[Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle

[rukurt at westnet.com.au]

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> <<snipped>>
>  
> 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.
It's really quite simple. It appears that the most effective form of 
charcoal comes from hardwoods. Todate, we have no conclusive evidence 
that other forms of charcoal will do the job. It does appear that bamboo 
could do it as well.
If only hardwoods will do the agricultural aspects of terrapreta then 
this will lead to the wholesale deforestation of existing hardwood 
forests. THIS IS A BAD THING.
The establishment of sustainable hardwood (coppiced?) plantations and or 
bamboo plantations will result in very widespread monoculture situations 
with the usual BAD impact on species diversity in both Fauna and Flora. 
THIS IS ALSO A BAD THING.
The lead time for such plantations will be excessive. Bamboo at least 10 
years, hardwoods possibly 20 years (going by English practices back in 
medieval days).
The use of all other biomass for production of charcoal that might only 
be of use for sequestration might cause an undesirable reduction in 
organic content of arable soils with a resulting loss of fertility. An 
otherwise sterile soil containing charcoal isn't much more use than one 
without charcoal.

<<snipped>>
>  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?
Political expedience. We need the great shield of the USA to protect us 
from the ranting millions to our immediate north. So what happens when 
the USA melts down in it's own political and fiscal sewage, as people 
see happening in the near future?
Maybe I'd better start learning some other languages and reading the Koran.
>  
> 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.
Amen. I agree with you wholeheartedly and not just for the USA.



Additionally there is the argument that it is ridiculous to dig carbon 
out of the ground by the gigaton, just to try and re-extract it from the 
air, to bury it again. We should be
using the charcoal we can produce to reduce the amount of mined carbon 
while also producing enough more charcoal to bury, to get rid of the 
excess carbon in the atmosphere.


Kurt