How the Cap and Trade Works in Practice

very cool!

then there are creative approaches to capturing bovine methane...

cow-methane-tank.jpg
 
jessy said:
Kroeran
[FONT=&quot]What percentage of oil that the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]US[/FONT][FONT=&quot] uses comes form over seas? I have been told that it was a low percentage but the media makes us think it’s more so they can fluctuate gas prices. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_oil_does_the_US_import

imported vs overseas is also another angle - we will let you have all the oil you want as long as you don't block the border to traffic to Florida:D
 
Thank you for the link Kroeran; I never know the number was that high. I thought it was a lot lower.

More methane comes out of a cows mouth then the cows other end. But I do like that pic.
 
OK... I am a gassy sort of guy.... so can I reduce my output of greenhouse gasses and sell them on the market? If so, then I need to eat a LOT of beans before the CAP is put in place... don't want to lose some money by not getting my max cap....


My boss planted about 1,000 or more trees on his place a few years ago... seems like a bad idea if they do the cap and trade... should have waited and created and offset for someone and make money doing it...

Like others... I would think a tax is a better option... less games... but we need to get all forms, including the cows etc... a tax on each head of cattle... (what about pigs:confused: they have a lot of pig waste that creates problems)...
 
Texas Proud said:
Like others... I would think a tax is a better option... less games... but we need to get all forms, including the cows etc... a tax on each head of cattle... (what about pigs:confused: they have a lot of pig waste that creates problems)...
Click to expand...

Some farms, and landfills, are capturing methane for use...

Methane digester converts dairy manure to electricity

Title: Hydrogen and Electricity Generation from Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment

Northern Ontario’s first methane powered electricity plant

BMW expands landfill-methane electrical generation at Spartanburg plant — Autoblog Green

http://www.uwex.edu/uwmril/pdf/RuralEnergyIssues/renewable/Biogas_Economics_Mehta.pdf
 
HFWR said:
Some farms, and landfills, are capturing methane for use...
Click to expand...

Of course, when they burn the methane the carbon ends up in the atmosphere, but as CO2. These methane digesters don't directly prevent a single ounce of carbon from getting into the atmosphere. Still, I guess if it reduces the need ot burn propane or something else, it does indirectly reduce the carbon in the atmosphere. And saves the propane for use later. By the Chinese.
 
Since 40 - 50% of the stuff that ends up in landfills is compostable, landfills are a major source of methane. The compostable matter ends up buried, resulting in anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition that produces methane, a major greenhouse gas. Home and municipal composting operations are growing in popularity because of this - composting by definition requires oxygen (aerobic decomposition) and therefore produces much less methane (or maybe none, I'm not a chemist). The result is free organic matter for gardens. The city of Ottawa seems to have the right idea.

I think the whole cow flatulence thing is a bit of a red herring. Before humans took over the planet, there were literally millions and millions of grass-eating, burping, four legged creatures wandering the earth. That said, I think we do need to take a long, hard look at CAFOs, both from an enivronmental and humane standpoint. I've switched to as much locally grown foods as I can, including local, grass-fed meats and eggs. I offset the added cost by growing my own vegetables and buying and freezing fruits in season. As my garden grows, my food costs should continue to decrease. (Right now, it's 25 degrees with snow on the ground, and I have fresh salad greens growing in my cold frame.) Since the rule of thumb is that it takes 10 calories of oil to grow 1 calorie of food (or put another way, the average meal travels 1500 miles from field to fork), eating local will become a necessity as fossil fuel (and the fertilizers made from them) prices continue to rise in the future. The increased prices of factory food is a lot scarier to me than cap and trade.
 
hguyw said:
... eating local will become a necessity as fossil fuel (and the fertilizers made from them) prices continue to rise in the future.
Click to expand...

I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading a study that indicated that much of the non-local food growing/shipping is actually a good thing environmentally. Better to grow the food where it grows best and ship it than to invest the resources to try to grow the food locally. There are exceptions of course, and we ought to do whatever makes sense.

