Please, someone explain to me what is "nonsense", or indeed "misleading" about this quote on biochar from the Royal Society:
“Proponents of biomass for sequestration argue that very large rates of sequestration are in principle achievable. For example, Lehmann et al. (2006), quote a potential carbon sink of 5.5 to 9.5 GtC/yr by 2100, larger than the present day fossil fuel source (and approaching 10% of global primary production by plants). Such fluxes suppose that there will be enormous growth in the resources devoted to the production of biofuels, and that some large fraction of this carbon would be converted to biochar. The use of crops for renewable fuels on such a scale would very likely conflict with the use of agricultural land for the production of food and/or biofuels. As summarised in Table 2.4 biomass for sequestration could be a significant small-scale contributor to a geoengineering approach to enhancing the global terrestrial carbon sink, and it could, under the right circumstances, also be a benign agricultural practice. However, unless the sustainable sequestration rate exceeds around 1 GtC/yr, it is unlikely that it could make a large contribution. As is the case with biofuels, there is also the significant risk that inappropriately applied incentives to encourage biochar might increase the cost and reduce the availability of food crops, if growing biomass feedstocks becomes more profitable than growing food.” simon evans On Sep 24, 5:39 am, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Geoengineering List (with some ccs): Earlier today, Peter Read used my > name (Ron Larson - now a new member of this list) in connection with > Biochar - saying / "//despite Royal Society nonsense based apparently on > a submission from a scientifically ill-qualified NGO - Ron may care to > comment" . / > . The NGO being charged by Peter is BiofuelWatch (BFW), a > London-based group fighting biofuels. They have (totally incorrectly) > lumped Biochar with all biofuels, which they are against (justifiably) > for past considerable global cutting of rainforests. From the > perspective of this List, however, there is minimal attention to climate > issues (nor to soil issues). Despite massive evidence on the longevity > of [carbon-negative] char in soils for millenia, they deny all of that. > Similarly they deny that Biochar is sure to provide considerable ag > productivity increases. My main complaint about BFW is that the > references they use never support their charges and they ignore all > references that support Biochar. There is no other group anywhere in > the world with anything like their published (but not peer-reviewed) > anti-Biochar report. > . Peter has also correctly identified that the recent Royal Society > analysis of Biochar was "nonsense" from the perspective of those who are > supporters of Biochar. And BFW was not listed as a checkable reference > - whereas all of the other few the RS used were positive. > . In sum, having put many hundreds of hours in fighting BFW, this is > to fully support Peter's statements on these two superficial and > therefore harmful analyses of Biochar's Geoengineering potential. > Several rebuttals exist or are in process. The positive side of Biochar > is best seen atwww.biochar-international.org(and I am not employed by, > or on, any of the IBI committees or boards). > Ronal W. Larson, PhD, Golden, Colorado (retired) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
