Pawel and David, with ccs to two discussion lists
RWL: I have done a bit more research on your backgrounds - and applaud
what you are doing. Others might want to read more at
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-what-a-green-new-deal-for-europe-could-look-like/
<https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-what-a-green-new-deal-for-europe-could-look-like/>
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/green-new-deal-europe-capitalism
<https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/green-new-deal-europe-capitalism>
See more below
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Pawel Wargan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Ronal,
>
> Thank you so much for this invaluable feedback and please accept my apologies
> for taking so long to reply.
>
> Just for clarification, our position on geoengineering is based on a few
> points that are core to our campaign — and to much of the climate movement.
[RWLa: For the last several years, the word “Geoengineering” has been
disassociated from biochar - my only topic. I urge being very careful with use
of the word “Geoengineering” - which today is almost solely reserved for SRM =
solar radiation management..
>
> The most crucial is the need to achieve climate justice — this means finding
> solutions that do not contribute to the continued exploitation of land and
> people around the globe. That excludes CCS.
[RWL1: I totally agree with the first sentence - and claim that
biochar benefits, not exploits, land and people.
I do not understand your reference to CCS -which has only a
vague relationship to biochar. I agree that BECCS (which is much like “clean
coal”) is very different from biochar. Biochar is today mostly being advanced
for soil improvement reasons - not for CDR reasons (which are still valid).
And generally is being sold with expectation of positive returns - not costs.
>
> Second, all of the key scientific models informing political decisions today
> assume continued economic growth. Our paper is grounded in post-growth
> principles, which call for a reduction in material throughput and energy
> demand. This should reduce the need for geoengineering solutions.
[RWL2: This second point also has no relation to biochar. Biochar is
unique in being able to support non-dispatchable wind and solar systems - which
I presume you favor (and are certainly key in all GND programs). Wind, solar
and biomass (including biochar) are consistent with both reduced energy demand
and reduced fossil fuel demand..
>
> Third, the references in the IPCC to geoengineering (particularly BECCS
> technologies) were inserted largely by economists — historically, they, not
> the scientists, were responsible for drafting policy recommendations on
> climate. This has produced recommendations that reflect what is "politically
> achievable”, not what is scientifically necessary.
[RWL3: To repeat, BECCS and biochar are very different. My
experience is that BECCS is primarily favored by climate modelers, not
economists. The carbon can simply disappear in a model; with biochar, the
(positive) impacts must be considered for every out-year in the model. The
Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are giving huge (factors of 3x - 4x) positive
benefits after thousands of years.
I concur on “scientifically necessary”. Not sure about your
“politically achievable” - as we are not moving at all fast enough. For me,
biochar should lead in both categories.
>
> Fourth, we want to end all uses of fossil fuels — zero emissions; not
> net-zero emissions. Technologies that enable the continued extraction and
> utilisation of oil and gas therefore cannot form part of our programme.
[RWL4: My reading of the Green New Deal is different - that we MUST
remove atmospheric carbon - which you seem to be denying. I see no reason to
say that biochar is designed for “continued extraction” - just the opposite
since biochar is both carbon neutral (for every energy end use - not just
electricity) and carbon negative.
>
> Having said that, we want to be accurate in our account of these
> technologies. In particular, we see a large role for public sector-driven R&D
> in climate and environmental mitigation tools and strategies — and tools like
> biochar could form part of that.
[RWL5: Thank you for the new last clause re biochar. But we must do
much more than R&D. The September technical paper listing publication from the
International Biochar Initiative (IBI) has 250 papers - for just one month.
There are hundreds of companies selling biochar products. We need to think
beyond R&D - and that is the exciting aspect of the GND. (And Greta Thunberg).
IBI literature of all kinds is at www.biochar-international.org
>
> Do you have any academic papers on the topic that you could share, beyond the
> one by Zimmerman, Gao, and Ahn?
[RWL6: My google scholar search for papers after the one I mentioned
gave this (available on Research Gate)
as the first (maybe because it had several thousand subsequent cites). I have
a very high regard for Professor Lehmann’s work.
"Biochar effects on soil biota–a review
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071711001805>”. J
Lehmann <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DbRhb7UAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>,
MC Rillig
<https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2QVHtgUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>, J Thies
<https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SZAJzysAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>, CA
Masiello <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1GGkVIQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>
There are several pages on this “priming” issue at section 3.3.2 at page
1822 - also NOT showing concern.
[RWL7: Thanks for the response. I hope you better understand biochar
a bit. Disparaging it will greatly slow down your commendable efforts with the
GND. I’d be glad to comment on any revisions you make.
