[Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot

[lou gold]

Duane,

I was asking if you could back up the following:
*
The ultimate outcome of successful demonstration of terra preta benefits
could thus be an incentive to geo-agricultural engineering on a massive
scale. That vision will be self limiting if plant growth is suppressed by a
shortage of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A next logical step for humanity
could be to continue to transfer carbon from fossil fuel into the soil.
*
My question is SIMPLE: Why not just capture carbon already in the
atmosphere? Is there a shortage? Why do we have to put more into the
atmosphere? Isn't this like saying that we need to be wasteful in order to
be wasteful in order to supply recycling. I don't get it yet. (Please note:
I have not mentioned global warming.)

hugs,   lou
**
On Dec 8, 2007 6:25 PM, Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
wrote:

>              Lou,
>
>
>
> I'm not aware of much detailed modeling of the potential role of terra
> preta in removing carbon dioxide. There are plenty of detailed studies of
> carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere based on various and sundry
> assumptions with respect to "business as usual" and various emission
> reduction scenarios. I recall the IPCC has been involved in these. So far
> the IPCC does not explicitly recognize the terra preta concept so it would
> not be included in their models.
>
>
>
> One point that is rarely brought out is that if all the estimated
> quantities of fossil fuel were to be burned, the amount of CO2 in the
> atmosphere would be increased only a few times – and would be far below the
> amount considered to be a direct health hazard. There are many diagrams of
> the carbon cycle posted on the Internet that provide the data needed to show
> this. One of them is included as Figure 1 in an illustrated paper<http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Energy%20and%20CO2%20Management.htm>I presented in 2004. It includes a rough estimate – just  under Figure 1 -
> that fossil fuel reserves are enough to triple atmospheric CO2 content over
> a rough time scale of 500 years to get to that point based on current
> consumption rates.  For reasons inexplicable to me the paper linked above
> has become the most frequently visited on my website. It is also available
> though the US Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical
> Information (OSTI). Maybe that is relevant.
>
>
>
> That paper and an updated, un-illustrated peer reviewed version linked to
> this site <http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/pendergastcarbon>estimates that humans control about 24 billion tonnes annually of carbon
> circulated via growing plants. At the time the paper was written fossil fuel
> emissions were just over 6 billion tonnes.  These numbers suggest it could
> be possible to offset and even reverse the growth of atmospheric carbon
> dioxide by turning a sizeable fraction of that material to the terra preta
> concept. Lehmann, Gaunt and Rondon have published a more detailed paper
> abstracted on this site which suggests char production could be 5.5 to 9.5billion tonnes/year a century from now.
>
>
>
> In view of growing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration over the past
> twenty years of climate concern, and the current state of haggling over the
> issue, I'm not optimistic that methodology and policy established to date
> will have any effect. The promise of soil building inherent in the terra
> preta concept might be more attractive to humanity than generally vague and
> possibly incorrect models of climate change.  I'm hoping terra preta
> enthusiasts keep their eyes on the ball and clearly and convincingly
> demonstrate a role in enhancing soil productivity.
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* lou gold [mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* December 8, 2007 11:49 AM
> *To:* still.thinking at computare.org
> *Cc:* Sean K. Barry; Terrapreta
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot
>
>
>
> Hi Duane,
>
> I am seeing the logic of your perspective. I believe that yours is one of
> the valid considerations. I also believe that terra preta somehow carries
> the seeds of a new awareness that is now emerging and offering the
> opportunity to transcend the dilemmas.
> This new awareness is based on the notion of a reciprocal harmony between
> large populations and the earth. At first, the new consciousness of
> reciprocity will have to sit  (uncomfortably)  with the past consciousness
> of extraction. This generates tension that will stimulate further
> innovation, etc. Basically, we are entering a process of building a carbon
> economy and ecology. I for one do not know what role fossil fuels will play
> in the longer-term future but right now they are going to continue as a
> significant factor.
>
> The only thing that I question is your assertion that we must continue to
> generate CO2 in order to feed the plants. It seems to me that there is a
> huge reservoir already available. Do you know of any studies or models that
> might suggest when CO2 will "peak" and require replacement inputs, perhaps
> from fossil fuels?
>
> hugs,
>
> lou
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 2:30 PM, Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> wrote:
>
> Morning Sean,
>
>
>
> My response to you was totally sincere. After 20 years trying to follow
> the climate issue, I'm becoming more and more skeptical about the dire
> claims made in the name of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions.
>
>
>
> I was just trying to point out, that if terra preta lives up to
> expectations on this site, there is potential for excess removal of CO2 from
> the atmosphere. Danny Day has suggested that we are seeing the "stumbling
> steps of a brand new species evolved to stabilize this recurring imbalance"
> with reference to the drastic cycling between ice ages seen in the long term
> climate change record. He sees the burgeoning human population, including
> some three billion now impoverished farmers, as key to planetary survival
> and prosperity. The ultimate outcome of successful demonstration of terra
> preta benefits could thus be an incentive to geo-agricultural engineering on
> a massive scale. That vision will be self limiting if plant growth is
> suppressed by a shortage of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A next logical step
> for humanity could be to continue to transfer carbon from fossil fuel into
> the soil.
>
>
>
> There is plenty of scope for climate change ballyhoo at the UNFCCC meeting
> in Bali and in the media. Kevin Chisholm's gentle suggestion in his response
> to your post that the list focus on demonstrating the efficacy of the terra
> preta concept has considerable merit.
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> *Sent:* December 7, 2007 9:51 PM
> *To:* still.thinking at computare.org; 'lou gold'
> *Cc:* 'Terrapreta'
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot
>
>
>
> Hi Duane,
>
>
>
> WHAT?!  Is your response to my post "tongue in cheek"?  I hope so ... or
> you really do not see things the way I do, either.  Burning coal and oil has
> to slow way down, even to stopping altogether.  If coal energy is required,
> then it has to change over to "clean" coal, without the release of CO2
> emissions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071208/896416d0/attachment.html