[Terrapreta] "Giving Up On Two Degrees"

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Larry,

This is my most favorite quote from that "Giving up on Two Degrees" article ...

"What the IPCC report shows is that we have to stop treating climate change as an urgent issue. We have to start treating it as an international emergency."

I've said something before on posts to this site about Terra Preta as carbon sequestration technique to mitigate global climatic change.
It bears repeating ... let me find it ... I found it!

Clearly (do you think?), the ancient native Amazonian people did not "slash and char" forestland to sequester carbon.  They were not billions of them pumping fossil fuel burning exhaust into the atmosphere for a century or more until some of them recognized (and broadcast it on the Internet) that they were poisoning the planet.  It would be quite an interesting archaeological find for any evidence that they even new Earth was a planet with a finite atmosphere.

Rather, I think they made "Terra Preta", because one day they found some burned down area that grew food crops much better then anywhere else in the leached out Amazon River basin.  They, smart bunch that they were, wanted to replicate Nature.  My guess it that was a good idea then and about as technologically advanced as one could be.  They recognized that they were part of the natural world and that nature was far more successful at the running the world then they were, so she could help, if they only observed and learned.  Many of the doers in 21st century humanity could stuff the arrogance and do with a little of that humility towards Nature.

The evidence is there, even if it was performed in only limited areas, near river basins and some lakes, that people made Terra Preta soil, molded an "artificial landscape", and fed some millions of people by doing so for centuries, if not millennia.  If it did not work for what they were doing if for (trying to improve the soils ability to grow food crops), then I am absolutely positive that they would not have continued to compost charcoal into sterile Oxisol soils for centuries trying to make it work.  Can anyone imagine how much work and how many tons of charcoal composting they must have done?  Millions of people for centuries?  What limited amount we have found was a BIG JOB.  I think it is a wonder that Terra Preta is as widespread as it is!

Just pretend you are an ancient Amazonian.  There is a place near a lake which grows huge food crops and feeds 100s of thousands of other people you can see around it.  Then 8-10 kilometers away, near another lake, there is rainforest, with poisonous frogs and water and water and bugs and more water, but there is no soil there in which you can grow food that people eat.  Where are you going to live?  Where you can eat bugs and rain and otherwise starve alone with your little family?

My view is that the archaeological record will always meat out what was "common sense" for the time.  We all are more like one another than we are different.  We all collaborated then and still collaborate now to the benefit the greater group and to ourselves.  Humans are gregarious.  Agriculture has only pulled us closer together into "growing regions" to try and feed ourselves and one another.  That has not changed in millennia, nor should it in the future.

If modern people can repeat that miracle today, maybe we will feed the 4 billion more people expected by 2050.  That, by itself would be something.

But even if that did not happen, the carbon dated charcoal, which has been examined under a scanning electron microscope and still shows the cell wall structures in the charcoal, from the cells of the trees that it was made from 1000s of years ago, has SUSTAINED.  Charcoal in soil is highly resilient!  As long as it doesn't poison the soil so that it cannot grow crops, then its doesn't matter how much we bury into it.  If it helps degraded soils, great!  If it allows us to use less fertilizer, great!  If it improves agricultural crop quality and yield, great!  Those will all be huge benefits.

That we can really "sequester carbon", which has been taken out of the atmosphere, by putting charcoal into soil, is all by itself a very important part of the "Terra Preta" story!  Let me repeat that.

"TERRA PRETA (CHARRED BIOMASS IN SOIL) = REAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION" 

Let's just get on with it already, because the oil companies and the coal mines are going to continue to be burnt into the atmosphere until they are gone.  We humans living in our own filth in our little petri dish called Earth can either wake up and clean up, or we will die from it.  The only business that we need to really succeed at right now is proving that it can be done economically.  The carbon credits and the agricultural benefits will come from our endeavors.  I am confident of that.

Regards,

Sean K. Barry
Principal Engineer/Owner
Troposphere Energy, LLC
11170 142nd St. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
(651) 351-0711 (Home/Fax)
(651) 285-0904 (Cell)
sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Larry Williams<mailto:lwilliams at nas.com> 
  To: Tom Miles<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 6:13 PM
  Subject: [Terrapreta] "Giving Up On Two Degrees"


  Tom and all:


  We have had discussion on two aspects of Terra Preta that I hold dear. Growing plants for food and the sequestration of carbon. This morning an article by George Monbiot, "Giving Up ON Two Degrees" was sent to me. Although, this is the first critical analysis of national and international plans to reduce atmospheric CO2 that I have read, I have questioned climate change solutions that are achieved in 2020 and beyond as a day late and a dollar short.


  In fact, this article scares me and I don't have any children that will receive the problems from global warming. My spirituality is tied to Nature. I derive my inspiration and strength from the natural world. I am not asking you to accept my belief. You have your own guiding beliefs and values. I feel that this is important for you to know when you read my comments.


