John several lists (adding one) and ccs (adding two bccs, requesting special help from experts):
I am still backlogged, so will try to add more later. But I know this is of utmost importance to you - so bit more below. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>, biochar-pol...@yahoogroups.com, "Oliver Tickell" <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:15:47 AM Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [geo] Biofuel watch Science/Policy Review. Hi Ron, Thanks for your comments. I'm particularly interested in "CO2 is a sign of a healthy soil". [RWL: I was recently greatly surprised to hear that the CO2 content in all soils is much higher than the atmosphere's reported 390 ppm (varies a lot by latitude). I will try to find cites on that. Obviously in a desert environment, that difference will be slight. CO2 is respired from leaves, but also from roots (which being aliver need to respire as well). In many areas the root mass exceeds the above ground mass - even befoe you add in the huge carbon content of microbes and fungi. ] 1. Of course methane would be a sign of an unhealthy (anaerobic or waterlogged) soil, so does biochar discourage methane? [RWL: I encourage real soil scientists to chime in, but I believe I can say yes and no. I don't believe the word "discourage" is accurate, but a cited major reason for Biochar success is opening up soils for oxygen (and water) to percolate to where the microbes/fungi are residing . So in that sense Biochar discourages methane. But it is also a good "sorbter" of methane (both (?) adsorb and absorb). Being attached to the char surface makes it available to some biota.] 2. When CO2 is given off, is it appreciably less than the CO2 being absorbed by the plants? If not, the biochar sequestration ability is in doubt. The world's soils are a vast reservoir of carbon, so keeping the carbon in the soil is vital. [RWL2: I believe it is pretty well established that the flow of CO2 into and out of the biosphere has been pretty well balanced over the millenia. At the moment, the last paper I read on this had about 4 Gt C/yr more annually going in rather than out (usually I read 2). This is from a total GPP (gross primary productivity) in excess of 100 Gt C (so on order of 4% is (in favor of the Biosphere) helping us). This 4 Gt C/yr number is without accounting for land clearing, but it does account for forest fires. So if we could eliminate forest clearing and could do better on fire prevention, we could be over 5 Gt C /yr . Not bad considering the fossil input is about 8. This is a main reason why Biochar is such a good option. We can improve on that 5%.] So the answer to your first question is "No" - less, but not appreciably less- and this depends a lot on where you are (droughts, excessive heat, etc). It especially depends on the age of the forest. Old forests are not sequestering new carbon annually (but could be with management). We need to carefully balance standing biomass and annual additions (which can in turn [through biochar] add to that taken from the atmosphere. The answer to your second sentence (at least to me) on sequestration is that there is no doubt about the sequestration ability of Biochar. But this is independent of the firs t question. One also has to bring in the sequestration capability of above-ground plant matter (way down [maybe more than 200 Gt C] from the long time periods we were at 280 ppm) . Response to your third sentence also needs to be complex . Of course we need to keep soil carbon where it is - and that is why a proper response to Dr. Wardle is so important. Biochar of course adds to (does not subtract from) the soil carbon (which at about 1500 GtC is about twice the atmospheric amount). BiofuelWatch (BFW) is way off base on this point as well as on Biochar's longevity (recalcitrance) in soil (see the IBI "misconception" cite I gave earlier today [below]) . But adding Biochar to soils not only adds carbon there, but also above ground - and therefore is an impotant contributor to food security (unlike what BFW also claims). And this added carbon amount above ground (not the amount below ground) is needed (urgently) to replace fossil fuels in a carbon neutral manner. And this means both for biofuels and biopower - wher the latter is needed to back up the non-constant solar and wind resources. Biomass is unique in supplying renewable energy storage. I see I have digressed some from your methane-related question, but I think all the above is needed to answer your last three sentences. So yes, there is good experimental evidence that Biochar directly helps in the retention of methane underground , where it can be used prductively by certain microbes which in turn help plant growth. Maybe even more importantly, it apperently can do the same for N2O - which is uniquely coming from the rural parts of the world . Going one final step further - can Biochar help in the sorption of Methane from clathrate release in the Arctic (with subsequent beneficial conversion to CO2)? I think it possible - but don't know enough on that topic . Maybe someone reading this can respond. 