Opinion: GHG debate needs debit-credit balance

The home plate in baseball is 17 inches wide.

I listened to a presentation by the University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Richard Gray at the end of March. In his submission, he suggested there was an error in greenhouse gas emission accounting. Kevin Hursh mentioned this in his column on page 11 of the April 6 issue.

Gray hypothesized that the accounting does not account for the carbon dioxide withdrawn from the atmosphere, converted to energy, stored in a kernel of grain, and exported to a user. The farm does not get credit for that exported carbon.

Industry champions support his hypothesis. I hear words like “rewarded,” and that past practices should be in the reward mix and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coefficients are wrong.

But the IPCC protocols for reporting emissions do address this energy transport. The accounting for respiratory emissions is on a worldwide scale. Their protocol is slightly less than a one-to-one debit and credit.