Ken etal: Below is a follow-up to your note of two days ago. . Most of my comments are in reply to the 24 paragraphs of the following BFW "screed" (and thanks for that accurate wording) in Andrew's posting
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> To: "andrew lockley" <[email protected]> Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:46:16 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering Is a Dangerous Solution to Climate Change (mentions Keith; criticises GE research practices/funding) The oddest bedfellow in all of this is biochar. [RWLa: I like this "odd bedfellow" label. It should help us with our continuing battles with Dr. Smolker and BFW.] The biochar folks who are active on this list are some of the few people who seem eager to identify their favored approach with the word "geoengineering". (underlining added) [RWLb: As one of the "....biochar folks who are active on this list..." as well as a long time "debater" (more often "debunker") with BFW staff, I will try to respond to all of Dr. Smolker's talking points - and answer your interesting hypothetical "no-till" question below But first I must deny being ".... .eager to identify their favored approach with the word "geoengineering". I would have preferred that the Royal Society and others had not included biochar in the CDR category. I can't see that any benefit has resulted from this association. Dr. Smolker's remarks prove th is point. Rather, I continue on this fine "geo" list because biochar certainly does remove atmospheric carbon (and therefore is indeed a CDR [carbon dioxide removal] approach). So I try to contribute to this geo list because I think biochar to be (by far) the best CDR approach (being the only one that both provides energy and centuries if not millennia of soil improvement benefits (repeat - large benefits, not continuing out year costs). Too few on this list are able to follow the rapid changes taking place with the biochar technology - so I try to insert those updates here . ] Would the writer of this screed oppose no-till agriculture if the advocates of no-till agriculture embraced the term "geoengineering"? [RWLc: This is a great question. I am pretty sure the BFW answer would be "yes", See below for a more complete rationale. The Smolker/BFW argument argument is basically: 1. large corporations and profit motives are bad/evil 2. biofuels are bad/evil - mostly because of "fact #1" which BFW sees as an inherent component of biofuels 3. biochar has a biofuel component, so biochar is bad/evil 4. biochar is a form of geoengineeerng, so geoengineering is bad/evill 5. if no-till is a part of geoengineering, then no/till also must be bad/evil (but no-till is not considered as permanent as biochar, so no-till will have to work harder to earn BFW's negative rankings.) Geoengineering is a set of possible activities linked together by a single word, and not much else. [RWLd: Agreed. The worst part from a biochar perspective is when "geoengineering" is used in place of the "SRM" [solar radiation management] component of geo. I write here with an intent mostly to alert the biochar, not the geoengineering community. Thankfully this concern does not relate to the previous commenters in this thread - Ken, Greg, and Andrew. More below- no need for most geo list readers to read further, which is only a detailed rebuttal directed at BFW. I believe I am in total agreement with Ken on the value and val idity of the BFW "screed" The following is my time-limited attempt to put a biochar perspective on the material forwarded by Andrew. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Lockley < [email protected] > wrote: Poster's note : Recommended reading as it contains personal and pointed criticism of research funding and practices. (That doesn't mean I agree!) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rachel-smolker/geoengineering-climate-change_b_2907068.html Rachel Smolker Co-director, Biofuelwatch [RWL1: I write below with the term "BFW" replacing "Smolker" - as most of the un-cited backup already appears on the BFW website.] <blockquote> Geoengineering Is a Dangerous Solution to Climate Change </blockquote> [RWL2: It is rare that BFW mentions climate change. I have never found anything credible there about anything on climate except cutting back on fossil fuels. They never mention 350 ppm. They are opposed to REDD. <blockquote> As the realities of global climate change become ever more alarming, advocates of technological approaches to "geoengineer" the planet's climate are gaining a following. </blockquote> [RWL3: True, thankfully. But this BFW article is t heir attempt to quench that gain. I believe the following from BFW are intended to discredit biochar - not geo. They have written mostly (all negative) on biochar , and very little on other forms of "geo"] <blockquote> But the technologies that are promoted -- from spraying sulphate particles into the stratosphere, to dumping iron particles into the ocean, to stimulate carbon absorbing plankton, to burning millions of trees and burying the char in soils -- are all fraught with clear and obvious risks, and are most