3 . The CO2 is not of itself a benefit in the soil. So wouldn't mixing biochar with crushed rock to remove the CO2 make sense? One would probably use a silicate rock, whose natural weathering removes CO2 and creates carbonate/bicarbonate. [ RWL3: Yes, the combination makes sense. The economics are less certain. There are many in Biochar working on mineland reclamation for this reason Even some rock dust by itself can be helpful to plant growth. People like Dr. Tom Goreau and David Yarrow (being cc'd) can comment better on that. There is a possibility that albedo effects may be important here as well. Googling on Biochar and reclamation will give a number of leads. 4. Is anybody experimenting with biochar mixed with crushed rock to see the effect? [RWL4: Certainly David Yarrow and the above mentioned mineland folk. Combining can have a large (positive) effect, from what I understand. But if there is a connection to methane release, I am not aware of it.] [RWL: I will try to augment this above with good citations - but not today. Let me know of any cite your need urgently. Hope this is what you were after Ron.] Cheers, John --- On 10/08/2011 15:57, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: John etal See inserted notes below. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> , "andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> , "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> , biochar-pol...@yahoogroups.com , "Oliver Tickell" <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 5:36:30 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Biofuel watch Science/Policy Review. Hi Ron, Thanks for your work on dispelling the myths created by the biofuelwatch people. I put them into the same category as the ETC group and "Hands off Mother Earth", who also believe that our good intentions in geoengineering (to try and save the planet for the enjoyment of future generations) are a conspiracy of big business with bad intentions of one kind or another. For me, the only thing of interest in this document was the mention of CO2 emissions from roots and soil bacteria. Is it possible that biochar could stimulate such emissions? If so, has it been quantified? And could such emissions (if and when they occur) be countered by mixing biochar with crushed rock, specifically to absorb the CO2? [RWL: This is an area I don't fully understand; After a few days, I will try to add to the following. I am pretty sure you are referring to a 2008 paper in Science by a Swedish researcher - Dr. D. Wardle. Over a ten-year period, he observed more CO2 emissions from "bags" of char placed in Swedish (I think) pine litter in a natural forest than from bags with no char. There was a subsequent exchange with one of the main Biochar proponenents, Cornell's Dr. Johannes Lehmann taking issue with the Wardle interpretation - which was designed 10 years earlier with no thought of Biochar. There is a quite complete account of this issue at Topic #8 (and full set of citations at the end) at: http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Biochar%20Misconceptions%20and%20the%20Science.pdf I have vague recollection of one additional technical paper on each side of this issue following this IBI summary. Mostly not mentioned in this IBI summary is that we want lots more CO2 release when Biochar is placed in the ground - that is a good sign of a healthy soil. Dr. Wardle had no growing matter near his bags of char - and it is the added growth of plant matter that makes Biochar unique (maybe for millenia) amongst the CDR approaches. Wardle's was not a Biochar experiment nor intended to be one. He was making a useful observation after learning of the growing interest in Biochar. I would love to know what his present thinking is after the several papers (reported by IBI) did not reproduce his results. Needless to say, BFW gives only the initial story. If this was not the cause of your query, please ask again. BTW, by chance I've met both ETC and biofuelwatch people - they were charming, but very set in their misguided ways and not open to argument. In a curious way they are climate change deniers, though I'm sure they'd not accept that. But they are denying that climate change is so serious that we have to geoengineer to get ourselves out of the mess we're in - as well as drastic reductions in CO2, etc. Time is ticking away, and the real danger is that we'll be too late to save ourselves, even with both the most drastic geoengineering and the most drastic emissions cuts. [RWL: I have found them to be strangely silent on AGW. I really have no idea what their view is, but I agree that the result is the same as from deniers. I believe it helps their argument to focus on the most negative aspects of biofuels - and there have indeed been some bad examples of biofuel introduction in some developing countries. But, I believe they make a major mistake by saying Biochar is no different than any biofuel. I have never seen tham make any distinction. Ron] Cheers, John --- On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:13 AM, < rongretlar...