I do see how the term carbon sink would work in regard to forests.. My
knowledge of a carbon sink is something that removes or converts carbon into
an form that is not readily available to the atmosphere for long periods of
time i.e. ocean sediment etc. The idea of using a forests as a carbon sink
is incorrect as the trees will always return the majority of carbon they
absorbed to the atmosphere especially at today's rates of deforestation.
Unless you are going to cut down the trees and store them somewhere where
they will not decay, the idea of using a forest as carbon sink would not
work. It would just be a stop gap measure, is it not. I am sure their are a
lot better ways of spending money than on something that would have a
minimal/temporary effect. Admittedly by increasing the areas of Forrest
their would be a net store of CO2 in the forest's but the quantity of CO2 in
the atmosphere would require great amounts of new forest's to be planted
probably covering very large area's and at the world present expansion
rate/need for agricultural land it not be possible to remove so much land
from circulation. Even if the trees are GM it still leave the above issues
as valid as well as the uncertainty about GM effects still exists. As for
ethics, you are probably asking, I leave it up to you gent/ladies to decide
that. If I made any invalid points please feel free to correct me. I
sincerely believe Kyoto should be tackling the problem at the source by
forcing a reduction in emission of GHG's. Instead of pandering to the
public affections.
Ramsey Ayoub
Environmental Services Dept.
Environmental Research and Wildlife Development Agency
P.O.Box 45553
Abu Dhabi
U.A.E
Tel: 00971026934530
Fax: 00971026810008
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foster [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Ethical Energy Investing Article {was Shaw On Life}
At 10:44 PM 11/21/00 EST, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> It's funny you mention Honda, and car companies. One of the
>hot issues at the Kyoto is Carbon sinks. (The short definition--
>areas which exchange CO2.)(forests,ect.) Developed countries think carbon
>sinks can help balance global warming without to much change.I can't
>remember who it was now, Honda or Mitsubishi but one of the two, are
>spending massive amounts of money researching in GM trees, as a sustainable
>technology for helping reduce global warming.
>I say with some gest, any connection?
It is no coincidence Mitsubishi might be investing in Genetically Modified
trees. It is open to debate whether these trees will have much benefit as
sinks. They may be even harmful due to the effects of wind and other weather
related factors. Mitsubishi may just be planting them for purposes of fiber
in paper making.
>I don't nessacarly agree with a total carbon sink protocal. But I don't
>think carbon sinks are so unethical.
The best terestrial carbon sinks are forest and grasslands that store carbon
and are protected from wildfires and insects such as the rainforests.
Cutting them down and planting them results in a net release of carbon. If
forests that once stood and are now degraded and eroded are replanted, then
the new forest will serve as a carbon sink, but will not store as much as a
much older forest. In the Amazon there are about 75 million hectares of
degraded and deforested land that could be reforested. Over time these
artificial forests if established would become re-populated with species
from the edges and patches left intact within the disturbed areas.
>The WWF (world wildlife fund)
>is supporting the idea, because think what it could do for biodiversity.
>However, I think there should be a limit to how much justification
>a carbon sink should allow for in the protocal. They are currently
>unpredictable for CO2 exchange amounts.
That is true. In the Pacific Northwest there may be hundreds of cubic meters
of woody biomass per hectare lying on the forest floor. That biomass
accumulated over at least 100 or more years. Western larch and western
red-cedar take up to one hundred years to decay. In the industrial
plantation, the forests are often harvested every forty years. Obviously the
very large trees that fall will not contribute much because they will not be
there....The larger the tree the longer it takes to decay.
The last point that you make is really interesting. For instance Denmark
leads the world in producing, on a percentage basis, wind energy. They get
10 % of their power from wind. As a result of this technology they also lead
in the world in building new wind farms. So this nation is able to supply a
new market; countries like Argentina are hiring Danish firms to install wind
farms. In Canada we have one firm which is called Canadian Hydro Developers.
If an investor had bought 2000 shares in the publically traded company last
January, they would have more than doubled their money.
