. . . the Nebraska Carbon Sequestration Advisory CommitteeThank you for visiting the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, USA. Frequently Asked QuestionsHow much carbon do we each produce?How much is being emitted (most comes from fossil fuels)? Also, see...Emissions of carbon dioxide per capita are generally the largest in the U.S. This does not mean, however, that our technologies are not efficient in the release of carbon, although there is always room for improvement. This picture of emissions around the world is from the New York Times, July 16, 2001:
What is driving the move to storage of carbon in forest, crop and agricultural land?In effect, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 is still fundamentally driving changes in how we think about greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. With the recent agreement forged in Bonn, Germany in July, 2001 it is now a much higher probability that carbon emissions trading will emerge, and that storage for carbon could indeed become a marketable commodity. We may now see a market in carbon stored in the soil and plants, a "carbon sequestration credits" market, or the "carbon offsets" market. In all cases, we perhaps can think of such mechanisms as involving "cap and trade," that is, working together to place a cap on carbon emissions will give the basis for a market, actually several different kinds of carbon markets. Also, if markets do not emerge, perhaps government payments would become available based on the mechanism of "baseline and emissions credits," i.e., wherein payments might be made for reducing emissions below some baseline and for increasing the amount of carbon stored. We might also see some mixture of government payments and carbon marketing. Why be concerned with defining how much carbon can be sequestered and stored in land?Defining storage is necessary to both the emerging carbon offsets market and (perhaps, eventually) the carbon dioxide emissions market. One of the main reasons the July, 2001 agreement became possible was the European Union's agreement to give credit to Japan for carbon stored in forests due to management practices since 1990, so storage is clearly a substantive issue. Any kind of human induced changes in cropland, forest and grazing land since 1990 will be counted in part toward meeting emissions reductions (see the Details, requires Acrobat Reader). Will the United States participate in the emerging emissions and storage (sequestered carbon) markets?Significant uncertainty surrounds the matter of how the carbon problem will be resolved in the U.S. The U.S. Congress, for example, probably will not ratify the Protocol, with remaining concerns over the Protocol not requiring emissions limits in developing countries. Also, the Administration has not, and still does not favor the Protocol. In an Associated Press Release on March 13-14, 2001, President Bush noted: "I do not believe.... that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." Again, in July (see New York Times, July 23, 24), the Bush Administration reiterated its concerns that the Protocol will not solve the problem, that it is fatally flawed: It is "not sound policy" (Dobrianski, under secretary of state for global affairs, quoted in the NYT, July 24, 2001). The U.S. was also on the sidelines during the agreement to the Accord in July, 2001. Intriguingly, sulfur emissions limits and a sulfur dioxide emissions trading market emerged under the previous Bush Administration, as reflected in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act. This has proven to be a unique and fascinating policy public policy experiment in how to legitimize both a government and a market role in enhancing the environment, with government setting the "cap" and the market handling the "trade," in productive partnership. Is global warming through the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide really an issue?(see regularly updated materials with this message at this site), i.e., global warming from carbon dioxide is not a problem. Most scientists, however, interpret the evidence quite differently, and, while carbon dioxide may or may not (see NASA report) be the fundamental climate forcing gas, green house gases, together, appear to be helping raise global temperatures.
Last update: October, 2001 |
