No, Manu, the problem is not that there was a lack of insight. Instead, there is a wealth of information available, including many scientific reports from reputable sources. As Ron said: "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."
The problem is that the Royal Society is unwilling to acknowledge that it has failed to do a proper study into biochar, more specifically into the role of biochar as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with global warming. If there is going to be a serious effort to rewrite parts of the report, then I'll be happy make contributions. Cheers! Sam Carana On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Manu Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Sam, > If such research does indeed exist, then it should be fairly easy for > yourself, Ron or Peter to refute the arguments put forth in the extract of > RS report posted by Simon Evans and reposted by Ken and included once again > below. > > “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.” > > Manu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
