Dr. Smolker, Nando (cc List and few others; keeping the geoengineering
list this time):
1. I am taking the same tack again - applauding Nando first and then
only replying to each part of the material supplied by Dr. Smolker. But
this time, I find little fault in what Dr. Smolker wrote. However,
this was such a simplistic statement by an un-named group working for
the UNEP that I am surprised Dr. Smolker has referenced it as being at
all meaningful. At the end, I show the excerpt is not even typical.
2. Her only sentence is:
"Here is what the Convention on Biological Diversity Second
Ad Hoc Technical Experts Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change states:
3. The first part of the first quoted sentence is:
"160. The long-term stability of biochar in soils is, as yet, unknown ...."
*[RWL3: The first part on stability being unknown is quite true,
but it is so large (at 100's to 1000's of years (or more) as to not
even be worth worrying about. IBI discusses this in detail at
http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_RS_recalcitrance12-09.pdf
There are 11 peer-reviewed citations in this 4 page IBI dismissal of
this non-issue.
*4. The last part of the first quoted sentence is:
*
" ...*and large-scale development could result in additional
land use pressures. "
[*[RWL4: Of course! This part of the sentence says nothing that is
not obvious. We 6 billion people on the planet (and our forebearers)
have so badly screwed up the world's atmosphere, soils and forests -
that a "large-scale development" is mandatory. I would like to see BFW
comment at some point on their view of the urgency of removing carbon
from the atmosphere. Of course **to avoid climate tipping points in
timely fashion will cause some pain. But the impact of doing nothing on
biodiversity (the only meaty subject of this report) will be much worse
than the report authors acknowledge.]*
5. Dr. Smolker deleted an end note 236 at the end of this first
sentence; 236 had three citation entries:
* * a. McHenry, M.P. 2009. Agricultural bio-char production,
renewable energy generation and farm
carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty and
risk. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment 129: 1-7.
b. Lehmann, J. 2007. Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 5: 381-387.
c. Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.-C. & Zackrisson, O. 2008.
Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest
Humus. Science, 320: 629*
* *[RWL5:
a. **I haven't read this one (which is not free) , but recognize the
name. The full Abstract indicates to me nothing to justify any alarm
about Biochar*:
"Reducing the vulnerability of agriculture to climate change
while increasing primary productivity requires mitigation and adaptation
activities to generate profitable co-benefits to farms. The conversion
of woody-wastes by pyrolysis to produce bio-char (biologically derived
charcoal) is one potential option that can enhance natural rates of
carbon sequestration in soils, reduce farm waste, and substitute
renewable energy sources for fossil-derived fuel inputs. Bio-char has
the potential to increase conventional agricultural productivity and
enhance the ability of farmers to participate in carbon markets beyond
traditional approach by directly applying carbon into soil. This paper
provides an overview of the pyrolysis process and products and
quantifies the amount of renewable energy generation and net carbon
sequestration possible when using farm bio-waste to produce bio-char as
a primary product. While this research provides approximate bio-char and
energy production yields, costs, uses and risks, there is a need for
additional research on the value of bio-char in conventional crop yields
and adaptation and mitigation options."
*[RWL 5a The Biochar community is probably unanimous in pleading
for the research need that Professor McHenry identifies. BFW and this
panel are slowing that research down badly with this silly set of much
too brief comments. Note that none of the comments nor the citations
deal with Biodiversity - which I claim should be helped a lot by
Biochar. The more Biochar, the better for biodiversity (as I was able
to find UNEP saying (see below)).*
*
b. Dr. Lehmann is one of the strongest supporters of Biochar - and
would probably say "so what" to either part of the first "Ad Hoc expert"
sentence. The IBI site probably lists several dozen Biochar papers by
Dr. Lehmann - most available at his Cornell University web site. This
one is at:
*http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/FrontiersEcolEnv%205,%20381-387,%202007%20Lehmann.pdf
*
c. IBI has addressed the Wardle study in 2 pages and 6 citations at *
http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_RS_soil_carbon_loss12-09.pdf
* I hope Dr. Smolker will want to discuss this IBI response to BFW
at further length - as BFW makes a big thing out of a single non-Biochar
experiment (that involved no growing biomass) that has had no follow-up
papers replicating the claimed results - and 2 that were in direct
disagreement.]
**
*
6. The second sentence in paragraph 160 was:
"The effectiveness and long-term stability of biochar in soils
has not yet been established. "
*
** [RWL6: The issue of "stability" was already raised in the first
sentence - so this sure looks like a non-expert struggling with a
foreign topic. The question of "effectiveness" should have been in the
affirmative if the authors had read ANY of Prof. Lehmann's papers - and
especially those related to Terra Preta soils - about which BFW also
always casts doubts.*
*
*
7. The final UNEP sentence says:
"Furthermore, large-scale deployment of biochar may require
significant amounts of biomass, creating the need for additional lands
to grow biomass and thus creating additional land-use pressures."
