I have to agree with Ron. Anyone who has done a bit of study into biochar will acknowledge biochar's essential role in a comprehensive approach to deal with global warming. The Royal Society has failed to put biochar in the right perspective, despite Peter's excellent submission. I call upon the Royal Society to do the right thing and prepare an updated version of the report.
Cheers! Sam Carana On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would be nice if Ron would provide a direct answer to Simon Evans's > question. > > I read the post on the yahoo group referred to by Ron. There are > apparently differences of opinion on whether biochar is ready to be > considered as an offset in negotiations under the UNFCCC, but I saw no > errors of fact pointed out in that post. Tthe only substantive > complaint I could find was that the section on biochar was > inadequately referenced. > > If there are indeed errors of fact in the Royal Society Report, it > would be helpful to point them out clearly, succinctly, and, where > appropriate, quantitatively. > > Ken > > PS. I repeat the post of Simon Evans here for convenience: > > 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 25, 9:18 pm, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
