed upon the information provided through this service and does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the information. Please visit http://www.engen.co.za/home/server/common/disclaimer.asp to view the full disclaimer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090528/d0f43cfe/attachment.html From dschatsky at rcn.com Thu May 28 15:44:53 2009 From: dschatsky at rcn.com (David Schatsky) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:44:53 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory Message-ID: <1B7D7A440F2544B0B3B58E83E42978A2@DAVIDIBM> I am looking for data or a framework that companies can use to estimate the costs associated with performing a GHG inventory. As you know, the costs may vary widely, but they are correlated with factors such as size of the company, the complexity of operations, whether the company already has a data management system, and some other factors. I imagine the components of cost vary to some degree as well, ranging from allocating internal manpower to developing and deploying new information systems or other monitoring infrastructure to fees paid to external consultants. A GHG inventory cost estimator would enable companies to budget and plan appropriately for conducting one and benchmark their own spending against industry norms. If nothing like this exists, I believe there is an opportunity in creating one, one in which I would be interested. Any tips, leads, or data points are welcome. Thanks. David Schatsky e: dschatsky at rcn.com o: 202-470-6777 m: 917-385-0600 Twitter | http://twitter.com/dschatsky Energy & Clean Tech Blog | http://greenresearch.wordpress.com/ General Observations Blog | http://schatsky.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090528/340f9e80/attachment.html From andres.romero at co.pwc.com Thu May 28 19:22:58 2009 From: andres.romero at co.pwc.com (andres.romero at co.pwc.com) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:22:58 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions from reservoirs Message-ID: Hello again Concerning organizational GHG inventory we are considering the use of the Appendix 2 Possible Approach for Estimating CO2 Emissions from Lands Converted to Permanently Flooded Land: Basis for Future Methodological Development, and the Appendix 3 CH4 Emissions from Flooded Land: Basis for Future Methodological Development, which are included in 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4 (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use) in the absence (better said than a scarce knowledge condition) of more adequate guidelines. We've red that International Hydropower Association is working in the development of new approaches for the estimation of reservoirs GHG emissions, meanwhile, we want to share some concerns about how to estimate the emissions from reservoirs used for electricity generation within an organizational GHG inventory and how to include / report them knowing the high uncertainty of values. If reservoirs were constructed more than ten years ago and their water levels have remained within their operation levels so, are they not supposed to emit CO2 or CH4 currently? therefore, are they not supposed to emit that GHGs anymore within the organization boundary? What about GHG emissions when large changes in water levels during long periods of time in the level of the reservoir are produced? Are large changes necessary in water levels during long periods of time in the reservoir to consider new GHG emissions ten years after the initial flooding? i. e. if the water level decreased enough and stayed long enough in that state, is it possible vegetation grows so that with a new water level rise new GHG emissions must be taken into account? In the other hand with reservoirs that are in construction stages, how to account the rate of flooding of the reservoir during the first ten years, in order to estimate GHG emissions? Thanks in advance for your value comments and directions. Your experience is very appreciated. Andres _________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090528/369d76d3/attachment-0001.html From keith.j.forbes at saic.com Fri May 29 18:20:14 2009 From: keith.j.forbes at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:20:14 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory In-Reply-To: <1B7D7A440F2544B0B3B58E83E42978A2@DAVIDIBM> References: <1B7D7A440F2544B0B3B58E83E42978A2@DAVIDIBM> Message-ID: <4a205fa3.47c1f10a.06df.ffff8d3f@mx.google.com> I think this would be very hard to do given the substantial differences in quality and experience between the established firms on the market and the "fly-by-nighters." Keith On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:44:53 -0400 "David Schatsky" wrote: > I am looking for data or a framework that companies can use to > estimate the costs associated with performing a GHG inventory. As you > know, the costs may vary widely, but they are correlated with factors > such as size of the company, the complexity of operations, whether > the company already has a data management system, and some other > factors. I imagine the components of cost vary to some degree as > well, ranging from allocating internal manpower to developing and > deploying new information systems or other monitoring infrastructure > to fees paid to external consultants. > > > > A GHG inventory cost estimator would enable companies to budget and > plan appropriately for conducting one and benchmark their own > spending against industry norms. If nothing like this exists, I > believe there is an opportunity in creating one, one in which I would > be interested. > > > > Any tips, leads, or data points are welcome. Thanks. > > > > David Schatsky > > e: dschatsky at rcn.com > > o: 202-470-6777 > > m: 917-385-0600 > > > > Twitter | http://twitter.com/dschatsky > > Energy & Clean Tech Blog | > http://greenresearch.wordpress.com/ > > General Observations Blog | > http://schatsky.wordpress.com/ > > > -- Keith J. Forbes SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com ** please print only if necessary ** From Bruce_Klafter at amat.com Fri May 29 22:32:28 2009 From: Bruce_Klafter at amat.com (Bruce_Klafter at amat.com) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:32:28 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory Message-ID: The real and substantial cost of a corporate inventory is the internal time and effort in gathering the raw data, e.g. energy consumed at dozens of facilities in different locales (with different utilities and different billing cycles). If the company has some unusual combustion sources or utilizes PFCs or other GWGs, that adds complexity to the calculations. Most companies are still doing a lot of this manually and software is just beginning to get some traction; in fact, there are already too many products out there. I have not heard of any estimators regarding the process itself. Bruce S. Klafter - sent via Blackberry The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential.? If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith J. Forbes" [keith.j.forbes at saic.com] Sent: 05/29/2009 06:20 PM AST To: "David Schatsky" Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory I think this would be very hard to do given the substantial differences in quality and experience between the established firms on the market and the "fly-by-nighters." Keith On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:44:53 -0400 "David Schatsky" wrote: > I am looking for data or a framework that companies can use to > estimate the costs associated with performing a GHG inventory. As you > know, the costs may vary widely, but they are correlated with factors > such as size of the company, the complexity of operations, whether > the company already has a data management system, and some other > factors. I imagine the components of cost vary to some degree as > well, ranging from allocating internal manpower to developing and > deploying new information systems or other monitoring infrastructure > to fees paid to external consultants. > > > > A GHG inventory cost estimator would enable companies to budget and > plan appropriately for conducting one and benchmark their own > spending against industry norms. If nothing like this exists, I > believe there is an opportunity in creating one, one in which I would > be interested. > > > > Any tips, leads, or data points are welcome. Thanks. > > > > David Schatsky > > e: dschatsky at rcn.com > > o: 202-470-6777 > > m: 917-385-0600 > > > > Twitter | http://twitter.com/dschatsky > > Energy & Clean Tech Blog | > http://greenresearch.wordpress.com/ > > General Observations Blog | > http://schatsky.wordpress.com/ > > > -- Keith J. Forbes SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com ** please print only if necessary ** _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From mgell at xanfeon.co.uk Sat May 30 06:48:02 2009 From: mgell at xanfeon.co.uk (=?utf-8?q?=22Michael=20Gell=22?=) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:48:02 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] =?utf-8?q?cost_to_perform_a_corporate_GHG_inventory?= Message-ID: The way this is often approached is by coming at it the other way and estimating the corporate costs that can be avoided through implementation to low carbon alignment. For example (but does depend on specifics), a typical modern corporation ought to be targeting a 30% removal of energy costs, 70% reduction in packaging, 60% reduction in travel, etc and these go straight to the credit terms on the tracked GHG accounts. The timeline will depend on the strategic aspirations of the corporation but the Board ought really to be thinking in terms of months. Once the historically-embedded bad-habit waste layers have been tackled the strategic issue the Board will be engaged with then turns to the huge cost & climate liability reductions available through transformation from a modern corporation to an eco-corporation. Given the step change being approached, the cost that the Board may be considering in terms of not acting could be of the order of the value of corporation. Costs of performing the GHG inventory need to be set in context of what is at stake. Market leaders are not only doing their own GHG accounts but also estimating competitor GHG dynamics as this informs competitive strategy, particularly for product lines at risk (and on which the corporation may have relied on for primary revenue generation). Michael on 30/5/09 2:18 AM, keith.j.forbes at saic.com wrote: > I think this would be very hard to do given the substantial > differences in quality and experience between the established firms on > the market and the "fly-by-nighters." > > Keith > > On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:44:53 -0400 > "David Schatsky" wrote: > >> I am looking for data or a framework that companies can use to >> estimate the costs associated with performing a GHG inventory. As you >> know, the costs may vary widely, but they are correlated with factors >> such as size of the company, the complexity of operations, whether >> the company already has a data management system, and some other >> factors. I imagine the components of cost vary to some degree as >> well, ranging from allocating internal manpower to developing and >> deploying new information systems or other monitoring infrastructure >> to fees paid to external consultants. >> >> >> >> A GHG inventory cost estimator would enable companies to budget and >> plan appropriately for conducting one and benchmark their own >> spending against industry norms. If nothing like this exists, I >> believe there is an opportunity in creating one, one in which I would >> be interested. >> >> >> >> Any tips, leads, or data points are welcome. Thanks. >> >> >> >> David Schatsky >> >> e: dschatsky at rcn.com >> >> o: 202-470-6777 >> >> m: 917-385-0600 >> >> >> >> Twitter | http://twitter.com/dschatsky >> >> Energy & Clean Tech Blog | >> http://greenresearch.wordpress.com/ >> >> General Observations Blog | >> http://schatsky.