This company is also putting in 'river run free' hydro-electric systems in
national parks to avoid the installation of transmission lines. This was
done in Bnaff National Park to provide electricity to the Bnaff Springs
Hotel [huge hotel]. They also are installing turbines in irrigation canals
as well as installing river run free systems in much larger rivers. No dams
nor reservoirs are required and salmon and kayakers can have fun.
www.canhydro.com
check out the chart on www.stockhouse.com get the quote by typing in t.khd
August 15, 2000
StockHouse News Desk
By Peter McKenzie-Brown ([log in to unmask])
Senior Oil And Gas Analyst
Analysts Picks: Alternative Energy Stocks Face Rapidly Growing Market
Calgary, AB, August 15 /SHfn/ -- Sometimes it's hard to shake off old ways
of thinking. Try this one: Instead of thinking "oil and gas," think
"energy." As Octagon Capital's Bill Koenig explains, that shift can suggest
opportunity.
Koenig sees greater potential in alternative energy.
Koenig is an "energy" analyst who focuses on junior oils and alternative
energy. While he likes some junior oils (Player Petroleum [T.PYP] is one),
Koenig sees greater potential in alternative energy. Among the Canadian
companies he likes are Sustainable Energy Technologies [V.STG], Global
Thermoelectric [T.GLE] and Canadian Hydro Developers [T.KHD].
Once a portfolio manager himself, Koenig asks, "If you are thinking as a
portfolio manager who specializes in energy stocks, do you want to buy
something with a lot of growth potential, or do you want just another oil
and gas company?" His arguments are compelling.
The best-known alternative energies are fuel cells, photovoltaics (solar
panels) and wind power. Government think tanks have projected that these
energy sources will account for 15 per cent of North America's total energy
demand in 50 years' time--up from an insignificant fraction today. They will
be the fastest growing segments of the energy market.
A number of traditional oil companies have cottoned on to the idea that
their business is energy, and that alternative energy forms are going to be
a big part of their energy mix.
BP [BPA], for example, is the world's leading manufacturer of photovoltaic
cells--devices that generate electricity from the sun's light. Texaco [TX]
has invested US$60 million in the fuel cell business. And PanCanadian
[T.PCP] has invested heavily in Capstone Turbines [CPST].
Koenig also believes the deregulation of electricity is creating
opportunity. "When the oil and gas market deregulated (in the late 1980s), a
lot of junior companies emerged. We're going to see the same thing with the
electricity generation market."
Many technology companies already have their own generation systems.
One of the drivers behind this development is the need for "premium
power"--the delivery of electricity that doesn't brown out, spike or surge,
thus damaging microchips. Many technology companies (Microsoft [MSFT] and
Intel [INTC], for example) already have their own generation systems.
They only use electricity from the local power grid to back up their own
systems, which might generate electricity by firing natural gas in a micro
turbine, for example. This is quite a departure from the traditional
practice--hospitals with diesel-fueled generators for emergencies, for
example.
One important player in providing premium power is Emerson Electric [EMR].
That stock is enjoying a remarkable run, now flirting with an all-time high
stock price.
Koenig sees growth potential for alternative energy forms in North America,
and he believes it will come more quickly than most people realize. "It has
to happen," he says. "Last week California almost had a stage two emergency
because they could not meet their electricity demand."
Also, a lot of government money is helping motivate companies to use these
alternatives. In Germany, for example, the Greens are a big force in
politics, and they like the environmental advantages of alternative energy.
But the big markets for alternative energy are in the world's emerging
economies. One reason is that these countries do not have huge hydrocarbon
infrastructures like those in North America and Europe. In developed
countries, that infrastructure acts as a subsidy to consumers. In emerging
markets, this subsidy does not exist. The new technologies can therefore
better compete with oil and gas.
India, for example, is the third largest market for new power capacity. Over
the next 20 years its annual power demands will increase 4.9 per cent per
year, compared to about 1.6 per cent in North America. And India needs to
reduce its imports of oil--especially in the present high-price environment.