*[RWL: A second example of "padding"; nothing at all new here.
The word "may" should be replaced by "obviously will". The last
part of the sentence is similarly inane. This sentence could have
been written by a failing third grader. The issue should be what is
the alternative.]*
8. Dr. Smolker gave a citation that didn't work for me
_<http://www.conservation.org/Documents/CBD_2009_connecting_biodiveris>__http://www.conservation.org/Documents/CBD_2009_connecting_biodiveristy_and_climate_change_mitigation_and_adaptation.pdf
_should be replaced by just the last part:
_http://www.conservation.org/Documents/CBD_2009_connecting_biodiveristy_and_climate_change_mitigation_and_adaptation.pdf
_*
[RWL9. Paragraph 163 was on geoengineering and (being a little longer)
could have mentioned Biochar without struggling in paragraph 160 to
write three sentences when one would have sufficed. But the single
citation the Ad hoc panel gave here (#237) is valuable:
*
237. Lenton, T. M. and Vaughan, N. E.: The radiative forcing
potential of di fferent climate geoengineering
options, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 9, 2559-2608
* In this paper, Professor Lenton gives one of the strongest
supporting analyses for Biochar. I hope Dr. Smolker will give us her
opinion of this paper (and especially the Biochar portion). I do not
have any idea what BFW thinks is the likelihood that we are nearing a
climate tipping point, which requires large-scale action of the type
(maybe) that was discussed at Asilomar.]
*
*[RWL10: I googled a bit to see what else UNEP might have said about
Biochar. I easily found this citation:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/ccScienceCompendium2009/cc_ScienceCompendium2009_ch5_en.pdf
The first and last sentences of these several UNEP pages on Biochar in
Chapter 5 said:
"An innovative approach to soil carbon sequestration has emerged that
may offer a low-risk and very efficient way to mitigate climate change and
replenish soil fertility. .......... Biochar could be an essential
component of systems
management necessary for meeting the climate change challenge (Kleiner
2009, Lehmann 2007)."
*[RWL11: I wondered also whether Biochar might have been tied to
biodiversity in this report and was delighted to find this direct tie:
"An emerging body of scientific research focuses on spatially integrated
management approaches to agriculture. This would involve a move away
from the conventional model of land-use segregation, in which some areas
are dedicated wholesale to food production, while others are set aside for
conservation or other uses (Scherr and McNeely 2008, Holden et al. 2008).
For decades, biodiversity conservation and agricultural productivity were
thought to be incompatible and mutually exclusive pursuits. But
practitioners
of eco-agriculture challenge these notions. Their approach transforms
large-scale, high-input monoculture plantations at the farm level to a more
diverse, low-input, and integrated system at the landscape level. Given
the necessary management, policy, and governance structures, these
new eco-agricultural land-use mosaics could support biodiversity while
meeting increasing demands for wider ecosystem services and achieving
critical goals of agricultural sustainability (Scherr and McNeely 2008). By
treating food production as just one of many possible ecosystem services,
eco-agriculture in a sense encourages landholders to cultivate clean air
and water, rich soil, and biological diversity, as well as food. The local
and regional resilience this produces is also the basis of well-managed
adaptation to climate change.
Forms of eco-agriculture have been practised in the past and at
impressive
scales: Terra Preta soils of central Amazonia could provide tremendous
opportunities for multiple benefits (UNEP 2009). Large-scale generation and
utilization of nutrient-rich Terra Preta soils would decrease the
necessity for
clearing new agricultural lands that require deforestation. Less
deforestation
for agricultural lands would maintain biodiversity while mitigating both
land
degradation and climate change and, if done properly, can alleviate waste
and sanitation problems in some communities (Glaser 2007)."
*[RWL: My thanks to Dr. Smolker for leading us to this statement
which is a direct contradiction of everything BFW has been saying about
the subjects of Biodiversity and Biochar - by an expert UN group
directly charged with this issue.
[RWL12: I also was not aware of the citation above for UNEP2009,
which can be downloaded free at:
http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2009/PDF/UNEP_Year_Book_2008_EN_Full.pdf
**
(This is over 100 MB, and my computer balked part way through the
download. But I saw much the same sort of material about terra preta at
this site that I will go back to. Lots of concern in both places about
both climate and soils - so no wonder that they like the looks of
Biochar. The year 2008 at the end of the URL is not a typo.)
**[RWL13: I am afraid that the selective use of tiny snippets from
non-refereed papers (referring to the first part of my response, not the
last) , prepared by people with no background in the subject, is what I
have come to expect from BFW citations. I wonder whether the rest of
Dr. Smolker's note to Nando will improve on this first citation. I
doubt we will hear about the lengthy Biochar-support document from the
UNCCD (D=Desertification)]
Apologies for the length - but the biggest parts above are direct
recent official contributions from the UNEP that contradict the single
un-identified ad hoc panel snippet.]
Ron
**
*Nando wrote:
Rachel,
You wrote
--
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.