While your cold frame is working well for you, that is a tough thing to do on a commercial scale for salad priced items. Acres and acres of cold frame would be big undertaking and require a lot of materials. And they would need to be set up for heating for cold snaps (or risk losing a crop), for letting air out on hot days, and provide access for harvest and tending. How does losing a crop once in a while compare to the fuel used to transport those crops?

ahhh, here's a link:

http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/ppp/food_mil.pdf
Carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of tomato were compared over a 20-year period for tomatoes grown in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden (with Sweden being the end consumption point), and other countries.86 Spanish tomatoes were shown to have lower CO equivalents than those produced in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, even though the transportation distances to Sweden were shorter than for the Spanish tomatoes. The reason is that the Spanish tomatoes were raised in open ground while the Swedish, Dutch, and Danish tomatoes were raised in heated greenhouses, which required more fossil fuel energy in crop production. Transportation energy savings for the systems with shorter transport distances were overshadowed by higher energy needs in crop production. The results of this Swedish study underscore the importance of examining fuel use and CO emissions across all sectors of the food system.
Click to expand...

I think that if you look at the fuel used per ton of food, per mile transported, it won't add up to much. And growing locally probably means a lot of small trucks making rounds (often running empty on the return from the market?), which is going to be less efficient than rail, ship and big rigs.

-ERD50
 
ERD50 said:
I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading a study that indicated that much of the non-local food growing/shipping is actually a good thing environmentally. Better to grow the food where it grows best and ship it than to invest the resources to try to grow the food locally. There are exceptions of course, and we ought to do whatever makes sense.
Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense of course, but it's based on the assumption that people are going to want - or will be able to afford - out of season fruits and vegetables no matter how expensive they get. Everything's relative; even if diesel fuel went to, say, $15 per gallon (extreme from our view now, but not impossible in the future I think), the field-grown-shipped tomatoes would probably still be cheaper than the hot house-local tomatoes.

But will either tomato be affordable to someone who makes an average wage, if diesel and fertilizer costs jump the way some say they will in the coming decades?

While your cold frame is working well for you, that is a tough thing to do on a commercial scale for salad priced items. Acres and acres of cold frame would be big undertaking and require a lot of materials. And they would need to be set up for heating for cold snaps (or risk losing a crop), for letting air out on hot days, and provide access for harvest and tending. How does losing a crop once in a while compare to the fuel used to transport those crops?
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not so far fetched. While I'd love to say I "invented" winter gardening all by myself, the reality is there's a great book out there called The Four-Season Harvest by Eliot Coleman. A good portion of the book covers the author's travels in southern France in January to study winter gardening techniques in order to try and transplant them to his small market farm on the Maine coast. While the two climates are different, the day length is the same and that's the critical factor. Rather than try to grow summer crops in the winter, his focus is on what crops can grow under unheated protection through the Maine winter on the 44th parallel? Turns out there's about 30 of them. He also discusses the fact that in decades past, it was quite common to see market gardens on the outskirts of French (and other European) cities that consisted of acres and acres of cold frames. Now the technologies have changes and row covers are more common - he saw acres and acres of "chenilles" instead.

My feeling is that in the future we will see a relocalization of food production with local transport, out of necessity. As you said, it would require small delivery trucks running around, but if we can transition to cleaner electric production those local trucks may not need to burn any oil or gas at all.

I think that if you look at the fuel used per ton of food, per mile transported, it won't add up to much. And growing locally probably means a lot of small trucks making rounds (often running empty on the return from the market?), which is going to be less efficient than rail, ship and big rigs.
-ERD50
Click to expand...

Actually, Coleman looks at this in depth in the book. He did a little study to compare the embodied energy in a plastic greenhouse with the energy involved in trucking produce from California. All his figures and calculations are laid out in the book in detail, and he concludes,

"...the energy consumption per 12-ounce head of lettuce to transport a semi-tractor-trailer load 3,200 miles from California to the East Coast is 3,034 BTU. According to those calculations, a head of lettuce grown in a Maine greenhouse requires only 40 percent as much energy as delivering that lettuce from California. However, it is actually a lot better than that. Since the greenhouse polyethylene lasts three years and since the grower could get both a spring and a fall crop each year with no other energy input, six lettuces can be produced over the lifespan of that...polyethylene. Each Maine greenhouse-grown lettuce thus consumes only 6 percent of the energy required by each trucked-in lettuce."