Strong hydrocarbon prices mean it is often cheaper to use photovoltaics and
wind power than diesel to generate electricity.
Three of Koenig's favourites among Canadian alternative energy companies are
Sustainable Energy Technologies, Global Thermoelectric and Canadian Hydro
Developers.
STG is one of three companies working in a technology that will improve
interconnection within the North American power grid.
GLE has developed a solid oxide fuel cell. "What really gets me excited
about that company," says Koenig, "is that they are selling their products
in India," which is such a high-potential market.
And AHD is an integrator of small power plants. Ten of the company's 11
plants are "eco-certified," which means they will benefit from emission
credits. And because they have created their own projects, other companies
go to them for their expertise. "There is a franchise value in that." Koenig
says the company is set to double power generation within the next two
years. AHD is the only one of these companies for which he has published a
target price: $3.00.
A shift to sustainable technologies
>is a time consuming process but if developed countries, could realize the
>potential for the marketing. It would in a longer while from now greatly
>reduce dependence on oil. In the US that would certainly be a benefit to
>consumers and producers who depend so much on that foreign "stuff."
>
>With intelligent policy the Kyoto-- doesn't nearly have to be so
>stalled with gridlock, if there could be definite balance for reduction
>found. But obviously that is a very ideal statement. And the questions
>of how long, and what will drive the international players to make that
>desicion, is of much more complication then use this or that technology.
>
>Have a good night.
>Li-
>
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 11/22/00 2:12:18 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>> You mean can we put more life back into the Kyoto Protocol Agreement to
>> reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?
>>
>> I wonder what Shaw would say about the issue?
>>
>> Recently the Honda Corporation developed a commercial, for sale, robot
that
>> can turn lights on and off. Will this reduce GHG emissions on a small
scale
>> or add to a large problem later? Can we as private citizens help nations
>> make the transition to a world economy that does not waste so much
energy?
>> It is hard for myself to imagine a better future without collective
private
>> action that addresses the luxury consumption of fossil fuels,
>deforestation,
>> and habitat distruction.
>>
>> Should investors focus on investments now which are capable of reducing
>> consumption of fossil fuels as part of the requirements of the Kyoto
>> Protocol?
>>
>> My answer is yes, the signatory nations should be implementing policy
>> instruments that will affect real change. One way to do this is to use
>> economic incentives for private citizens to reduce their own consumption
of
>> fossil fuels. Can nations get their elected representatives to discuss,
>> debate and ultimately enact beneficial policies that will do the job
much
>> more quickly than 'best of intentions' and 'promises' of the past.
>Currently
>> only a few nations have met their own stated goals of reducing
greenhouse
>> gas emissions. Canada for instance is being criticized for lack of
>> compliance in terms of forest clearing.
>>
>> Some solutions are investments in 'mass public transit', 'energy
>> efficiency', imposition of 'luxury consumption taxes', development of
>> 'substitute materials that replace wood products', protection of 'old
>growth
>> forests', & development of 'geothermal energy',
>>
>> Other policies may be instituted by large corporations and these
policies
>> may consist in reduction of the work week to four days, longer hours
during
>> those work days working [from 8 to 9 hours], greater development of
>energy
>> sources like wind for businesses [Body Shop International is developing
>it's
>> own wind farms], more 'reuse, recycling, and reduction' of potential
>wastes,
>> etc.
>>
>> It seems to me that the Kyoto Protocol is doomed to failure as long as
>> nations avoid their responsibilities to facilitate gradual positive
change
>> through incentives [eg. policy instruments, expenditures in R&D, etc.].
>>
>> How do we as private citizens put life into it...?
>>
>> >In a message dated 11/21/00 10:39:34 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
>> >[log in to unmask] writes:
>> >
>> >> Life may apparently be, or be evidenced by, any moral virtue which
for
>> the
>> >> moment [is] under consideration.
>>
>>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
