CASMGS Carbon Measurement and Monitoring Forum

CASMGS Carbon Measurement and Monitoring Forum

Oct. 15-17, 2003

Manhattan, Kansas

Feedback: Break-Out Session Reports

Question 1: Why did I attend this Forum?

Interested in the program.
Information.
For the economics and policy discussions.
Works with no-till education.
Speaker.
CASMGS collaborator
Learning opportunity.
To display my work.
To get more information and see where everyone is at in their work.
To stay current.
To share modeling ideas.
Curiosity -- what is carbon worth and what are the incentives for carbon trading.
To find out how I can fit into CASMGS.
To find out progress of CASMGS.
To demonstrate new technologies.
Industry interest in this developing sector.
Aggregator interest in this developing sector.
Research opportunities.
Interested in local development of carbon market in Kansas.
To find out how carbon markets will work from a producer’s perspective.
Enhance international partnerships.
To transfer information and perspectives from conference to people at home.
Networking.
To see if changes in carbon levels can be measured within a short time period.

Question 2 – What did I expect to learn, contribute, or take home with me?

Carbon measurement is more complicated than assumed.
Ramp-up in sophistication and understanding of attendees.
The status of carbon sequestration and next steps in its development.
Breadth of research on soils, economics, and policy.
How to advance the pilot program.
Details of CASMGS activities.
Gain perspective on measurement and monitoring techniques.
Network with others.
Quantifying environmental services.
To find out how carbon is measured.
To learn the state of science.
To learn the economics of carbon sequestration and measurement.
Opportunities for collaboration, domestic and international.
Integration of different aspects in creating a carbon market.
Impacts of research.
Standardization of research protocols and avoidance of duplication within CASMGS and outside of CASMGS.
Assessment of science; how far away are we from implementation.
Impacts of research on policy development.
Interaction with policymakers.
How to measure soil carbon levels.

Question 3 – What will I take home from the CASMGS Forum?

Communicate how much activity is occurring in carbon sequestration.
Increased focus on quantification and verification.
Economics of carbon sequestration.
Better understanding of sensors, benchmarks, and measurement errors.
Ideas to simplify carbon trading.
Science appears to be adequate for carbon measurement and monitoring, but there is a lack of policy development.
Need to transfer information to producers.
There is movement toward a common goal.
Carbon policy and markets will happen fast -- within next 30 years.
There is commitment by the scientific community on carbon and greenhouse gas research.
There is consistency in international approaches.
The discussion seems to be broader than CASMGS objectives.
Can we adequately verify model predictions to achieve goals?
Learned a lot about markets.
That there are two types of carbon contracts.

Question 4 – What did I want to learn or discuss that was not adequately addressed, if at all?

Question 5 – Is carbon sequestration policy, research and implementation on the right track?

Yes, the research is on the right track.
No, not without commitment, reduction in absolute amounts of carbon emissions, and an absence of emission caps.
Need to figure out how we can bring industry on board.
On the soils level, we are on the right track in monitoring and verifying carbon.
The entire suite of greenhouse gases needs attention and understanding; what are the USDA guiding principles?
How can we integrate measurement, remote sensing, and modeling.
Not certain about the rules aiming at a gold standard.
Who is keeping track of what -- upstream and downstream?
Trace gas benchmarks are needed.
We need more regulations for this kind of program to proceed.
National guidance is needed on processes to develop with each model to find out where the model is applicable and its limits.
There should be a standardized method for carbon measurement and sampling.
We need assurance that the C being measured or credited is correct and that the buyer is getting a good product.
IPPC good practices guidance is about to come out.
We’re jumping the gun. No-till is not necessarily the silver bullet, but the goal is good.
Need more focus on the fact that increases in carbon are good for productivity.
Need more focus on policy impacts.
Need a broader message on all constituents, not just carbon.