The secret is, as you stated, to grow things where they grow best. Cool and cold weather greens do just fine in unheated green houses.
 
Last edited:
hguyw said:
All his figures and calculations are laid out in the book in detail, and he concludes,

"...the energy consumption per 12-ounce head of lettuce to transport a semi-tractor-trailer load 3,200 miles from California to the East Coast is 3,034 BTU.
Click to expand...

Wow--that's an interesting figure. A gallon of diesel fuel contains 139,000 BTU, so moving that head of lettuce by truck used .022 gallons, or about 6 tablespoons of fuel. At today's fuel price, that's about 6 cents. Even if diesel did go to $15/gallon, that would cost about 30 cents/head for the fuel to move it across the country.

Now, if you put it on a train instead for the majority of the trip, you'd burn less than 1/2 of the fuel.

Or, viewed another way: If a person owns a car that gets 30 MPG and makes one trip "out to the country" 15 miles to get some locally-grown lettuce at the farmers' market, he'll have burned more fuel than it took to bring 45 heads of lettuce from across the continent by truck to his supermarket.

No wonder it makes sense to grow things where they grow best.
 
samclem said:
Wow--that's an interesting figure. A gallon of diesel fuel contains 139,000 BTU, so moving that head of lettuce by truck used .022 gallons, or about 6 tablespoons of fuel. At today's fuel price, that's about 6 cents. Even if diesel did go to $15/gallon, that would cost about 30 cents/head for the fuel to move it across the country.
Click to expand...

So the Maine head of lettuce would cost the equivalent of 1.8 cents.

Now, if you put it on a train instead for the majority of the trip, you'd burn less than 1/2 of the fuel.
Click to expand...

I definitely want my chocolate to come by train though so it's GHG impact is as small as possible. I can't grow chocolate in my cold frame. :D

No wonder it makes sense to grow things where they grow best.
Click to expand...

No doubt lettuce grows well in California, since they apparently grow a lot of it there. But it doesn't necessarily "grow best" in just California. It's occurred to me that non-gardeners on this thread may not be aware that lettuce is a cool-weather crop. Lettuce bolts (goes to seed) and turns bitter rather readily at the first sign of heat. Spinach is even more sensitive to heat, but boy is it happy in my cold frame right now. It's one of the true cold weather crops.

Anyhoo, this whole thread started with a discussion of cap and trade, meaning the discussion should revolve around the GHG emissions of the shipped lettuce. With the figures at hand, the Maine head has fewer GHG emissions than the shipped California head.
 
hguyw said:
Anyhoo, this whole thread started with a discussion of cap and trade, meaning the discussion should revolve around the GHG emissions of the shipped lettuce. With the figures at hand, the Maine head has fewer GHG emissions than the shipped California head.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's interesting to see the numbers. The takeaway point (for me) is that, because fuel costs are apparently such a tiny part of the total price of produce, we'd need to have very high fuel taxes/carbon taxes/GHG C&T "prices" in order to cause a change in behavior that lowers the amount of fuel burned with regard to this commodity. I'm sure the situation would be different for products/services with higher embodied energy content (e.g. airplane tickets/car prices).
 
Of course, there's also fuel for the tractors, and whatever powers those big irrigation rigs that you see roaming across the fields in California. Coleman's calculations just looked at the major element that would be necessary to produce lettuce in the spring and fall in Maine (a plastic covered greenhouse) vs. having it shipped in from California.
 
hguyw said:
Of course, there's also fuel for the tractors, and whatever powers those big irrigation rigs that you see roaming across the fields in California. Coleman's calculations just looked at the major element that would be necessary to produce lettuce in the spring and fall in Maine (a plastic covered greenhouse) vs. having it shipped in from California.
Click to expand...

What powers the tractors in Maine? Or are we going to mules for plowing and "nightsoil" for fertilizer?