likely only going to make matters worse. </blockquote> [RWL4: "burning", "burying", "fraught---risks", "most likely" are loaded words that in the biochar world would be replaced by "pyrolyzed" (needed to obtain a char), "augmenting" (to get soil values-"burying" denying that possbility), "essentially risk free", "least likely". BFW is an outstandingly clever user of PR techniques. None (repeat none) of these following BFW claims have appear ed in a peer-reviewed journal <blockquote> Yet zeal for these approaches continues unabated. According to right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute, geoengineering offers: </blockquote> [RWL5: AEI has a "bad/evil" reputation in the community she is trying to reach. So if AEI endorses geo, then geo (and especially biochar) must also be "bad/evil". Note this is my #1 claim for their decision process.] <blockquote> "...the marriage of capitalism and climate remediation...What if corporations shoulder more costs and lead the technological charge, all for a huge potential payoff?...Let's hope we are unleashing enlightened capitalist forces that just might drive the kind of technological innovation necessary to genuinely tackle climate change." Forget about cutting emissions: manipulating the atmosphere and biosphere through geoengineering is the only sensible option for business and thus policy makers, they claim. [RWL6: Is it not clever to take two isolated sentences and attributed a (likely) non-correct position not even believed by AEI - and transfer it to all of "geo" (and biochar)? To the best of my knowledge (I have looked), AEI has never written about CDR or biochar. This use of selected quotes about big business is found repeatedly at the BFW site. ] </blockquote> <blockquote> Notably, on the very same website, American Enterprise Institute claims that opponents of the Keystone Pipeline are exaggerating environmental risks while undermining economic gains and 'neighborliness'. [ RWL7: It doesn't matter to BFW that there is next to zero interaction between any biochar activity and AEI - except possibly some dual memberships. I can't comment on non-biochar contacts, but I doubt they are extensive. ] </blockquote> <blockquote> The connection between the tar sands industry and geoengineering advocates is perhaps not immediately obvious, but it makes perfect, ugly sense. Tar sands investors and their allies have long realized that geoengineering could provide them an extended lease on life -- and a convenient means to avoid the shuttering of their industry, which many consider the single most destructive and climat -- damaging form of energy extraction. </blockquote> [RWL8: Most biochar (and probably most Geo) advocates are with Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben on the need to quickly get to 350 ppm CO2 or lower. BFW is making up a connection with AEI here that simply does not exist. In my mind, use of biochar to reclaim damaged land of any type should be encouraged. No - till included. ] <blockquote> Hence, it isn't surprising that tar sands magnate Murray Edwards, director of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, actually fact funds a geoengineering company that works on techniques for capturing CO2 from the air called Carbon Engineering. </blockquote> [RWL9: I would welcome his investment also in biochar circles. See below on Cool Planet.] <blockquote> Carbon Engineering's president, David Keith, is one of the most vocal and best funded advocates of geoengineering. Carbon Dioxide air capture is often viewed as benign or "soft" geoengineering. After all, what could possibly be wrong with removing carbon dioxide from the overloaded atmosphere? [RWL10: Note a clever PR approach again. No positive alternative answer for getting to 350 ppm is given below.] </blockquote> <blockquote> For starters, air capture of CO2 requires vast amounts of water and, yes, more energy. According to one study, scrubbing all current annual fossil fuel emissions from the air would deprive 53 million people of water. Even capturing CO2 from power station smokestacks, where it is already in a relatively concentrated stream, requires those power plants to burn nearly one third more fuel in order to generate the same amount of energy, plus the additional demand required to power carbon capture. </blockquote> [RWL11: I have no idea what "one study" refers to. But, I think discrediting air capture is needed here since biochar is in the same category. Biochar advocates are often crediting water conservation as THE main biochar positive attribute. For me, there are many and I personally am concentrating these days on CDR benefits. Most bochar advocates emphasize other benefits, but very few disagree on the carbon capture benef its . Maybe this is in here to discredit any form of carbon capture. <blockquote> What Carbon Engineering is developing may be nonsensical from an environmental and scientific perspective, but it fits neatly into the tar sands' industry agenda for portraying themselves as "low carbon." In 2011, Richard Branson chose Calgary for announcing the shortlist of his "Virgin Earth Challenge" which offers a $25 