Comments on: The Carbon NEGATIVE Option: Why Tim Flannery & James Lovelock Love Biochar

By: new_biochar_land

new_biochar_land — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:14:03 +0000

The world is a great place, but it is falling apart and we all are responsable for this. Be responsable now and try to make it better.
Biochar, one of the newest option can contribuate to atmospheric CO2 reduction. Find out more:
http://www.biochar-books.com
The Biochar Revolution is exactly what it says !

By: Post COP15, Part 2: Five Ideas That Could Help Save the Climate (Really) « Tracker Editor’s Blog

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:54:46 +0000

[...] “The Carbon NEGATIVE Option: Why Tim Flannery & James Lovelock Love Biochar” (TrackerBlog post) [...]

By: Michael Garjian

Michael Garjian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:31:03 +0000

Not all charcoal is biochar. True biochar is the result of heating biomass in an emission free pyrolysis reactor devoid of oxygen. Biochar has been shown to be a very effective soil amendment in numerous studies in South America and Japan. It is becoming popularized enough in the US that Biochar Xtra is now even being sold on Ebay. Others are using the bio-oils derived from biochar production to replace fossil fuels. Some folks are alarmed at the possibility of vast tracts of land being denuded to produce biochar. This is not a valid concern because, due to its very low density of from 20 to 35 pounds per cubic foot, the transport of biochar over long distances is not economically feasible.

By: Tom Stohlgren

Tom Stohlgren — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:57:18 +0000

Saw the seawater greenhouse — I called it “A Brave New Whorl” — imagine the Evapotranspiration savings if all of Las Vegas was one big water-positive greenhouse.–TS

By: J.A. Ginsburg

J.A. Ginsburg — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:47:13 +0000

Made you think! Made you think! I know – you think anyway… It is fun, though. btw, did you catch the links on TrackerNews a few weeks ago on seawater greenhouses? I meant to blog about them and still might. Here’s a teaser in the meantime: http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/gallery.htm

cheers, Janet

By: Tom Stohlgren

Tom Stohlgren — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:41:11 +0000

You got me there! Tim Flannery is one of my heros — and one of the few Great Generalists of our day. He gets climate, ocean-overuse, people, land use, — most of the big issues. His recommendation tells me this is one important piece of the puzzle — and I was impatiently hoping for the grand picture on the puzzle box with 10,000,000 pieces.
He, they (the biocoal-people), and you provided much discussion today with my research team. It made us think! Damn it!– TS

By: J.A. Ginsburg

J.A. Ginsburg — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:17:33 +0000

These are all good questions, Tom. There is lot of research looking at just these issues. In terms of subsidies, well, Lovelock didn’t elaborate in the excerpt quoted, but no subsidies required. This isn’t biofuels. I am looking forward to the “Biochar: Environmental Management” book coming out next month. *Anything* that gets such a strong endorsement from the likes of Tim Flannery – I want to know all about it!

By: Tom Stohlgren

Tom Stohlgren — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:58:45 +0000

In the real world, it is impossible to address (and solve) all the world’s problems NOW, as you seem to suggest. In the best of economic times, priorities are still necessary– in the worst of times, they are essential. The National Science Foundations never has an open budget. Scientists must take it upon themselves to meet our highest priority needs first. Some will fall through the cracks. It is simply irrisponsible not to conduct a triage at every level of decision making. Scientists seem to spend more time patting themselves on the back (at each conference) than they do asking “was a different type of conference needed.” Some solutions never scale-up as proposed. Biological control of invasive species works better in the lab under controlled conditions than it does in the real world. Biofuels looked great on paper, less great in the real world, where food prices matter. Please calculate the total carbon created by all the little prototypes in use now compared to the how much carbon is currently stored in soils. How many other research areas will fall through the cracks while we are busy in the conversion process to reach 1%. How many farmers on the edge of financial disaster will be able to invest. If tax subsidies are given, what opportunity costs are lost. Will there be fewer subsidies for education? Planned parenthood? Disease prevention? Oh, I forgot, we can do it all. Sure, there are other problems out there, but this is my favorite one, or the one that pays my bills, or the one where I have expertise. If we don’t put our major issues and specific objectives in priority world we have a world much like today–one where chronic problems are ignored in favor of hobby science (even if some of it is great!) and local solutions. The real problem as I see it stems from our different definitions of “Think globally, act locally” — many peoples’ globes are on their desks! They are really saying, “Think globally in my profession, and act locally in my field.”
That may not be good enough to save the world.
–TS

By: J.A. Ginsburg

J.A. Ginsburg — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:10:47 +0000

Tom,

The video was a segment about biochar that included several interviews from a soil conference. If you looked at a video from an infectious disease conference, it would be all about infectious disease.

There are several links later in the post where readers can find out more about biochar research. As Lovelock notes, it can be made from plant waste. You certainly do not have to grow special crops for it.

In fact, Amy Smith’s D-Lab at MIT has been working on ways to produce charcoal from a variety of plant wastes in an effort to create cleaner cooking fuels in the developing world, while also providing an alternative to de-forestation. Although Smith’s focus hasn’t been on creating biochar for soils, it is essentially the same process: a low oxygen burn of plant waste. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4286850.html?series=60

The “fast growing species” and habitat destruction issues have more to do with biofuels. The downstream questions you raise are critical. But to the extent that biochar improves soil productivity, theoretically at least, it relieves some of pressure to increase farm field acreage. However, given a burgeoining human population, crashing fisheries, increased salinity of coastal region soils due to rising sea levels due to global warming, droughts exacerbated by climate change and depleted aquifers, there’s going to be plenty of pressure…

I actually don’t think we have time to put problems such as human overpopulation, disease emergence, habitat destruction and climate change in a priority order. They all need to be addressed now.

By: Tom Stohlgren

Tom Stohlgren — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:07:16 +0000

I agree that all these environmental issues are interconnected. Howver, some are FAR more important to our sustainability than others. Human population growth and disease issues were curiously avoided in the 10 minute video, perhaps leaving an impression to viewers that charcoal in soil will save us from climate warming and sustainability is just around the corner. Reductionist approaches to local sustainability are a good thing (Australia soils need charcoal — the world would be a better place with carbon negative technologies — I get it). It’s a tiny — and maybe insignifucant piece of the puzzle for sustainability, in my estimation. It’s worth pursuing, AFTER controling human population growth, disease, and direct habitat distruction. Where are they going to get these “fast growing species” to create the coal? How much habitat loss do they cause? Will globalization of the technology and species create other problems? I see no triage. Sustainability with shotgun science may not be enough. A very convincing 10-minute film on one aspect MAY take our eyes off other, more impotant issues–like magicians, we may be after the illusion of sustainability if we are not careful. By “silly calculations,” I refer to reductionist science. “If S = sustainability; and C = charcoal, then S = C” That’s what I learned from the YouTube movie. However, C also may equal GMO-fast growing weeds, fields of avocados covering Australia (mighty fine habitat for native species, I’m sure), and water diversions for the GMO’s — so many good things on our happy way to profitable sustainability. I don’t really want to rain on their parade — but they do need the water!
–TS