Lettuce, greens, and root crops are a fairly small part of the American diet. I think if we start looking at growing a realistic volume of grains in Maine (for direct consumption and animal feed) this whole thing falls apart fairly rapidly. Not that gardening isn't a good hobby--wholesome and rewarding. But if we're talking about actually providing enough calories, protein, and the food people want to eat for everyone in the US, I don't think local production on a large scale is going be very important.
 
samclem said:
What powers the tractors in Maine? Or are we going to mules for plowing and "nightsoil" for fertilizer?

Lettuce, greens, and root crops are a fairly small part of the American diet. I think if we start looking at growing a realistic volume of grains in Maine (for direct consumption and animal feed) this whole thing falls apart fairly rapidly. Not that gardening isn't a good hobby--wholesome and rewarding. But if we're talking about actually providing enough calories, protein, and the food people want to eat for everyone in the US, I don't think local production on a large scale is going be very important.
Click to expand...


I have been interested the community supported agriculture for a while. Although as is typical with most of these green idea, the economics aren't very good. I like to support local farmers, but I suspect Sam is right other than for us upper middle class yuppie type who want to eat "healthier" and feel morally superior, it isn't going to be a major source of food for most Americans.

Still I can't help but shake my head, that I living in place with 365 day growing season, buy tomatoes from California which have to be shipped 2500 mile by boat, even in the winter time. Because they are 1/3 the price at Costco than the farmers market, and while the beefsteak tomatoes are much better locally grown there isn't much difference between cherry and grape tomatoes.
 
samclem said:
What powers the tractors in Maine? Or are we going to mules for plowing and "nightsoil" for fertilizer?
Click to expand...

One of the difficulties here is that we're comparing big industrial farms with small market growers. Coleman is a small organic farmer. He can't feed as many people with his farm as one of the big industrial farms can, but many market growers in a given area could. At any rate, he doesn't use a tractor, he uses a tiller and does minimal tilling at that. (No till methods actually improve plant growth once the soil has been restored to decent fertility with ample organic matter.) Fertilizers are tilled autumn leaves, compost, and animal manures. (Cheap stuff.)

But if we're talking about actually providing enough calories, protein, and the food people want to eat for everyone in the US, I don't think local production on a large scale is going be very important.
Click to expand...

I think calories and protein are less problematic than "the food people want to eat". As long as most people want out of season, imported foods on a daily basis then you're probably right. Won't work.
 
clifp said:
other than for us upper middle class yuppie type who want to eat "healthier" and feel morally superior, it isn't going to be a major source of food for most Americans.
Click to expand...

Happily though, community gardens - especially in inner city areas - are a growing trend.

Because they are 1/3 the price at Costco than the farmers market, and while the beefsteak tomatoes are much better locally grown there isn't much difference between cherry and grape tomatoes.
Click to expand...

Here's the odd thing. My food costs have gone down as I've focused more on eating from the garden (as much as possible) and eating what I buy from the farmer's market. Turns out it's less expensive to buy the more expensive local stuff if I eat it all, than to buy the cheaper stuff and throw it away. (I know, duh, right? :blush:) I've always bought vegetables and fruit at the supermarket, but didn't eat that much of it. Most of it would get thrown out. Now that I'm trying to eat the fresher, local food (garden or farmer's market), it tastes so much better I actually eat all that I buy. So I'm saving quite a lot of money, even though I'm eating more expensive food. Go figure.

I have read that Americans throw out half the food they buy.
 
hguyw said:
I think calories and protein are less problematic than "the food people want to eat". As long as most people want out of season, imported foods on a daily basis then you're probably right. Won't work.
Click to expand...

While I share samclem's skepticism of these techniques for large scale use, I think there are some positive opportunities here. Rather than the 'broad brush' of 'local is better' (which is not always true), it would be good if someone would identify good (efficient and good tasting/healthy) local substitutes for stuff we default to just out of familiarity. Maybe for some of the season, a certain local green would be better than the year round shipping of something else? Maybe something else in another area? rinse, repeat where appropriate. I don't want to give up salads in winter, but I'm open to substitutes. I don't have to have the same greens/veggies all year round, all the time.

