[Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> 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.

If TP is as good as you say (and I believe it is) they why not go with 
it now, and the Climate Benefits will be an added bonus later.
> 
> 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.

Sure!! But waiting to get paid for these benefits with Carbon Credits 
should, in my opinion, should stand on its own merits.
> 
> 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.

I can see no argument against TP, but as noted elsewhere, there are 
diffusive arguments relating to the extent of Climate Benefits, if TP 
and Climate Benefits are "rolled into one package."
> 
> 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?

These things puzzle me also. They probably avoid paying Carbon Credit 
Monies if they don't sign. ;-)
> 
> 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.

Sure, TP is good, but don't let it get bogged down by having its 
implementation tied to Carbon Credits Implementation.

Best wishes,

Kevin
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>