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > > -- > Keith J. Forbes > SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com > > ** please print only if necessary ** > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > From mgell at xanfeon.co.uk Sun May 31 09:21:06 2009 From: mgell at xanfeon.co.uk (=?utf-8?q?=22Michael=20Gell=22?=) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:21:06 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] =?utf-8?q?cost_to_perform_a_corporate_GHG_inventory?= Message-ID: Responding jointly to Keith's and David's questions: If one takes a typical modern corporation there may in the global supply chain be of the order of 100k suppliers. A small percentage of these will be critical to corporation continuity, especially deep in the supply chain, for example, in the areas of speciality chemicals, for which there may be minimal plant redundancy on a global scale. Thus, take out of super critical nodes may lead to take out of the corporation. At the other end of the criticality spectrum there may be a huge tranche of suppliers which offer non-business-critical products (goods and services) which the corporate could readily consolidate. The question that the market-aware corporation is addressing is: given the dramatic changes playing out on global markets (ie the global phase transition that is being approached), which of the 100k suppliers will make it through the first step change and what will the impact be on the ability of the corporation to deliver continuity, whether partial or full? Without inferring any implications, let's assume 30% take out rate across the supply base. The question then becomes: if 70K suppliers remain relatively intact through the first step change, what's the impact on the corporation, its product set and go-to-market channels? A secondary question becomes: what is the probability of take out for a given supplier and which of the super critical suppliers are likely to be affected? That's a question of risk assessment and the market aware corporation will be using GHG questionnaires through its key suppliers as a means of gaining information about risk. A supplier which has inventorised its emissions will be at a higher level of readiness, will have stripped out or have executable plans for stripping out unnecessary costs (eg relating to unnecessary energy spend, unnecessary packaging, etc) and will thereby have inherently improved its ability to weather the new period of market turbulence (ie system-wide global market fluctuations leading into the phase transition). For the corporation, the ability to categorise key suppliers on GHG inventories provides immediate categorisation on risk, and the corporation's lines of business will be providing the Board with the relevant risk metrics across the corporate product portfolio. For those products at risk the Board will be instructing corporate teams to deliver remedial action on the supply base. Thus, a great deal of Scope 3 data are already being accrued through the corporation itself. It is implicit that the market aware corporation will be on top of its scope 1 and 2 inventories. Although the order parameter for the phase transition goes to financials and debt flooding, supplementary signalling mechanisms for market reconstruction are being constructed critically through the GHG channels. It is through such channels that corporations are devising and delineating their new modes of being. That is why the market aware corporation has integrated its carbon room into the corporate strategy unit and is ensuring the Board is fully informed on status so that corporate reconstruction can be executed. Iit is instructive to read corporate news releases for examples. Michael on 31/5/09 12:43 PM, David Schatsky wrote: > Michael, this is an interesting way of framing the discussion. I am > especially interested in your comment that companies are "estimating > competitor GHG dynamics." Can you share any examples of this? Thanks. > > - David Schatsky > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Michael Gell" [mailto:mgell at xanfeon.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:48 AM > To: keith.j.forbes at saic.com; dschatsky at rcn.com > Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory > > The way this is often approached is by coming at it the other way and > estimating > the corporate costs that can be avoided through implementation to low carbon > alignment. For example (but does depend on specifics), a typical modern > corporation ought to be targeting a 30% removal of energy costs, 70% > reduction > in packaging, 60% reduction in travel, etc and these go straight to the > credit > terms on the tracked GHG accounts. The timeline will depend on the > strategic > aspirations of the corporation but the Board ought really to be thinking in > terms of months. Once the historically-embedded bad-habit waste layers have > been tackled the strategic issue the Board will be engaged with then turns > to > the huge cost & climate liability reductions available through > transformation > from a modern corporation to an eco-corporation. Given the step change > being > approached, the