Brian and list: See inserts below. Re the first sentence below on Dr. Shiva, see a message I just sent. I go further than you about “rhetorically overstated”. I agree with others that she is dangerous - because she is anti-science, much worse than no science.
more below. On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Brian Cartwright <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a few comments: > > Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar and other geoengineering > ideas ("role ... should be zero") may be rhetorically overstated. But I just > want to look at biochar to the extent that it can be called geoengineering. > If I could characterize your views, you generally look to extrapolate the > role of biochar to sequester the maximum atmospheric CO2. That would be > large-scale geoengineering, I think we would agree. And because there could > be substantial benefits to soil and energy supply, you argue that this is a > superior tool to other CDR proposals. [RWL1: Yes on last sentence. But I favor Dr. Ken Caldera’s arguments on this list that geoengineering should be redefined to exclude biochar - because biochar and most CDR approaches are NOT large-scale. I made the point a few posts ago that biochar experiments are happening worldwide at a rate that we can’t keep up with. I see zero hazard to anyone with that happening. Re last sentence - I hope there are other CDR approaches that are as good. I am not trying to keep up with these others, except through this list. The more approaches, the better. > > Just removing CO2 from the atmosphere won't cool the planet quickly enough, > because of numerous sinks and feedbacks. [RWL2: Disagree. I know of no peer-reviewed paper making this “irreversibility” claim in a manner I can believe. If we put our mind to it, we can be back at 350 ppm in 50 years. There are others saying this. Those saying there is a much lower maximum are also saying they are making conservative assumptions.] > I advocate soil carbon sequestration for other primary benefits: reversing > aridification of enormous areas of land that are increasingly radiating heat > because of losing vegetative cover, reversing the damages done by industrial > agriculture which have depleted carbon with the plow and with chemical inputs > killing off microbes and other soil organisms, and restoring hydrology that > comes from forests providing the biological seeds for clouds, and from > supporting microclimates to hold moisture in the soil. [RWL3: All true. But there is zero conflict I know about with any of these benefits and biochar (the main CDR approach falling under “soil carbon sequestration”) > These benefits use water vapor effects that cool much more effectively than > CO2 reduction. [RWL4: I have seen no peer-reviewed paper showing this. Many point out that water vapor is a more effective GHG than CO2. I do think that latent heat transfer has some potential - but believe that in no way conflicts with biochar.] > > And yes, CO2 being sequestered is also urgent. Biochar obviously does that. > But if you think that biochar has to be given the whole job, the logistical > side-effects could be disastrous. [RWL5: I have seen no “logistical side-effects" reported that I take seriously. I am NOT arguing that biochar “be given the whole job”. I just have not seen any other with biochar’s potential. Clearly we can and must get a wedge or more of afforestation - but if managed, we can get more CDR by coupling afforestation with biochar. Most analysts also ignore the out year potential of greater NPP and soil carbon - which I think (can’t prove yet) can double the CDR of what goes directly into the ground. To repeat, one Gt C of direct biochar application has a long term impact of any other CDR approach sequestering 2 wedges. I know of no other CDR approach that can make that claim. > I'd rather see us use biochar in concentrated doses (after all, it's still > very expensive) as a catalyst and stimulant to effective prime soil carbon. > quickly boosting mychorrizal fungi and microbial communities, and regreening > landscapes. The soil carbon is the priority, and biochar is an invaluable > tool for the purpose. [RWL6: I don’t see us in disagreement. Obviously you will use the minimum amount possible (to maximize the NPP). Many already are doing this with char placed only near the roots - not everywhere in a field. > > We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're putting the > cart before the horse. [RWL7: Sorry, I am not understanding this. What is the cart and what is the horse? If this means I am proposing too aggressive an introduction schedule, I admit to thinking we are going too slowly. Almost no government funds are now being employed - at least in the USA. I think my schedule is about the same as proposed by Dr. James Hansen. Any biochar user getting large-scale bad results deserves what they get - prior testing is quick, cheap and easy. We have thousands of years of experience in many places besides the terra preta experience in the Amazon. To my knowledge - all positive. Ron] > > Brian > > <snip> -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
