Is Solar really worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Soil carbon sequestration (which is what you probably get mainly from the grass) is not going to be counted at all, mainly because it is too poorly understood to estimate with any accuracy. This means that although many farming practices (e.g. zero till) would greatly increase this, there is no incentive for farmers to use these practices. Of course, those of us who have large areas of trees we are not allowed to use or clear are providing major carbon sinks with no credit for it at all, so what's new?

John

---

The CPRS put agriculture in the too hard basket - even though there are plenty of groups including some of my colleagues, and collaborators at the WA Ag department obtaining accurate data for various cropping systems, etc...

"Large areas of trees" however do not sequester much carbon if they are old growth. Rainforests emit as much as they sequester. "Managed" forests sequester the most (not that I am advocating logging in old growth forests).

hmm...

seems we should start up an AULRO environmental/CDM/carbon trading consultancy team :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EchiDna

hmm...

seems we should start up an AULRO environmental/CDM/carbon trading consultancy team :)

---

Sounds like it ;)

Funnily enough, when I looked at your post I saw this ad in the ad bar:

Quote:

---

Trade Carbon in Australia
The 1st Emissions Trading Exchange in Australia. Trade now on the ACX!
ACX - Australian Climate Exchange

---

A mate of mine and former colleague works for them.

I got this one:

Google Carbon Calculator Calculate Your Carbon Footprint & Put Yourself On The Map
Google.co.uk/CarbonFootprint

I hate cookies sometimes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

The CPRS put agriculture in the too hard basket - even though there are plenty of groups including some of my colleagues, and collaborators at the WA Ag department obtaining accurate data for various cropping systems, etc...

"Large areas of trees" however do not sequester much carbon if they are old growth. Rainforests emit as much as they sequester. "Managed" forests sequester the most (not that I am advocating logging in old growth forests).

---

What I live next to is not old growth - it has grown up in the last hundred years, although most has grown in the last fifty. Last year a large proportion of the carbon held was reconverted to carbon dioxide, leaving, in some areas, bare ground which was actually red where it got hot enough to even burn the top layer of topsoil, although a lot of it had a thin veneer of carbon and a few standing trunks. Having seen this, I have to wonder how permanent most of the forest sequestration is over much of Australia - sooner or later there is a hot fire that converts most of it back to CO2

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

What I live next to is not old growth - it has grown up in the last hundred years, although most has grown in the last fifty. Last year a large proportion of the carbon held was reconverted to carbon dioxide, leaving, in some areas, bare ground which was actually red where it got hot enough to even burn the top layer of topsoil, although a lot of it had a thin veneer of carbon and a few standing trunks. Having seen this, I have to wonder how permanent most of the forest sequestration is over much of Australia - sooner or later there is a hot fire that converts most of it back to CO2

John

---

Yep John, well said :D

I have argued that from a bush fire point of veiw to supporting percieved non green groups such as selective logging, the cattleman Farming and the golf industry.

We're used to being the last ones to be consulted about all of this even though the so called "Green Belt" is what all these groups manage on a daily basis and know how to achieve what they are asking but they are still asking the wrong questions and the wrong people to get the answers that will really help us from my point of veiw.

ah but fires are typically an 'act of God' not of man... so it would be just like owning a sinking boat - your investment in the sequestered carbon becomes valueless. You could argue that it is a write-off to the insurance company then ask for the right to recover the "goods" by growing new trees, and hence increasing the value again with newly sequestered carbon to trade, this could then be harvested every 30 years or so and the proceeds used as income.... replant... continue the cycle....

The reason grass is excluded is that it is almost 100% mature, and so ALL extra carbon used in further growth is removed by cutting.

What happens to your grass cuttings?

Further, fertiliser produces greenhouse emissions while encouraging extra growth in order for you to cut the grass more often.

Hardly a greenhouse-sustainable industry. :eek:

Hi JD,
Yes, burning of trees does release greenhouse gasses, which should be taken account of in the "burn" maps (or whatever they're called).

This is also a reason why the "end use" of "forests" is important. The carbon needs to remain 'locked up' for their positive greenhouse effect to be there over time.



B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushwanderer

The reason grass is excluded is that it is almost 100% mature, and so ALL extra carbon used in further growth is removed by cutting.

What happens to your grass cuttings?

Further, fertiliser produces greenhouse emissions while encouraging extra growth in order for you to cut the grass more often.

Hardly a greenhouse-sustainable industry. :eek:

---

Depends on the grass - perennial grasses have most of their growth below ground, with root systems up to two metres or more deep in the right soil. Most of that carbon eventually becomes part of the soil carbon, from which it is removed only very slowly, if at all, in a reasonable length of time.

John