cost that the Board may be considering in terms of not > acting > could be of the order of the value of corporation. Costs of performing the > GHG > inventory need to be set in context of what is at stake. Market leaders are > not > only doing their own GHG accounts but also estimating competitor GHG > dynamics as > this informs competitive strategy, particularly for product lines at risk > (and > on which the corporation may have relied on for primary revenue generation). > > Michael > > on 30/5/09 2:18 AM, keith.j.forbes at saic.com wrote: > >> I think this would be very hard to do given the substantial >> differences in quality and experience between the established firms on >> the market and the "fly-by-nighters." >> >> Keith >> >> On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:44:53 -0400 >> "David Schatsky" wrote: >> >>> I am looking for data or a framework that companies can use to >>> estimate the costs associated with performing a GHG inventory. As you >>> know, the costs may vary widely, but they are correlated with factors >>> such as size of the company, the complexity of operations, whether >>> the company already has a data management system, and some other >>> factors. I imagine the components of cost vary to some degree as >>> well, ranging from allocating internal manpower to developing and >>> deploying new information systems or other monitoring infrastructure >>> to fees paid to external consultants. >>> >>> >>> >>> A GHG inventory cost estimator would enable companies to budget and >>> plan appropriately for conducting one and benchmark their own >>> spending against industry norms. If nothing like this exists, I >>> believe there is an opportunity in creating one, one in which I would >>> be interested. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any tips, leads, or data points are welcome. Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> David Schatsky >>> >>> e: dschatsky at rcn.com >>> >>> o: 202-470-6777 >>> >>> m: 917-385-0600 >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter | http://twitter.com/dschatsky >>> >>> Energy & Clean Tech Blog | >>> http://greenresearch.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> General Observations Blog | >>> http://schatsky.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Keith J. Forbes >> SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com >> >> ** please print only if necessary ** >> _______________________________________________ >> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >> www.ghgnetwork.org >> >> To post message: >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >> >> To unsubscribe: >> http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> > > > > From joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com Sat May 30 14:20:08 2009 From: joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com (Joseph Pallant) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:20:08 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Group, I think it makes sense to approach this question using selection of standard as an important metric to frame the conversation. The choice of a "The Climate Registry" reporting standard such as the World Resources Institute (WRI)/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) "Greenhouse Gas Protocol" or ISO 14064-1 give one the tools to do a standardized assessment of entity emissions. There is the significant upside for entities choosing one of these two standards, as they can use their footprint reports if they wish to voluntarily join The Climate Registry, or as a launching point if they are compelled to report by incoming legislation. I believe that by undertaking a footprint analysis to an internationally recognized standard, one is more able to objectively assess the work of the team that puts together the footprint analysis. In the context of a GHG expert's forum, the question then becomes one of skill, expertise, and auditable success, rather than "established firm" vs. "fly by night". Many of the people that could be considered by one a "fly by night" have created this whole field over the last 5, 10, 20 years and can structure and perform a footprint analysis much better than whoever has been assigned the climate file at an "established firm". Humblest regards, Joseph -- Joseph Pallant, B.Sc., MBA President and CEO CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. #3-2315 W. 8th Ave. Vancouver, BC, Canada V6K 2A8 +1-778-994-5673 joseph at carbonprojectsolutions.com carbonprojectsolutions.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090530/f9334cdd/attachment.html From dschatsky at rcn.com Sun May 31 07:40:50 2009 From: dschatsky at rcn.com (David Schatsky) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 07:40:50 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23B88EE0A2B74EA7821F86CF6CAA005F@DAVIDIBM> Michael, this is an interesting way of framing the discussion. I am especially interested in your comment that companies are "estimating competitor GHG dynamics." Can you share any examples of this? Thanks. - David Schatsky -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Gell" [mailto:mgell at xanfeon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:48 AM To: keith.j.forbes at saic.com; dschatsky at rcn.com Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] cost to perform a corporate GHG inventory The way this is often approached is by coming at it the other way and estimating the corporate costs that can be avoided through implementation to low carbon alignment. For example (but does depend on specifics), a typical modern corporation ought to be targeting a 30% removal of energy costs, 70% reduction in packaging, 60% reduction in travel, etc and these