December of 2009, was hot on the subject of CO2, also known as carbon dioxide.

In the U.S., on December 7th, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) declared that “CO2 and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment.”

In May of 2010, the replacement for the Cap & Trade Bill, “The American Power Act”, came back into play in the Senate.

This US Senate Bill aims to lower US emissions of CO2 by putting a cap on allowable emissions while also setting up a barter system where one company can buy CO2 emission rights from another company. The Bill is now known as the “The American Power Act”.

Also, CO2 emissions were a hot topic at the Copenhagen Summit, the United Nations Climate Change Conference on Global Warming. The Global Warming Advocates believe that CO2 levels caused by human consumption of energy are rising at alarming rates and will trigger a catastrophic global warming scenario resulting in higher sea levels as ice caps melt away.  However, there are dissenting voices from the scientific community--voices that have recently spoken out against this alarmist prediction.

These reputable scientists do not believe global warming is being caused by man’s consumption of energy at all. They believe the sun is the driving force behind all climate change on our planet and in our solar system. They further point out that their data shows a cooling of the planet in the last decade rather than a continued warming. These fresh voices are gaining in momentum as the UN’s scientific data comes into disrepute after their IPCC (International Panel on Climate Control) emails were leaked (dubbed “Climategate”) revealing a rather embarrassing practice on their part to tinker with data and censor dissenting voices.

The December 2009, Copenhagen Summit was a gathering of nations from the United Nations with the daunting task of trying to come up with a Treaty that they can all accept regarding national restrictions on CO2 and a viable plan to assist developing countries to come into compliance. But in the background of that Summit, more dissenting voices claimed that the entire global warming alarmist movement, including the Copenhagen Summit, is really a  backdoor ploy by the world elite to usher in their long sought after world government.

Regardless of where you stand in this roaring debate about CO2, (which is, by the way, the very gas we breathe out of our mouths and the very gas all plants and trees take in), farmers and ranchers stand to benefit greatly from CO2 restrictions no matter from where they come. If a future UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Treaty is signed, if the EPA lays down strict controls, if the U.S. Cap & Trade Bill makes a come back, or even if nothing formally takes place, the dye is cast. CO2 restrictions are on the way, and this can be a real boon to every farmer and rancher on the planet once they learn how to play this CO2 restriction and trade game.

Carbon Credits for Sequestering Carbon? So what does it mean to sequester carbon? Carbon sequestration is a geo-engineering technique for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon to mitigate global warming. Carbon dioxide is usually captured from the atmosphere through biological, chemical or physical processes. Quickly moving from the conceptual stage to viable working models in recent years, carbon sequestration has arrived on the scene in full bloom. The goal of carbon sequestration is to remove CO2 from large point sources, such as power plants, oil refineries and industrial processes, or from the air itself. The CO2 can then be stored in geologic formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep coal seams or saline reservoirs.

Obviously, these techniques are not for farmers and ranchers. But if you look back at the above definition, you see that carbon is captured through “biological” processes; and that’s where farmers come into the picture because carbon dioxide can also be stored in plants, trees and soils by increasing their natural CO2 uptake. Farmers are paid by carbon polluters to increase their plant growth and CO2 uptake levels in a quid pro quo trade off of Carbon Credits. Before discussing the various ways farmers can sequester carbon, let’s look at what’s happening in the US already without a Cap and Trade Bill being passed.

Voluntary Carbon Trading is in the US right now in several forms. Blue Source is the name of a company in Utah that is riding high on the CO2 wave. In 1985, it’s founders, Bill Townsend and his partner, Greg Spencer met in a Utah Bible study group. They call themselves evangelicals who have found their mission; and like door to door preachers, they travel the country in search of environmental projects that may one day gush profits.

So exactly what are they doing? They help companies cut greenhouse gas emissions and then take a piece of the profit. They have recently teamed up with J. R. Simplot Company to assist American farmers interested in engaging in the carbon economy. The two companies will help farmers identify and take advantage of opportunities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable farming practices such as continuous conservation tillage, preservation of grasslands and nutrient management. This alliance will provide growers with everything needed to capture those benefits, from collecting and managing data, to realizing revenue from carbon offset sales. The strategic alliance will utilize The Agri-Data SolutionTM as the data platform to document carbon sequestration activities.

While the rest of the nation waits to see if the “The American Power Act” comes back to life, one fifth of our nation’s states have already signed up to a mandatory carbon pollution protocol known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), nicknamed Reggie. The ten participating states include: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. They are committed to reducing their carbon emissions from power plants 10% by 2018. Together, the ten individual state programs function as a single regional compliance market for carbon emissions. 

Farmers get carbon credits for continuous conservation tillage:

So what is it and how is it different from traditional tillage? Conservation tillage is a strategy and farming technique for establishing crops in the previous crop's residues. These residues are intentionally left on the soil surface from the previous year. Effective conservation tillage will help battle soil erosion and has a number of other important benefits over regular conventional tillage including:

Other farmers are receiving payments for rotational grazing practices allowing grass to recover and grow thus holding carbon in the soil. And a smaller number of farmers and ranchers are getting credits for planting buffer strips and trees or recovering methane from animal waste. (To learn more about the methane recovery process, go to our “H. D. Farms”  and “Video” pages) These carbon credits are bundled and sold to companies who voluntarily sign contracts agreeing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. It is believed that there will soon come a time when 20% of net farm income will be from programs like this that encourage carbon trading agreements.