I'd like to see hguyw start a new thread specifically on winter gardening techniques. Not that it will save the planet, but it might be a nice and economical and healthy hobby for some of us. Since we added a sunny three-season room to our house, we've put our herbs in containers, and bring the cold tolerant ones in for the winter. It's really nice to have fresh herbs all year round, costs us nothing (the herbs are perennial, and the parsley reseeds itself with a little attention). I'd consider expanding this to some other greens/veggies (I'll also look into the book that was referenced), and would love to hear of hguyw's successes.

-ERD50
 
samclem said:
Yes, and it's interesting to see the numbers. The takeaway point (for me) is that, because fuel costs are apparently such a tiny part of the total price of produce, we'd need to have very high fuel taxes/carbon taxes/GHG C&T "prices" in order to cause a change in behavior that lowers the amount of fuel burned with regard to this commodity.
Click to expand...

samclem said:
Wow--that's an interesting figure. A gallon of diesel fuel contains 139,000 BTU, so moving that head of lettuce by truck used .022 gallons, or about 6 tablespoons of fuel. At today's fuel price, that's about 6 cents. Even if diesel did go to $15/gallon, that would cost about 30 cents/head for the fuel to move it across the country.

Now, if you put it on a train instead for the majority of the trip, you'd burn less than 1/2 of the fuel.
Click to expand...

Wow - I've always figured that raising the price of fossil fuel through taxes would be the way drive more "correct" behavior (however we want to define that). But certainly, $15 diesel would be a real strain, and if that only increased lettuce by ~ 24 cents (less for rail travel), well heck, that isn't going to change people's behaviors much.

Buy local sounds attractive on the surface, but I always thought that if it made so much sense, it would already be happening. These numbers seem to back up why it isn't.

-ERD50
 
ERD50 said:
Wow - I've always figured that raising the price of fossil fuel through taxes would be the way drive more "correct" behavior (however we want to define that). But certainly, $15 diesel would be a real strain, and if that only increased lettuce by ~ 24 cents (less for rail travel), well heck, that isn't going to change people's behaviors much.

Buy local sounds attractive on the surface, but I always thought that if it made so much sense, it would already be happening. These numbers seem to back up why it isn't.

-ERD50
Click to expand...

Obviously there's much more that goes into the price of a head of lettuce than just cost of diesel to ship it from the left coast to the right coast. If diesel did go to $15 does anybody really believe that the price of a head of lettuce would only increase by a quarter? I don't. I would expect to see lettuce at least double if not triple in price.

Leaving all that aside, if I buy a head of California lettuce for, say, $1.59 at my local Wal-Mart Supercenter, not only am I getting produce that's probably close to a week old, much less of the money I pay actually stays in my area. A small percentage goes to pay the checkout gal and the stockboy, but I bet the bulk of it goes immediately to corporate HQ in Bentonville and from there it's distributed to the producers and all the middlemen that brought that head of lettuce to my store. That lettuce was so old by the time I got it, it didn't have much shelf life left and I ended up throwing half of it out. So, how "cheap" was my lettuce, really?

When I go to my farmer's market and buy directly from the small grower who lives 15 miles away - let's say $2.50 for a head ...the entire amount I pay goes directly to the person who grew it. It might then leave the area, or it might circulate locally for some time before leaving. But at least the person who grew the food gets a decent price ("living wage") for her work. And because her lettuce was only hours old when I bought it, it lasted long enough in my fridge for me to use it all before it turned slimy. So I get 4 servings for my $2.50 vs. 2 servings for $1.59. On a per serving basis, the California lettuce is more expensive for me.

And buying local is already happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Carbon credit for trees?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Koolau
Koolau
R
Healthcare Gap Support Recommendation
Replies
11
Views
340
badatmath
B
M
Love the practice run but... ...
2 3
Replies
58
Views
6K
skyking1
skyking1
D
Sold Position - How to send the IRS a check?
Replies
9
Views
779
Sunset
Sunset
N
Global Wealth Report 2023 - How did 2022 go and what are the projections...
Replies
4
Views
735
NW-Bound
NW-Bound

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom