Simon and Geoengineering List: It would take much too much space to explain in detail what I and many other Biochar supporters found wrong with the Royal Society's treatment of Biochar. Let me ask you to instead read a lengthy message #1158 I wrote on 4 September on the deficiencies I saw, given at the site: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy/ There are many other RS-negative comments as well nearby.
Briefly, the RS provided almost no citations compared to those they had for other Geoengineering options. I feel the authors were new to Biochar and were overly influenced by one by the group BiofuelWatch (BFW). I (and Peter Read and many others) claim FW's material to be unprofessionally prepared (and none is peer-reviewed). Also, there is no indication of how the Royal Society came to the 4-part conclusions they had for Biochar - which ranked near the bottom of their options. By my ranking (no proof of anything of course), Biochar would have been the top-ranked. Biochar papers are coming out at a great rate - almost universally endorsing Biochar's promise. The UK has an excellent University-based Biochar center (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar), whose writings are in significant disagreement with the RS. I'd be surprised (although I am new to this list) if any other Geoengineering approach has anywhere near as much commercial activity and rapid growth - none of which is reflected in the RS report. It would be interesting to hear the rankings that others on the list would give this newcomer carbon-negative (and potentially as much carbon-neutral as well) approach. Ron chsee wrote: > 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 <snip > rest> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
