[Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Ron

Ron Larson wrote:
> Kevin:
> 
> You said in a message today about coupling the climate and soil
> aspects of TP:
> 
>> If the future of TP is tied to reducing Greenhouse Gas, then
>> diffusive arguments can be brought out against TP.
> 
> [RWL:   I don't recognize the term "diffusive arguments".  Could you
> expand?

OK... Basically, Terra Preta was around long before there were any
concerns about Global Warming. From everything I can see so far on TP,
it is a great process or procedure, or agricultural supplement, on its
own. There are a few questions about how to optimally configure a TP
plot, but basically, it will work. I cannot see any rational arguements
AGAINST TP when used for agricultural purposes. If it was promoted for
Agricultural Purposes, than I cannot see any significant way where
people could develop a rational position against it.

On the other hand, it strikes me that a "Fossil Carbon Tax", "Carbon
Credits", and "Fossil Carbon Cap" are distractions from the fundamental
merit of TP. If the widespread use of Terra Preta is delayed until
"Carbon Credits" are in place, then we are all the losers. It is my 
impression that TP is "a good thing" that will be self financing from 
the agricultural benefits it creates. The "diffusing arguments" I refer 
to would be along the lines of:
"We have to wait until Carbon Credits are in place..."
"We have to wait until we determine what the correct "Benefit 
Multiplier" is determined..."
"We have to wait until we can show that TP will actually reduce Global 
Warming..."
etc....

I also feel that the carbon sequestering benefits of TP are real and 
beneficial, but at this stage, I feel that there is no need to depend on 
Carbon Credit Payments to finance the widespread utilization of TP. From 
what I can see now, if I put charcoal and organic matter in my Garden, 
or on my crops, I will get better results than if I don't. Why should I 
wait until a Carbon Credits Program is implemented? There does not 
appear to be any significant downside to charcoal additions to Garden or 
Crop Soil. Now, there may be questions of optomization, and whether TP 
works as well in Temperate Zone Agriculture as it did for some 3,000 
years in the tropics, but as a Gardener or Grower, the only direct and 
immediate benefits I see are likely to be lower cost and improved 
yields. Likely GHG Benefits will show up later.
> 
> My own view is that we should encourage TP testing for either climate
> or soil reasons alone - but that we will see (cant' prove this today)
> faster and larger TP growth if the two rationales are coupled in the
> transfer of funds to the charcoal producers.  Your thoughts will help
> my own thinking on this.

We differ as follows: I advocate betting on BOTH horses as SEPARATE 
Players, or Options, rather than combining them, with the risk of 
widespread TP implementation being delayed until the Carbon Credits 
Program is in place and functional.

Certainly, Carbon Credit payments would enhance the speed of acceptance 
and implementation of TP, but the Carbon Credits Program is very 
complex, and I feel that delays in its implementation are more likely to 
retard widespread TP acceptance if both Programs are integrated as one.

In summary then, I would propose:
1: Develop and promote TP as an improved Agricultural System.

AND, as a SEPARATE and parallel program that rises or falls on its own 
merits,

2: Develop and promote TP for its climate improvement benefits.

I hope this is helpful. If there is anything I can elaborate on, or if 
you see any flaws in my approach, please let me know.

Best wishes,

Kevin


> 
> Ron