Just a couple of clarifications on Australia biochar policy: 1. Australia's new Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is linked to a second piece of carbon legislation that would introduce a tax in 2012 and cap-and-trade after that. This second bill still needs to pass in order for the CFI to have any impact.
2. The CFI does not have a biochar methodology for creating offsets yet, but one is anticipated. There's a bit more information here: http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/08/australian-carbon-farming-passes.html Josh Horton [email protected] On Oct 13, 5:20 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Sam (cc 2 lists): > > 1. First, thanks for forwarding my yesterday "Geo" message to > "Biochar-Policy". > You raise an important question on how to proceed with getting funds for > Biochar implementation. My immediate reaction is to support any official > policy that is trying to accelerate CDR andBiochar, and both of your > identifications/suggestions below are well worth supporting. I also support > taxation - as being pushed by Jim Hansen. I would prefer that not all of the > tax be reimbursed equally on a per capita basis; I would rather see some > saved for supporting early demonstrations. > > 2. I wandered around the Australian site you gave below and was pleasantly > surprised to find Biochar specifically called out in several places. However, > there is no actual money for credits available - only (I think) a > registration process that allows a government-monitored sale in voluntary > markets. Not everything, but helpful. > There is reference to CSIRO being in charge of supporting farmers (with new > funds). I have been most impressed by CSIRO work with Biochar. Maybe only the > UKBRC activity at Edinburg comes close to being as complete. I heard the head > of the CSIRO Biochar activity (Dr. Evelyn Krull) speak last month at the > regional Biochar meeting in Kyoto - and was greatly impressed by the range of > work they have undertaken. They will be releasing shortly a major report that > should get us much closer to being able to match up chars with soils and > species. This CSIRO group is well organized, and I think they will be well > able to help Australian farmers enter the voluntary market - the first > country to do so. > There are now quite a few Biochar reports and literature available from > CSIRO. I recommend one of about 56 pages from > 2009:http://www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf > Here is a brief quote on policy: > "Separate evaluations should be made for the economic and environmental > sustainability of > alternative biochar scenarios. If the assured carbon-equivalent gain > available using biochar is > positive but the economic analysis for mainstream agriculture negative, then > utilisation of > economic instruments – most likely carbon trading or a subsidy that ensures > biochar is used > in soil rather than for combustion – is essential. The introduction, > expansion or revision of > such instruments that place a monetary value on the utilisation or disposal > of organic waste, > maintenance of soil quality and support for renewable and bioenergy as a > whole may then be > considered. > For any biochar scenario it is possible that the agronomic value for biochar > is sufficient to > render the economic evaluation positive, without resorting to carbon markets > or Government > incentives. Then concerted research effort will be sufficient to establish > certainty around the > extent and realisation of such benefits. " > > [RWL: So in sum, it is great that you brought this move towards more official > Australian government support for Biochar to our attention - and we now have > to see if it is enough. I had missed this big event. > Minor point - I learned a new (mainly Australian) word - from the official > dialog leading up to passage. This Act is apparently now immune from > "rorting". > > 3. I have also been to your site given below. I believe that your "feebates" > are essentially taxes? > > Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, "biochar-policy" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:50:52 PM > Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [geo] Biochar Nature paper > > Question: What policy framework can best encourage biochar? > > The Australian Government has introduced carbon > creditshttp://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi > > An alternative policy framework is described at the Biochar Economy, > at:http://knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/the-biochar-economy/7y50rvz9924j/88 > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM, < [email protected] > wrote: > > Greg and list: > > > Thanks for bringing this two-year old (downloadable) Biochar paper from > > "Nature" below to the list's attention. I admire the work of Wolff, > > Amonette (corresponding author, responsible for the Excel work), etal. But > > I think they went overboard on being conservative. They say: " Wherever > > possible, conservative assumptions were used to provide a high degree of > > confidence that our results represent a conservative estimate of the avoided > > GHG emissions achievable in each scenario.". I know three of the five > > authors; one of them gave a (much less-documented) estimate that was an > > order-of-magnitude higher. Tim Lenton has repeated this higher number. I > > believe the most recent paper by Jim Hansen, which I think proposes 100 GtC > > of new standing forests, is assuming larger land use change than is assumed > > in this paper, or by those promoting BECCS. In my view, there is probably > > one Gha available for reforestation and the paper limits the agroforestry > > total to 170 Mha (all with latitude less than 25 degrees). They also assume > > only about 4 tC/ha-yr