Michael, list and ccs
This is much shortened, only responding to one of Michael's points,
where he said:
> Ron, I see the ethical issues within the Biochar arena revolving around
> up-stream biomass acquisition. Palm oil is the worlds leading 'wage
> abuse..slavery' industry. Obviously, biochar derived from the palm oil sector
> would carry a heavy ethical burden, as would old growth forest displaced food
> crop acreage etc..
[RWL: You are absolutely correct on the up-stream acquisition issue.
That can (and probably will) be done badly in some locations. But to the
extent that there are carbon credits or something similar for CDR/NET
approaches, this should be controllable. Both US and EU draft documents on
readying biochar for financial support call for adherence to sustainability
principles. Those should control land grabbing, especially as there will be
competing invading outsiders (biopower, biofuels, multiple countries and
companies, etc) for the scarce land. Biochar should have an advantage over
bioenergy alone in leaving a char - even if the biofuel or biopower is mostly
exported off site. My understanding is that farmers and foresters everywhere
will be delighted to have new energy/climate markets to add to their existing
food (the world's largest) market.
There are also some downstream potential negative issues. I just wrote
on the (far-off) possibility of having too much CDR/NET.
There is an issue with albedo, but that seems solvable with
light-colored rock-dust coatings (themselves can be NETs). Also, the soil
improvement literature is full of recommendations for keeping the soil always
covered - and that will logically be light (straw) colored.
There are plenty of biochar papers out there showing negative (worse
than neutral) NPP results with biochar. But no farmer should be putting
anything in/on his soil without simple low-cost (kitchen window) tests. The
responsibility should not be on governments to prevent (or insure/indemnify
against) the inappropriate use of biochar. The majority of biochar papers are
showing positive results. Our best evidence is the Terra Preta soil of the
Amazon - now worth 4-5 times the native (world's worst) soils nearby from which
Terra Preta was produced many centuries ago. Long term biochar use also in
Japan and a few other countries.
Palm oil is interesting. I know of several biochar enthusiasts looking
at the waste product coming along with the palm oil. Since palm oil itself is
not now carbon negative, I can see producers happy to advertise that their
palm oil is carbon negative. A possibility if the waste material is both
replacing coai, gas, or oil, and producing biochar for long-term soil
improvement.
Of course there should be a total prohibition of cutting old growth
forests. But new biochar/bioenergy plantations on degraded lands (often only
now suitable as pasture land) surrounding such old growth forests seem a
perfect way to save them.
In sum, I am not concerned with either up-stream or down-stream
negative impacts and would love to hear of any missed negative impact I can
address. This especially includes coupling biochar with your own interest in
the ocean biomass resource. Almost the same is the current freshwater problem
with water hyacinth - a perfect resource for biochar (because of exceptionally
high growth rates and their present high negative impact where they are
intrusive.) Water hyacinth needs to be controlled.
Apologies for length and my over-optimism again.
Ron
On Aug 2, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg et. al.,
<snip, but agree with both Greg and Michael>
--
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/d/optout.
