[Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Duane,

You say:

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. 

Well, I think this is a pointless and specious argument.  There is a magnitudes higher concentration of CO2 in every breath you exhale, than even 1000 parts per million (that is ~3 times the current atmospheric CO2 concentration).  That is not even DIRECTLY hazardous to human health!  If you think the health concern is personal (and direct) death by asphyxiation from too high of CO2 concentrations in the air, then you missed the message on what the real danger of CO2 and other GHG in the Earth's atmosphere is.  The indirect effects on Global Climate caused increased GHG concentrations effect the living ecology for all living things on the planet (not just humans or animals, but plants too!).

What the IPCC has been stating and what the Nobel Prize winning scientific researchers have been studying for 40 years intensely (Global Climate Science) is the INDIRECT effects on human health and climate stability, that are caused by increased Green House Gas concentrations and the consequent Global Warming.  Most living species cannot adapt to unstable (changing) climates nearly as well as we can.  Humans have yet to deal with living in a world where it is difficult to near impossible to grow food plants or find living animals to feed upon.

It is historically clear that an 18 degree C increase in atmospheric global temperatures made extinct 97% of all living species when it occurred 125 million years ago.  A 5 degree increase by the end of this century is expected to make extinct 40% of all living species that there are today.  With business as usual regarding GHG emissions rates and expected increases, we could be living in a world with a 10 degree C temperature increase (maybe living?) and 70% of all living species will go extinct by the end of this century!

A 10 degrees C increase will also show a 5-7 meter rise in sea levels by the end of the century.  100's of millions of people are living on land now that will be inundated with salt water (and unusable for crops or for living on) before this century is out.  Greater depth of and length of droughts, more flooding, widespread crop failures, and starvation will stress the human population.

Shallow thinking?!

Regards,

SKB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> 
  To: 'lou gold'<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  Cc: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Terrapreta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 2:25 PM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot


              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 9.5 billion 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<mailto: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<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>] 
  Sent: December 7, 2007 9:51 PM 
  To: still.thinking at computare.org<mailto: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<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>




  -- 
  http://lougold.blogspot.com/<http://lougold.blogspot.com/>
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/ <http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071208/7e7c0209/attachment.html