to be available (with about half going into char - > > about 30% of their total annual combined carbon neutral and carbon negative > > peak). I believe we will do appreciably better than this assumed 400 grams > > C/sqm-yr in the tropics (with about half of this parameter being available > > for sequestration). > > Resources that receive little/zero consideration in this paper include > > a. The ocean - having an NPP roughly equal to that of land. Mangroves > > have always been highly regarded for char making - and can be harvested > > sustainably. Artificial nutrient upwelling and macroalgae are not > > mentioned. > > b. Freshwater microalgae - which provides potential access to the Gha of > > deserts. > > c. Fire-prevention possibilities (possibly another 1 GtC/yr) > > d. Conversion of considerable pasture and idle land (there is only a > > minimum assumed conversion of farm land - as noted above for agroforestry. > > As noted above considerably higher values than 4 tC/ha-yr are in the > > literature.) > > e. Potential for improved bioenergy species productivity (little past > > emphasis by geneticists on energy crops). > > f. There is little on the ability to manage forests to increase (maybe > > double or triple?) annual productivity by keeping the canopy open, using > > multiple species and multiple levels in forests, and employing a lot of > > people for coppicing etc.. > > g. Little emphasis on emphasizing the advantages of more extensive > > reforestation of tropical areas - where annual productivity can triple that > > in temperate zones. (But we can do both, where temperate land is idle.) > > h. No assumed increase in soil productivity due to Biochar application > > (and the terra preta literature talks of double and triple soil productivity > > increase). > > i. HTC - hydrothermal conversion (of moist resources, such as MSW, > > feedlot effluent, etc) - where HTC proponents talk about a potential for > > half of future carbon sequestration via that route. > > j. The use of charcoal-making stoves for the half of the world now > > predominantly getting their energy (very inefficiently) from biomass. This > > can be expanded readily to larger scale operations presently having zero > > fossil fuels. > > k. The potential role of Biochar for supporting (intermittent) wind and > > solar - as biomass can provide needed energy storage. > > l. I believe they show soil organic carbon (SOC) decreasing - and most > > Biochar analysts assume an increase. > > m. Any sense of political urgency - as being pushed by the 350 ppm > > movement (including Dr. Hansen) > > n. No discussion of what can happen with new policies that might come > > out of different politics. > > > None of the above dozen possible resource expansion areas requires > > cutting existing forests, nor use of peat regions. > > > I am also looking into the details of the paper's comparisons with > > combustion, etc. I think this may also have been conservative. For > > instance if one has added annual productivity after applying char, credit > > should be given for that additional annual growth (even if cut annually) and > > standing biomass. I believe no such credit is given although it would be the > > main claim for a new forest. > > > There are a few other similar Biochar papers striving to get at the > > details. It is on these details that we must now concentrate - and the > > Wolff-Amonette paper contains as much or more detail as any I have seen. To > > repeat, their arguments are well supported - albeit mostly using the most > > conservative number in a spectrum. I am only declaring that our CDR world > > is large enough to have both conservative and more optimistic views being > > discussed. I would love to have further conversation with anyone on this > > list re my concerns on this paper being overly conservative. > > > Thanks again to Greg for bringing this excellent paper to the list's > > attention. > > > Ron > > > ________________________________ > > From: "Greg Rau" < [email protected] > > > To: "geoengineering" < [email protected] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:40:22 PM > > Subject: [geo] Biochar Nature paper > > >http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html?WT.ec... > > > Production of biochar (the carbon (C)-rich solid formed by pyrolysis of > > biomass) and its storage in soils have been suggested as a means of abating > > climate change by sequestering carbon, while simultaneously providing energy > > and increasing crop yields. Substantial uncertainties exist, however, > > regarding the impact, capacity and sustainability of biochar at the global > > level. In this paper we estimate the maximum sustainable technical potential > > of biochar to mitigate climate change. Annual net emissions of carbon > > dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide could be reduced by a maximum of > > 1.8 Pg CO2-C equivalent (CO2-Ce) per year (12% of current anthropogenic > > CO2-Ce emissions; 1 Pg=1 Gt), and total net emissions over the course of a > > century by 130 Pg CO2-Ce, without endangering food security, habitat or soil > > conservation. Biochar has a larger climate-change mitigation potential than > > combustion of the same sustainably procured biomass for bioenergy, except > > when fertile soils are amended while coal is the fuel being offset. > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > > 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. > > __._,_.___ > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > Messages in this topic ( 1 ) > Recent Activity: > > Visit Your Group > > MARKETPLACE > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > Yahoo! Groups > Switch to: Text-Only , Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > > . > > __,_._,___- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