  Understanding the soil management techniques around Terra Preta for the purpose of growing food has, I believe, value in the Pacific NW. Small events have occurred in the local soils and in my garden that suggest some significance impact in using fertilized charcoal for growing plants locally. Although, the tropical soils have specific limiting factors, those forests do not seem to lack in abundance of flora or fauna. So to say, as I have heard locally, that Terra Preta doesn't apply in rich local, Whatcom County, WA, soils is not proven till we know more of the process. Some local soils are poor growing soils for specific plants that might be improved. I digress from my greater concern.


  The second aspect that this list has discussed relates to the sequestering of carbon in the soil. Monbiot's point is for setting realistic reduction standards that achieve a stable CO2 level that, as I read his article, prevents unnecessary harm to the greater population. I may have 20-30+ years to watch and participate in this "show". If the tone of his article is anywhere close to reality and if Steiner's comments (of this list, April 20,  2007 1:31:01 AM PDT) hold merit then it seems that our contributions in time and effort face a critical junction.


  My experiences with water, soil, plants and wildlife tell me that change is on us even if we act on an emergency basis. I suggest that we acknowledge the serious situation that we, this list and the larger we of this blue-green globe, are facing. Each year the extent and the rapidity of change is increasing and each year scientists note the increased rate of change. The Monboiot article only reinforces my sense of urgency. I am open to a review of the below article. 


  Are there many scientific papers that suggest the sequestration of black carbon in the soil profile can have a significant impact on atmospheric carbon?


  There are many ways for a goal to fail and far fewer ways to succeed. Ah! The search for the critical path-------Larry












  -----------------------
  @ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/01/1058/<http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/01/1058/> 


  Giving Up On Two Degrees<http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/01/1058/>    (click to review the full article)
  Posted May 1, 2007
  Have we already abandoned our attempts to prevent dangerous climate change?By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 1st May 2007



  The rich nations seeking to cut climate change have this in common: they lie. You won’t find this statement in the draft of the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was leaked to the Guardian last week. But as soon as you understand the numbers, the words form before your eyes. The governments making genuine efforts to tackle global warming are using figures they know to be false.

  ------------------snip------------------

  www.monbiot.com

   References:
  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf<http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf>

  2. Rachel Warren, 2006. Impacts of Global Climate Change at Different Annual Mean Global Temperature Increases. In Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Ed in Chief). Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

  3. F.R. Rijsberman and R.J. Swart (Eds), 1990. Targets and indicators of climate change: Report of Working Group II of the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. Stockholm Environment Institute.

  4. Council of the European Union, 11th March 2005. Information note 7242/05. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/05/st07/st07242.en05.pdf<http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/05/st07/st07242.en05.pdf>

  5. Malte Meinshausen, 2006. What Does a 2°C Target Mean for Greenhouse Gas Concentrations? A Brief Analysis Based on Multi-Gas Emission Pathways and Several Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty Estimates. In Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Ed in Chief). Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

  6. The IPCC uses the words “Unlikely” and “Very Unlikely”. These have precise definitions in the IPCC process: a 33% likelihood and a 10% likelihood. For the full set of definitions, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007, ibid.

  7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change. Unpublished draft report, version 3.0. Table SPM 1.

  8. The figures the IPCC uses in Table SPM 1 suggest that the other greenhouse gases account for 21% of the climate change due to carbon dioxide alone. This is a high estimate – other authors (eg Sir Nicholas Stern, the UK Department for Environment), suggest 10 or 15%.

  9. Again, I use the IPCC’s formula here. Other estimates would produce a slightly lower figure.

  10. Sir Nicholas Stern, October 2006. The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury. Part 3, p194. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm<http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm>

  11. DEFRA, 2003. The Scientific Case for Setting a Long-Term Emission Reduction Target. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/pubs/pdf/ewp_targetscience.pdf<http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/pubs/pdf/ewp_targetscience.pdf>

  12. HM Government, March 2006. Climate Change: The UK Programme 2006. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-all.pdf<http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-all.pdf>

  13. Council of the European Union, ibid.

  14. Nick Hurd MP and Clare Kerr, April 2007. Don’t give up on 2°C. Conservative Party’s Quality of Life Commission. http://www.qualityoflifechallenge.com/documents/TwoDegreesApril2007.pdf<http://www.qualityoflifechallenge.com/documents/TwoDegreesApril2007.pdf>

  15. This is on the basis of a metric developed by Colin Forrest. He is not a professional climate scientist but his calculations can be replicated by any numerate person. For details, see Chapter 1 of Heat.

  16. Nathan Rive et al, 10th March 2007. To what extent can a long-term temperature target guide near-term climate change commitments? Table 1. Climatic Change 82:373-391. DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9193-4

  17. John Vidal, 25th April 2007. China could overtake US as biggest emissions culprit by November. The Guardian.













  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070504/667a274f/attachment-0001.html