Thank you, Peter. Your arguments are well made. Have you considered making a formal submission to the Royal Society for a review of their position on this issue?
Manu On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Peter Read <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ken, Simon > > As it was I that said it, I had best front up. > > My objection on first reading was to the passage immediately following > Simon's quote, which is a gratuitous shift from policy relevance to policy > prescription, viz: > "Biochar and other forms of sequestered biomass have not yet been > adequately > researched and characterised, and so should not be eligible for carbon > credits under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until there is a reliable > system in place for verifying how much carbon is stored, and the wider > social and environmental effects have been determined. Substantial > research > will be required to achieve these conditions for methods other than BECS". > > However, as regards the words that Simon quotes, one concern is a matter of > emphasis, interpretation and tone. For instance, there are in aggregate > about 15Gt p.a. crop and forestry residues and animal dung, which may be > expected to rise to 20Gtp.a. (with ~10Gtp.a. C content) with population > increase to 9billions. If the lot were pyrolyzed with 50 per cent C > capture, and the product used for soil improvement, that would yield the > lower end of the Lehman et al quoted range without any growth at all "in > the > resources devoted to producing" [[not "biofuels" but biochar is presumably > intended]]. There would not be conflict with the use of agricultural land > but synergy, with improved soil leading to increased crop yield. > > In a single sentence the RS writer manages to state that "using crops > [PRESUMABLY HE/SHE MEANS CROP RESIDUES] for renewable fuels would be in > conflict with using agricultural land for the production of food AND/OR > BIOFUELS" !! Beyond the circular non-sequitur, the sentence is about > biofuels and not about biochar at all. > > Next, a negativistic sentence "However, unless the sustainable > sequestration > rate exceeds around 1 GtC/yr, it is unlikely that it could make a large > contribution." contains a false premise [as per the numbers above] which is > then carried through to a prominent conclusion of low effectiveness in > table > 2.4 > > As regards final sentence that Simon quotes "might increase the cost and > reduce the availability of food crops" is precisely the opposite of what > would happen with conversion of currently largely wasted or inefficiently > used farm and forestry residues to soil productivity enhancing biochar. > > As Ron Larson has noted, there is an extraordinary failure to quote the > enormous positive literature on biochar, conveniently referenced and > summarized in book format published in London IN MARCH 2009, within 2 miles > of the RS Carlton House Terrace headquarters [Biochar for Environmental > Management, Eds J Lehmann and S Joseph, Earthscan] which contrasts > strangely > with the Report's favourable attitude to BECS where the literature is > sparse > (possibly a convenience) and where success is entirely dependant on the > infant CCS technology. There is not the slightest doubt that we know how > to > pyrolyze. > > As regards the gratuitous policy prescriptive paragraph, the establishment > of a reliable system for verifying how much C is stored through commercial > biochar application to soil is no different from estimating fossil fuel > emissions - quantities and quality assay will.become available through > normal accountancy procedures and can be aggregated in the same way as is > done for coal, except the movement is down into the gropund rather than up > out of it. As biochar is "finely divided pyrolyzed biomass prepared > [expensively] for soil improvement" purchasers are not going to waste if > for > fuel (especially as preparation will likely involve wetting and doping with > nutrients and/or fungal spores etc., somewhat spoiling combustion > properties). Nobody is talking about carbon credits for increased labile > soil C resulting from increased productivity or about unregulated backyard > operations, though much valuable experimentation is going on in that way. > As regards the RS concern over "the wider social and environmental effects > " it would be good to see the same applied to already large scale > bioenergy before getting too excited about the (likely beneficial) social > and environmental effects of infant biochar. > > While I do not generally favour ad hominem arguments it may be noted that > there is not a single member of the working group and review panel that has > a publishing record in the field of biochar. > > Hope that helps > Peter > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