Ron
>
> All the best,
>
> Pawel
>
> Pawel Wargan
> Campaign Coordinator
> <D2D78A50E3DA4198A186502C69426837.png> <http://www.gndforeurope.com/>
> @gndforeurope <https://twitter.com/gndforeurope>
> @pawelwargan <https://twitter.com/pawelwargan>
>
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2019, 05:40 +0200, Ronal Larson <[email protected]>, wrote:
>> Pawel and David: cc two lists
>>
>> I assume you know that the CDR and Geo lists (addresses given below)
>> have suggested that those of us who expressed concern on your draft GNDE
>> Blueprint for Europe should contact you with notes like the following. This
>> is my response. In addition to my original concerns given below about your
>> three sentences on biochar, I submit that biochar should be much more highly
>> ranked for these additional reasons:
>>
>> a. Numerous articles showing (for crop productivity reasons)
>> continued use over thousands of years (especially as Terra Preta in the
>> Amazon); an investment opportunity then and now - not an expense.
>> b. Rapid growth as an industry: hundreds of companies making and
>> selling biochar, hundreds of technical articles every month, multiple
>> annual biochar-only symposia - on almost every continent, numerous active
>> web sites, etc.
>> c. Can provide valuable dispatchable backup energy for
>> non-dispatchable wind and solar, at a lower cost than battery storage.
>> d. Growth of the biomass resource prior to harvesting and pyrolyzing
>> is more valuable than simply planting trees, if there are no plans for the
>> certain return of their temporary captured CO2 to the atmosphere..
>> e. Biochar fits well into all three of the carbon-related topics of
>> your paper: carbon neutral mitigation, carbon negative CDR/NET/GGR, and
>> adaptation.
>> f. Biochar will be especially valuable to the poorest - often also
>> those with the least valuable land.
>> g. A potential for use in our (quite sick) oceans - as well as on land.
>> h. Apparently the least cost way to minimize wildfire damage, by
>> offering a home for the over-growth of biomass accompanying decades of fire
>> suppression.
>> i. No need to provide insurance for CO2 stored deep underground.
>> j. CO2 released after combustion of the valuable pyrolysis gases is
>> much cheaper to capture than via direct air capture; both immediate uses
>> possible (greenhouses) and generation of high-value chemicals (from CO and
>> H2)
>> k. Has considerable potential for preventing release of CH4 and NOx.
>> l. Considerable (half for some soils?) reduced need for irrigation and
>> fertilization.
>> m. Favorable economics from the smallest applications (rural
>> cookstoves at a few kWth) to the largest (electric power plants at hundreds
>> of MWe); and for different types of ownership.
>> n. Pyrolysis can be cleaner than combustion, and much more climate
>> friendly than allowing methanation.
>> o. Improves composting (lowers odors, faster finishing, longer
>> benefits)
>> p. Seems to fit every aspect of the GND
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: Ronal Larson <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf
>>> Date: September 2, 2019 at 9:57:48 AM MDT
>>> To: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Cc: via geoengineering <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>,
>>> "[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>"
>>> <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Reply-To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Andrew and list:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the lead.
>>>
>>> The comparable portion for biochar states (P 64)
>>>
>>> " BIOCHAR
>>> A method of converting biomass into charcoal and mixing this into the soil
>>> to store the burnt carbon.
>>>
>>> But field trials showed that biochar-treated soils were less effective in
>>> sequestering carbon than untreated soils: the added carbon stimulates
>>> microbes to release more CO2.
>>>
>>> Claims that addition of biochar enhances agricultural productivity has not
>>> been consistently demonstrated.
>>>
>>>
>>> No citations. I conclude this biochar part of the paper received no
>>> serious attention.
>>>
>>> Sentence 1 is OK, but char-ists would never use the term “burnt
>>> carbon”; there is also a growing literature on using charcoal as an
>>> additive in concrete, asphalt, etc - not only soil placement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sentence 2 refers to a soil phenomenon called “priming”. This
>>> Google-available paper "Positive and negative carbon mineralization
>>> priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils “ by Andrew R.
>>> Zimmerman, Bin Gao,and Mi-Youn Ahn
>>> has this as its final sentence of the abstract:
>>> "The data strongly suggests, however, that over the long term, biochar
>>> - soil interaction will enhance soil C storage via the processes of OM
>>> sorption to biochar and physical protection. “.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sentence 3’ s key phrase is: "…not been consistently..”. True - there
>>> are negative result outliers (that can be easily caught by testing). But
>>> the vast majority of biochar outcomes have been and continue to be
>>> positive. We are seeing more than 200 technical publications per month on
>>> biochar - mostly favorable.
>>> After millennia, the Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are valued at
>>> triple or more the economic value of nearby non-biochar soils- because of
>>> triple or more productivity. If positive timing is occurring, its impact
>>> is negligible.
>>>
>>>
>>> There may be value in this report, but I’m not going to investigate it
>>> further - based on this biochar example. I am still favorable to the GND
>>> (Green New Deal) concept. Biochar can be a key part of making it work.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net
>>>
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net
>>>
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>
>> <GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/07388CBD-2BE2-47E1-9762-C7E07E56A311%40comcast.net.