go straight to the credit terms on the tracked GHG accounts. The timeline will depend on the strategic aspirations of the corporation but the Board ought really to be thinking in terms of months. Once the historically-embedded bad-habit waste layers have been tackled the strategic issue the Board will be engaged with then turns to the huge cost & climate liability reductions available through transformation from a modern corporation to an eco-corporation. Given the step change being approached, the cost that the Board may be considering in terms of not acting could be of the order of the value of corporation. Costs of performing the GHG inventory need to be set in context of what is at stake. Market leaders are not only doing their own GHG accounts but also estimating competitor GHG dynamics as this informs competitive strategy, particularly for product lines at risk (and on which the corporation may have relied on for primary revenue generation). Michael on 30/5/09 2:18 AM, keith.j.forbes at saic.com wrote: > I think this would be very hard to do given the substantial > differences in quality and experience between the established firms on > the market and the "fly-by-nighters." > > Keith > > On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:44:53 -0400 > "David Schatsky" wrote: > >> I am looking for data or a framework that companies can use to >> estimate the costs associated with performing a GHG inventory. As you >> know, the costs may vary widely, but they are correlated with factors >> such as size of the company, the complexity of operations, whether >> the company already has a data management system, and some other >> factors. I imagine the components of cost vary to some degree as >> well, ranging from allocating internal manpower to developing and >> deploying new information systems or other monitoring infrastructure >> to fees paid to external consultants. >> >> >> >> A GHG inventory cost estimator would enable companies to budget and >> plan appropriately for conducting one and benchmark their own >> spending against industry norms. If nothing like this exists, I >> believe there is an opportunity in creating one, one in which I would >> be interested. >> >> >> >> Any tips, leads, or data points are welcome. Thanks. >> >> >> >> David Schatsky >> >> e: dschatsky at rcn.com >> >> o: 202-470-6777 >> >> m: 917-385-0600 >> >> >> >> Twitter | http://twitter.com/dschatsky >> >> Energy & Clean Tech Blog | >> http://greenresearch.wordpress.com/ >> >> General Observations Blog | >> http://schatsky.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > > -- > Keith J. Forbes > SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com > > ** please print only if necessary ** > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > From fasen at menara.ma Sun May 31 17:24:02 2009 From: fasen at menara.ma (faouzi senhaji) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 23:24:02 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects In-Reply-To: <0EB95DB2DF698F42A6AEBEADDEE2D02702F5A0DD@MSE11BE2.mse11.exchange.ms> References: <297458.48945.qm@web51805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0EB95DB2DF698F42A6AEBEADDEE2D02702F5A0DD@MSE11BE2.mse11.exchange.ms> Message-ID: Hi Hugh You may contact Aymar BOURGY who is implementing a EE project (GERERE / GERES) in the north of Morocco : mned_nord_maroc at yahoo.fr best regards, faouzi _____ De : discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] De la part de Whalan, Hugh Envoy? : mardi 26 mai 2009 15:04 ? : discuss at ghgnetwork.org Objet : [GHG Network] renewable energy/energy efficiency GHG projects I am looking for some organizations in Africa that are implementing renewable energy/energy efficiency projects on a micro-scale (carbon stoves/pico hydro/small household solar projects etc). Can anyone point me in the direction of organizations you are working with, or organizations which have experience in this field? Thanks, Hugh From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Yoseph Assefa Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:17 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Biocarbon projects Dear all, I join the GHG network very recently expecting to learn more from group. I am based in the most affected part of the globe (Sub Saharan Africa) from climate change (despite its controversy) with very limited capacity of on adaptation strategy. Africa is benefiting very small from the emerging market. Although the awareness is much better than two years ago (Due to the continuous support of UNDP), the number of Biocarbon projects are still very limited. As Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation is working very closely with rural communities, we have identified some potential areas for developing affforestation/reforestation projects and unique agro forestry practices with almost zero tillage. Currently we have two major challenges: 1. Financing options to cover the underlining project coast 2. Methodological loophole (challenges) for developing the projects I wonder if any one has a clue about approaching those issues. I appreciate any assistance to this end. Thanking you in advance Yoseph Assefa, Country representative, Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation www.etff.org *********************************************************************** "If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." Confucius; 551-479 BC *********************************************************************** Yoseph Assefa P.O.Box 10067 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Tel. 251-911611308 (MO) http://www.botanik.uni-halle.de/staff/71880_158548/ ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090531/cb2cba4f/attachment.html