[Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise

[Duane Pendergast]

Right on Frank! That's a two dollar response - not jut two cents worth. Sean
did miss the depletion of land surface carbon reservoirs that is taking
place. In some parts of the world humans gather every scrap of wood they can
find for cooking and heating. In others, coal is used in terribly
inefficient open stoves. I've lived in that world myself during my youth in
the forests of central Alberta. We had no electricity in those days and
converted substantial tracts of land from standing biomass to wood for fuel.
We also used some coal. The land was ultimately converted to agriculture
with little carbon sink remaining. Rural electrification projects changed
the scene substantially starting about the middle of the last century.

 

Let me suggest that the provision of an efficient microwave oven and
inductive hot plate along with the nuclear power plants and wires need to
power the appliances could go a long way toward lifting billions of people
from the poverty cycle that makes them dependent on the desecration of
standing carbon sinks and  greenhouse gas extravagant fossil fuel use.  That
in turn would make more biomass available for use in terra preta production
and agricultural enhancement.

 

Happy New Year to all.

 

Duane Pendergast

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Teuton
Sent: December 29, 2007 11:03 PM
To: Sean K. Barry; Richard.Black-INTERNET at bbc.co.uk
Cc: terrapreta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise

 

Sean et al;

 

I fail to grasp the reasoning behind the idea that emptying biologically
active carbon reservoirs (soil OM, trees, prairies, etc.) is somehow
fundamentally different than emptying biologically inert (relatively
speaking) reservoirs, coal, oil, gas, peat, etc.

 

The simple truth is, we can only manage atmospheric CO2 levels by learning
to manage all the possible reservoirs of carbon, including biological
reservoirs as well as inert reservoirs. Pumping relatively inert carbon
underground is one way, which includes terra preta approaches...aiming to
increase SOM and standing biomass via perennial plant strategies, including
forest and prairie approaches, is another....stimulating phytoplankton in
the ocean is of course still another.

 

In the meantime, it is simple arithmetic that depleting existing biological
reservoirs further is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Increased deforestation for, say, charcoal production where the charcoal is
then subsequently burned for fuel empties the forest bioreservoir of carbon,
which is not a good thing. We will need to optimize all reservoirs of carbon
to make this thing work.

 

It is my understanding that up until about 1950 the majority of the increase
in atmospheric carbon was due to human land use impacts, eg, deforestation,
tillage, desertification, and similar phenomena. Not until about 1950 did
fossil fuel burning exceed biome degradation as the leading anthropogenic
cause of atmospheric CO2 increase. If the argument is that we need to put
back the C, I would suggest we need to put it back not only into inert
carbon forms in the ground, but also back into the living biological systems
from whence a great deal of it was also taken.

 

It isn't one or the other, but what combinations of both can be made to
work.

 

My two cents, 

 

Frank Teuton

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071230/112faf48/attachment.html