Problems of measurement
Problems of measurements. Despite its focus on CDR (carbon dioxide removals) in Californian forests, Joseph Wilson’s 2024 article (https://lnkd.in/eVEqgYTv) is nevertheless relevant to the carbon-farming conundrum. Wilson evokes baseline projections, carbon-sequestration, degrees of uncertainty, measurement processes & their costs, subjectivity, alternative approaches, etc. Some quotes;
* “Projections about the uncertain future are not necessary for generating a measurement model for financial awards.”
* “Many financial aspects remain to be determined, like the credit value to be ascribed to a unit of carbon and the temporal structure of the award.”
* “There are also a number of costs for the absolute approach that come along with a more focused attempt to link sequestered carbon to credits.”
* “ /.../ The absolute approach is likely to be less attractive to investors, making it a less marketable approach.”, etc., etc.
This type of “philosophical” critique of CDR carbon-farming projects would be well appreciated. For instance, SOC baselines & projections are still being debated while SOC credits are already being emitted and brokered. Idem for the market value & cost of soil derived CDRs. Despite this, alternative approaches could be less attractive to investors for lack of “over-crediting”.
Recall that agricultural consultancy relies on very few routine precise measurements; the center-most GPS coordinates of the plot, dry grain nitrogen yield & N-fertilization, along with some local meteorological data. Estimating the rest of the of the field-plot’s pedoclimatic data is pretty much a crap shoot. Measuring soil derived CDR under such circumstance is in fact quite … “philosophical”.
An alternative approach to current carbon-farming derived SOC credits is currently proposed by Polyor SAS; AgroNum™ (https://lnkd.in/eBmfT3NM). Yours to see.
