carbon markets and biochar: an offset buyers perspective north american biochar conference
DESCRIPTION
Carbon Markets and Biochar: An Offset Buyers Perspective North American Biochar Conference August 10th, 2009. Peter Weisberg Offset Project Analyst [email protected] 503-238-1915. Outline. Theory of offsets How offsets could support biochar projects - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Carbon Markets and Biochar: An Offset Buyers Perspective
North American Biochar ConferenceAugust 10th, 2009
Peter WeisbergOffset Project Analyst
Outline
• Theory of offsets• How offsets could support biochar projects• Current funding from The Climate Trust
Source: The McKinsey Quarterly. 2007. “A cost curve for greenhouse gas reductions.”
Sequestration and Carbon Markets
• Very little sequestration thus far:– No soils– Only reforestation/afforestation with temporary
credits
HFCs, PFCs & N2O reduction27%
Renewables35%
CH4 reduction & Cement & Coal mine/bed
20%
Supply-side EE10%
Fuel switch6%
Demand-side EE1%
Afforestation & Reforestation0.4%
Transport0.2%
Expected CERs Until 2012 (%) in each category
US Offset Market• Trends
–Fossil fuels will likely be capped–Favor domestic projects over international projects
• Destroying methane emissions– Dairy digesters– Landfill gas capture– Wastewater treatment plants– Coal mine methane
• Sequestration– Forestry
• Afforestation/Reforestation• Improved Forest Management• Avoided Conversion/Deforestation
– Soil Management– Biochar?
Outline
• Theory of offsets• How offsets could support biochar projects• Current funding from The Climate Trust
$ = CO2 Sequestered x Price• Low Quality US Projects
• Chicago Climate Exchange: $2-$4• High Quality US Projects
• Voluntary Carbon Standard: $4-$9 • California Climate Action Registry: $5-$11
• Mature International Markets• EU Emissions Trading Scheme: $10-$40
• Projections for Early US Market• Markey-Waxman Bill : $10-$15
GHG Reduction Reduction Size Qualify for Carbon Finance?
Sequestration Large Yes
Fuel switch Medium Likely to be capped
Less fertilizer fewer soil emissions(N2O and CH4)
Medium/Large Hard to measure
Less fertilizer less fertilizer production
Small/Medium Indirect, hard to measure, likely to be capped
Currently Available Methodologies
Avoidance of methane production from biomass decay through controlled pyrolysis
• Small scale• No credit for carbon sequestration• Char must be “biologically inert”
• Volatile C/Fixed C ratio lower than 50%
Next Step: Sequestered Carbon
Carbon Gold methodology for proposed to the Voluntary Carbon Standard
Unresolved Methodology Issues
• Recalcitrance• Guarantee 100 years of permanent sequestration
• Carbon Gold: Volatile C/Fixed C ratio lower than 50%
• Erosion• What happens to char that erodes out of the soils?
Unresolved Methodology Issues
• Ownership – Three entities with valid ownership claims• Feedstock owner • Pyrolysis plant• Soil owner/Farmer using char
• Can only be claimed once
Unresolved Methodology Issues
• No environmental harm– Heavy metals– Criteria air pollutants– Microbe health
Unresolved Methodology Issues
• Environmental impact– Heavy metals– Criteria air pollutants– Microbe health– Carbon already in soil
Resolved Issue: Waste Feedstocks
• Leakage– Changes in emissions outside the project
itself• Direct: Biomass fuel unavailable• Indirect: displace current farm land for biochar
feedstock plantations land use change• Carbon Gold: “biomass that would otherwise
have been left to decay or been burned in an uncontrolled manner”
Outline
• Theory of offsets• How offsets could support biochar projects• Current funding from The Climate Trust
• 3 Programs• Oregon Program• Smart Energy• Colorado Carbon Fund
• 16 projects, $8.8 million in funding, 2.6 million tons of CO2 offset
• Non-profit- Laboratory for innovative offset projects
Project Development Timeline
Proposal Due Diligence
Contract Negotiation Commercial
Operation
Annual Monitoring
Upfront Payment
Annual payment“upon delivery”
Peter WeisbergOffset Project [email protected] x 207