I do very much so believe that there is huge potential for enhancing soil-sequestration capacities globally. Prof. Smith indicates that ultimately capacity is maxed out, so that measure to increase would be transitional in nature. Allan Savory believes otherwise, but I don't support his master plan as being feasible or ethical, which is a long story. There are a lot of potential factors which don't receive attention when the topic of soil carbon is covered. For instance, invasive or migrating plants bring new fungal symbionts to soil, which process carbon. And check this out:
http:// <http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/molecular_ecology/earthworms.aspx> www.serc.si.edu <http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/molecular_ecology/earthworms.aspx> /labs/molecular_ecology/ <http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/molecular_ecology/earthworms.aspx> earthworms.aspx <http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/molecular_ecology/earthworms.aspx> The Food and Agriculture Organization claims that: *Soils can sequester around 20 **PgC** (**petagrams** of carbon) in 25 years*, more than 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. Aryt Aryt and list: one added cc; also changing thread title back to the one where Prof. Smith has already contributed. 1. Thanks for your lead yesterday to an important related biomass-soil paper (chapter title: “Soaking up the Carbon”) by Professor Smith (courtesy cc). I had intended to read it - still only have skimmed, as this chapter was too early (2009 - probably written in 2008) to have caught anything on biochar (so named in 2007), and there was very little to talk about then (>1300 biochar papers just published for only the single year 2015 - all listed at the IBI site). 2. I was surprised to find via googling that one can read (but not copy from) this recommended chapter (and the entire book) for free at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zKseBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA73&ots=dULGD_-_Bc&sig=KWRx-t_iha_qIN119KyHMCbjBFw#v=onepage&q&f=false 3. However, this chapter could still be a valuable resource for the 2016 “biochar” paper by Prof. Smith (which I again attach). That not only was about biochar, but was also about SCS - Soil Carbon Sequestration - a topic which this list and biochar lists have mostly ignored. I (admittedly biased) have thought of this most recent Smith paper as being only on biochar - but it clearly was intended to fill a second (SCS) void. It would be of interest to know if you or anyone see SCS as offering anything near the NET advantages that Prof. Smith has identified for biochar. 4. Also whether anyone now sees biochar as being a lesser NET advantage than any of the other NET technologies he (and others) have so far covered in detail. He has not covered the ocean-based NETs - which could include some with a biochar flavor. This question is intended to compare BECCS with biochar. Again - thanks for the additional Smith paper. Ron On Jan 17, 2016, at 1:23 AM, aryt alasti <[email protected]> wrote: Here's an interesting summarization on the subject by Smith, from a few years ago: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7P9W6pYAAAAJ&cstart=360&citation_for_view=7P9W6pYAAAAJ:N5tVd3kTz84C Aryt On Jan 16, 2016 5:36 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew and list: > > On January 11 and 12, Professor Smith and I had an exchange on this paper > (thread title is “Prof. Smith’s analysis of biochar“) where he kindly > supplied the full text. I (again) urge this list to read this paper, as > it is quite supportive of biochar on multi criteria grounds he has used in > other of his NET papers recently discussed on this list > > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > Ron > > > On Jan 16, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13178/abstract > > Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies > > Pete Smith > 6 January 2016 > > DOI:10.1111/gcb.13178 > > Abstract > > Despite 20 years of effort to curb emissions, greenhouse gas (GHG) > emissions grew faster during the 2000s than in the 1990s, which presents a > major challenge > > <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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