million prize to one project working to remove CO2 from the air. His spokesperson explained the rationale for this choice: </blockquote> [RWL13: The reason for BFW dumping on Carbon Engineering is now more clear. Sir Branson has spoken favorably about biochar, so they need to quickly get him also in the "bad/evil "camp] <blockquote> "Calgary is a good place to start low-carbon technology. It's an energy centre [with inventiveness and rigor to apply "to sustainable, low-carbon and economically viable technology." </blockquote> [RWL14: You have to be pretty desperate for rationales when you quote a spokesperson on something so peripherally related to biochar and CDR. It doesn't matter on the truth of the statement itself about Calgary.] <blockquote> Tar sands influence behind so-called 'soft geoengineering' can be found in unexpected places. Take a recent announcement by Vermont-based Green Mountain Coffee: "Mountain Coffee Roasters is helping to fund nonprofit Radio Lifeline's Black Earth Project, an initiative that uses biochar to help Rwandan farmers mitigate the effects of climate change. Radio Lifeline's project partner Re:char, a Kenyan developer of small-scale biochar technologies, will use agricultural residues such as dried corn stalks, grasses, rice hulls, coffee pulp, cow manure and wood chips as feedstock for the biochar production." </blockquote> [RWL15: Re:Char is a US firm headed by a bright young socially responsible entrepreneu r: Jason Aramburu. I am baffled why BFW picks on this group, except maybe Re:Char is showing too much ag/soil success for BFW's liking. I do not see in this coffee-based description any reason for concern about forests. Must be some sort of Vermont fight, <blockquote> Green Mountain Coffee and Radio Lifeline may not associate such a project with ConocoPhillips Canada, but in fact, ConocoPhillips has been the foremost corporation to promote and fund biochar developments, apparently motivated by hopes that they can eventually purchase cheap offsets for their tar sands operations -- for example under the Alberta 'tar sands' Offset System. Re:char themselves have received funding from Conoco . [RWL16: I am surprised to see Conoco listed as "the foremost". I would have guessed Google and GE, based on what I read on the IBI and Cool Planet sites. The Re-char site shows that Jason (with James Lovelock as an advisor) won $75 k as first runner-up in the 2011 Conoco-Philips energy prize competition. Maybe there is more of a financial connection but that part of the Re:Char site was not working just now. </blockquote> I can't find anything on BFW's own funding,] <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> Far greater Conoco funds have gone to biochar developments in Iowa, to the Biochar Protocol , which aims to get biochar included into carbon offset markets, and to CoolPlanet, a US Venture with the motto: "Imagine driving today's cars & SUV's while actually reversing global warming using fuel that costs less than $1.50/gallon." </blockquote> [RWL17: I have no doubt that Conoco has made these investments - but it is biofuels , not biochar, that is the driver for them. <blockquote> Why the CoolPlanet motto is bothersome to BFW escapes me. I personally applau d the concept of carbon negative driving. </blockquote> i <blockquote> Other tar sands investors, including Cenovus Energy, BP and Shell have also funded biochar developments, as has their friend Richard Branson. </blockquote> [RWL18: I guess the rationale for why such fossil area support is so terrible is obvious to some, but it is not to me. Sir Branson's involvement is presumably through the US 501C3 (non-profit) Carbon War Room. Three of their seven preliminary award winners were biochar companies, but although still supportive in principal, actual support for biochar from the Carbon War Room has been disappointing. <blockquote> Some might argue that it is acceptable to take dirty money to fund projects that will help African farmers make their soils more fertile and hold more carbon. Yet what the scientific evidence and experience from field trials shows is that biochar cannot be relied on to achieve either of those goals. </blockquote> [RWL19: Notice first how the ground has been laid to make you believe that biochar is funded only by "dirty" oil companies. Take a look at the CoolPlanet site, where the lead investors seem to be Google and GE, and several non-oil private investors are dentfied . In fact, few biochar companies enjoy any support from the fossil fuels industries. The second part claims ".... biochar cannot be relied on. .." Another clever PR tactic. Of course one can apply biochar badly or stupidly. What technology do they wish to direct us to with a faster rate of growth and more success? More in my #20 next. <blockquote> It can even have the effect of suppressing yields and causing a loss of soil carbon. Farmers who are recruited for supposed "trials" tend to be ill-informed, hearing only the hype from project developers. In effect, they are being duped to take part in these projects based on incomplete and in some cases downright false information. [RWL20: This BFW