[Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kevin,

Maybe, I just see bigger potential for "Neo Terra Preta".  I think it is a fantastic agricultural soil amendment to put charcoal in the soil.  The productivity gains in that soil, especially degraded or poor soil could be tremendous.  This was proven by what the ancient Amazonian people were able to do.

I also see that putting "fixed carbon" in the form of charcoal into the soil is likely what lead to this bloom of soil organic matter and plants in those regions which have been made into "Terra Preta".  The input of carbon were made thousands of years ago, and the bulk of it is still there.  Ergo, "Terra Preta" sequesters carbon too.

It likely the least expensive method to remove atmospheric carbon and it has the side benefit of improved agricultural productivity.  I don't hear or read any "diffusive" arguments against it.  Kevin, if you can post a "diffusive" argument against using "Neo Terra Preta" land reforming as a way to redcue atmospheric CO2, then post it.  I'd revel in the ensuing debate.  I and others in this group would postulate that there are several solid arguments for using "Neo Terra Preta" as a atmospheric mining (of carbon) and carbon sequestration method.  It's direct, effective, inexpensive, and promotes life.

China and India actually are signatories of the Kyoto Protocol and both have ratified it.  Under that treaty, as developing (Non-Annex I) countries, they are not required to reduce emissions of green house gases (yet!).  At the time of the signed (circa 2002), the emissions outputs from those countries was very small by comparison to the other industrialized (Annex I) and developed countries (Annex II).  Annex I and Annex II countries get to pay the freight fro global climate amelioration.  That is why greedy Dubyah and the good ole USA did not sign. 
The main two standouts to the Kyoto Protocol Treaty are the USA and Australia.  Nearly everybody else on the planet is signed up, ratified, and doing business.  I for one would really like to know why that is?  How in Hell did the US and Australia decide it would be okay to "shirk their responsibilities" for polluting the world and actually believe they can get away with it?  This and conduct a war to get even more fossil fuel energy to throw into everybody else's atmosphere?

In my opinion, "Neo Terra Preta" is a miracle in the making.  I believe it can do BOTH improving world wide agricultural productivity and reducing atmosphere carbon.  In my opinion, developing "Neo Terra Preta" land reforming technology and methodologies in the USA is the very best thing I can think of to do, to justify living in the most atmospheric filth creating country on this planet.


Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Christoph Steiner<mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de> ; Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
  Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 11:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle


  Dear Sean

  To clarify... If there was a "Carbon Cap" on carbon from fossil fuels, 
  then TP contributions would definitely reduce the Carbon in the Biosphere.

  I perhaps belabor this point as a way of bringing a bit of focus to the 
  TP Table. All the good work on this list can have merit and be valid 
  simply in the context of improvements to agriculture. TP work can 
  certainly stand on its own merits, and does not need to reduce the CO2 
  content of the Biosphere to be helpful.

  If the future of TP is tied to reducing Greenhouse Gas, then diffusive 
  arguments can be brought out against TP.

  In my opinion, the World is a long way from a "Fossil Carbon Cap," or 
  from a Fossil Carbon Tax. The US, China and India are not signatories to 
  the Kyoto Protocol. The US has a stated policy that "The American Way of 
  Life is non-negotiable." I feel Terra Preta can be advanced on its 
  merits as an Agricultural system enhancement, and that any subsequent 
  benefits from Global Warming Amelioration should stand or fall on their 
  own merits.

  Best wishes,

  Kevin

  Sean K. Barry wrote:
  > Hi Kevin,
  > 
  > You said,
  > 
  > "If there was a worldwide tax on ALL fossil carbon consumption, AND if 
  > all these monies went to "buying charcoal for burial," then what you 
  > describe would work."
  > 
  > I say, "Yeah, and not before."
  > 
  > SKB
  > 
  > 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070604/6f449299/attachment-0001.html