@comcast.net > wrote: Andrew and List: I am one of the "for-sure" others. I find this document to be pretty slick (lots of citations)- but almost entirely of a PR character. I believe none of the authors (none of whom are shown either) have ever done any Biochar experiments nor published anything in the peer-reviewed literature.. Re the citations, I have been asking for several years to have a dialog on just one of them. It should be one where we can easily get the citation and see if it accurately backs up the BFW claim. I offer that challenge again -hoping for one that looks really serious from an anti-Biochar perspective.. Before going that route, please see what the Biochar community has said on many specific BFW claims (none of which have been refuted by BFW in print, I believe) at http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Biochar%20Misconceptions%20and%20the%20Science.pdf There are three fundamental problems with (this report and) the BFW position. 1. They identify Biochar as a biofuel - and it is much more. 2. They question the intentions of the Biochar community. 3. They are opposed to most corporate activities - of almost any type.. I look forward to having further substantive dialog on this report - either on-list or off-list. But let's try for specifics. Ron From: "Andrew Lockley" < andrew.lock...@gmail.com > To: "geoengineering" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 2:59:54 PM Subject: [geo] Biofuel watch Science/Policy Review. I understand John Nissen, and maybe others, have strong opinions on this document. A http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/Biochar-%20A%20Critical%20Review%20of%20Science%20and%20Policy%20June2011.pdf Introduction As we face catastrophic impacts of climate change, efforts to --engineer|| the climate are proliferating along with a host of technofix --solutions|| for addressing the many consequences of climate change. Among these is the proposal to use soils as a medium for addressing climate change, by scaling up the use of biochar. Indeed soils around the globe have been severely depleted of carbon as well as nutrients - in large part due to destructive industrial agriculture and tree plantations as well as logging practices, raising serious concerns over the future of food production. Soil depletion has led many to conclude that improving soils might contribute significantly to addressing climate change as well as other converging crisis, by sequestering carbon, boosting fertility, reducing fertiliser use, protecting waterways etc. But is biochar a viable approach? Biochar is essentially fine grained charcoal, added to soils. Advocates claim it can sequester carbon for hundreds or even thousands of years and that it improves soil fertility and provides various other benefits - they seek support in order to scale up production. A common vision amongst biochar supporters is that it should be scaled up to such a large scale that it can help to reduce or stabilise atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Research to date on biochar has had mixed results and clearly indicates that biochar is not one product but a wide range of chemically very different products which will have very different effects on different soils and in different conditions. Many critically important issues remain very poorly understood; there are likely to be serious and unpredictable negative impacts of this technology if it is adopted on a large scale and there is certainly no --one-size-fit-all|| biochar solution. Soils are extremely diverse and dynamic. They play a fundamental role in supporting plant, microbe, insect and other communities, interacting with the atmosphere, regulating water cycles and more. Unfortunately, like other such schemes, to engineer biological systems, the biochar concept is based on a dangerously reductionist view of the natural world which fails to recognize and accommodate this ecological complexity and variation. Biochar proponents make unsubstantiated claims and lobby for very significant supports to scale up biochar production. But these supports have largely not been forthcoming. Nonetheless, vigilance is required. In particular, there is potential that agriculture and soils may be broadly included in carbon markets, which could open new potential for supports for biochar. Likewise, as climate geoengineering discussions are becoming more prominent and accepted, there is potential that biochar could move forward under that guise. It is imperative that we do not repeat past errors by embracing poorly understood, inherently risky technologies such as biochar that will likely encourage expansion of industrial monocultures, result in more --land grabs|| and human rights abuses, further contribute to the loss of biodiversity, and undermine an essential transition to better (agro-ecological) practices in agriculture and forestry. The following is a substantially expanded update of our initial 2009 briefing: --Biochar for Climate Mitigation: Fact or Fiction?|| It is an interim version with the final report to be published during the UN Climate Conference in Durban in late 2011. Since our first briefing as published, there has been a considerable amount of new research, and many new industry and policy developments for biochar. In this update, we also address criticism of our previous briefing by the International Biochar Initiative. 1 We hope this report will generate a deeper understanding of the issues and more critical thinking about biochar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic ( 2 ) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only , Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