Where Does Aquaponics Earth Fit Into Carbon Trading? This is an area our company will be exploring and pioneering as those markets are completely unaware of our Aquaponics Earth BIO Station food-growing technology at this time. Aquaponics Earth is way out there on the new growth branch of the agricultural tree as one of the most up-coming, innovative and evolved agricultural companies in the world today.

The Real Truth is CO2 Restrictions are actually already here--not here in the U.S., as the U.S., under President George W. Bush, did not ratify the “Kyoto Protocol” which President Clinton had signed--but here in the world. The following is an informative trip down the road from Kyoto to Copenhagen.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan on December 11, 1997 and put into force on February 16, 2005. It is an international agreement linked to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention encouraged industrialized nations to stabilize GHG (Green House Gas) emissions; but the Protocol commits them to follow through.

One of the givens of the Protocol is the recognition that developed countries are primarily responsible for the current high levels of GHG in the world’s air due to their 150 years of industrial activity and should, therefore, take on a heavier burden under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. Keep in mind, this viewpoint depends entirely on the belief that GHG are bringing about global warming, which is being called into question due to the furor over “Climategate”, leaked UN IPCC Scientist emails, which have called the UN scientists into question.

184 Parties have ratified the Protocol; and the detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001. They are called the “Marrakesh Accords”.

Under the Kyoto Treaty, industrialized countries including the EU must meet their targets primarily through national measures amounting to an average of five percent against 1990 levels over the five-year period of 2008-2012. So the Treaty has been in a fully active phase for two years. To assist in these efforts, the Protocol offers three market-based mechanisms to meet targets.

1. 1.Emissions Trading, which is known as the Carbon Market allows countries that have emission units to spare - emissions permitted them but not "used" - to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets. Thus, a new commodity was created in the form of emission reductions or removals. Since carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, people speak simply of trading in carbon. Carbon is now tracked and  traded like any other commodity.
   

2. 2.Clean development mechanism (CDM) allows a country to implement an emission-reduction project in developing countries. Such projects can earn sale-able certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one ton of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets.
   

3. 3.Joint Implementation (JI) allows a country to earn emission-reduction units (ERU’s) from an emission-reduction or emission removal project in another Party (Country), each equivalent to one ton of CO2, which are counted towards meeting its target. Joint Implementation offers Parties a flexible and cost-efficient means of fulfilling a part of their Kyoto commitments, while the host Party benefits from foreign investment and technology transfer.
   

Under the Protocol, countries must monitor actual emissions and keep precise records of trades carried out. The UN Climate Change Secretariat keeps an international transaction log to verify that transactions are consistent with the rules of the Protocol. In November of 2009, the eighth meeting of the enforcement branch of the Compliance Committee was held in Bonn Germany.

What’s important for you to realize is there has been an active and thriving “carbon market” and a “carbon credits program” churning (in the billions of dollars) for years now. Because the US did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, many US citizens have no idea this market even exists. By the same token, a World Governing Body is in place complete with a Compliance Committee, a Funding Arm and lots of other bureaucracies. The U.S. does not belong to it.

How does Copenhagen fit into the picture? What was decided?

The Copenhagen Summit called the GOP 15 was the 15th Conference Of The Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Kyoto Protocol.

That’s why reporters kept talking about the two different agendas being addressed. The US was in attendance as a Convention participant who along with the UK, Australia, Brazil and Denmark, the host country, were working to broker a new deal, they named the “Danish Text” to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Right from the beginning, when the undeveloped countries heard about this new deal which they did not participate in drafting, tempers flared. The two week extravaganza was often described as a chaotic circus within which there were walk-outs and heated exchanges over this lack of transparency.

On Friday, December 18, 2009, President Obama arrived, two days behind Hillary Clinton,  US Secretary of State, and Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives and her 26 fellow Democrats also attended. The goal of the US President and his entourage was to demonstrate unilateral support for this new Copenhagen Treaty--a Treaty that at the time of his speech (see our “Videos” page) was still in negotiation.

Never the less, President Obama pledged to sign a Copenhagen Treaty saying: “America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and move towards a clean energy economy no matter what happens in Copenhagen.” The fact that his administration loaned a challenged solar company, Solyndra, over a half billion (with a “B”) dollars is exemplary of that statement. His conclusion contained this statement: “Ladies and gentlemen there is no time to waste. America’s made our choice, we have chartered our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe its the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose. We are ready to get this done today; but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk.”

The Copenhagen Summit did not result in a binding Treaty; and President Obama did not sign anything. Those against it’s adoption say it would have devastated the American economy as it has a 2% GDP (Gross Domestic Product) Tax included in it for all the developed countries. This would cost every American over $3,000 annually. The money was to be deposited into the World Bank. There is also talk that this Treaty would, by it’s very nature, subject the US to governance by a World Body with a World Bank and is beginning to look a lot like World Governance thus negating our national sovereignty.

Regardless of where you stand, it is important you have a complete understanding of these proceedings because when all is said and done, they will and are affecting you and your life-style. Clean energy is our goal. It’s the only thing that makes sense. What is in question, is how are we going to get there? For you, a farmer or rancher on this world stage, the road to clean energy can be paved with gold if you take the voluntary steps necessary to utilize the monetary advantages awaiting you through Carbon Credits.