To Ron, I will just insert a few things *like so *to clarify what I think: On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:07:27 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote: > > 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]<javascript:>> > 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 Caldeira’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. * > * * *But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that are much quicker than 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. * > *I'm just looking for biochar to be presented as a well-engineered component of the re-establishment of healthy carbon-rich soils worldwide. The difference is in the message presented and the democratic potential of empowering people to reverse climate change. If that empowering message doesn't get received then there is the potential to use climate crisis to force top-down solutions which tend to be heavy-handed. Bad biochar is possible in such circumstances.* > * 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 effectively 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? * > *Soil carbon is the cart. Biochar is one of the team of horses that can serve to build it up, and the others are good agricultural and forestry practices that bring countless ecological benefits. There needs to be a great deal of public discourse and education to show these potential benefits and to show how depletion of soil carbon had a great deal to do with CO2 levels being where they are. That's why we need to talk about soil carbon and not just biochar.* * * *By the way, these benefits are directly threatened by the kind of agricultural practices that support GMOs. Vandana Shiva has led a principled fight against native seeds being displaced by GM seeds. Robust biodiversity means a healthy web of microbes and other organisms in the soil. But if you have a vulnerable GM seed, those organisms and all their carbon-based food chain don't belong.* * * *To put it more simply, healthy soil carbon and GMOs do not go together. For all of people's legitimate worry about GMOs' health and economic side effects, the harm done to soil, and by extension to climate, gets too little attention. I believe farmers need to be in the front lines of reversing climate change, so to me Vandana Shiva is heroic. And advocating biodiversity in natural systems strikes me as very good science.* * * *Brian* * 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.