claim is based on experimental studies intentionally designed to cover a wide range of operating parameters - for instance ntentionally cutting back on nitrogen. The only BFW analysis I know on the first sentence claims relates to a published analysis of doctoral thesis data reported by Dr. Julie Major - who was not contacted by BFW for comments on the ridiculous "soil carbon loss" statement.. There is a good reason why no published peer reviwed material has been written by BFW staffers. About one bochar technical paper a day appears from now hundreds of different biochar researchers - worldwide. Of course not 100% positive, but mostly so. </blockquote> <blockquote> For example, when a Cameroonian researcher looked at a Biochar Fund project in his country, he found that farmers had been promised great benefits, including finance from nonexistent carbon markets. They had donated their land and labor. Yet the promised benefits failed to materialize, and the project was shortly abandoned. It was nonetheless touted as a "success" on websites and in the media. </blockquote> [RWL21: I have read this Cameroonian report (the "researcher" was a consultant hired by BFW). I interpret his report differently - that results could not be reported because the crops looked so good that neighbors had stolen much of the crop -believing the biochar-delivered results to be due to a new miracle species. In fact the seeds were standard. This report is presumably still on the BFW web site. <blockquote> So far, biochar projects are invariably small, largely serving PR purposes. Yet if, as many of its advocates hope, it were to be scaled up to the level needed to supposedly offset any significant amount of fossil fuel emissions, the consequences would be grave. According to a study about the "sustainable biochar potential", 556 million hectares of land would need to be converted to biochar production to "offset" 12 per cent of annual CO2 emissions (presuming, of course, that all of that biochar would actually sequester carbon, which is contradicted by evidence). </blockquote> [RWL22: a. The f irst sentence "PR" claim shows l ittle understanding of the sci entif ic process, when funding is limited . t might show also how a real PR expert thinks. b. The second and third sentences refer to a paper by Woolf and Amonette, where the latter author gave BFW the data for all land providing any biochar - much of it from ag residues - a land use that I would record as zero or close to it. The paper was proud to use only conservative assumptions - no changes in current practices. No use of existing pasture or highly degraded land. I view ths paper as aggress ively conservative as BFW finds it aggressive. c. The question of "contradicted by evidence" I strongly believe is on the side of proponents. it would indeed be strange to base a conclusion on biochar on the evidence proposed by essentially the only group on the "con" side of this debate. They have enlisted others concerned (and rightly so) about numerous poor biofuels practices involving destruction of existing wild/native forests. But past bad practices by a very different industry is hardly a reason for killing the only CDR technology capable of regenerating land to grow new forests. <blockquote> Carbon dioxide air capture and biochar, despite their potentially massive impacts in terms of energy, water and land requirements, are among the geoengineering proposals that are considered more benign. They are being promoted in part to soften up public opinion for other more intuitively objectionable forms of geo-engineering, such as spraying vast amounts of sulphur particles into the stratosphere or manipulating clouds over large areas. [RWL23: I find this a strange way to begin to conclude. As regards biochar, the first sentence could have been written by a proponent like myself - with the claim that the impacts can indeed be "massive" - and overwhelmingly positive. </blockquote> The Machiavellian operator who is "softening" up public opinion is unknown in my part of the biochar community. Makes for a nice new conspiracy theory though. ] <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> Those approaches would indeed be guaranteed to produce rapid effects. Among them: immediate crop-failures, acid rain and ozone destruction. In sum, geoengineering options amount to "picking your poison." The tar sands industry, with somewhere on the order of 50 billion dollars invested and rapidly expanding its operations, is hoping that choice will enable them to continue profiting from their dirty business, at any and all cost to the planet. </blockquote> RWL24: The first and second sentences taken out of context I first thought provided a new record for BFW attacking biochar and CDR. I am relieved that SRM researchers can take on rebuttal of those BFW "guarantees". Good luck. I pass. But the final sentence brings us back to "reality" - that biochar exists only because of the tar sands industry. Whew and wow!! It is unbelievable that the Huff Post tolerates this sort of negative PR "reasoning". No editing responsibility there? Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
