[Terrapreta] Soil test and CEC
Kevin Chisholm
kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Wed Nov 7 17:30:30 EST 2007
Dear Lou
Thanks for your helpful comments
The possibility of Global Warming has been suggested quite a while ago,
and the First World Summit was called in Sweden in 1972. See:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/kyoto.htm.
That was 35 years ago, and relatively little has happened since then to
control or reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The general approach to controlling GHG emissions is one of "reduce by
reducing use", rather than "reduce by self financing change". Reducing
GHG's with a policy driven by reducing use of fossil fuels is the hard
way to go, in that it unites the fossil fuel suppliers who see a loss of
market, and have an incentive to obstruct and delay a reduction in GHG.
On the other hand, if the benefits of GHG were sold to the Users, in
terms of making money by reducing GHG production, then they would be
much more likely to "do the right thing." A reasonable analogy would be
"Supplier Push" rather than "Market Pull". More ideas get sold when the
Market wants them.
We have a history of 35 years of inadequate progress in reducing or
controling GHG's. When something doesn't work for this long, perhaps it
is time for a change in approach?
I would suggest that the "No Regrets Policy" would be such a change in
approach. It stresses the benefits from a course of action, and would be
generally self-financing, or require the least outside support.
It strike me that Terra Preta is one such idea whose time is about to
come... almost any sensible Farmer would adopt Terra Preta if he felt he
could make money as a result of so doing. Similarly, no sensible Farmer
will adopt it unless he has fact to justify his decision. Some more
adventuresome Farmers will be the first to experiment with TP, but most
of them want to be second... as soon as they see positive test results,
they will rush in.
So, why don't we on the TP list do our thing and get back to showing the
Farmers of the World how TP works, how to make it, and where to use it?
Best wishes,
Kevin
lou gold wrote:
> Kevin and Shawn,
>
> I should not do this but I will. I will because the argument between
> you is the official and massively promulgated argument. It requires
> only the taking a familiar and comfortable position. Read the
> editorials of the NYT and WSJ (or whatever) and decide where you stand
> and buttress your stance with all that has firmed your opinions across
> the years.
>
> But the Master Golfer said, "keep your eye on the hole and not on the
> ball." It's not whether global warming is or is not unique in history
> (including pre-human history). It's that 6 billion humans trying to
> cope with it truly is absolutely unique. That is the problem that we
> are facing. No, I am not ticking the population bomb. I am saying that
> we have reached the critical mass for emerging into a new way. That
> requires an openess that must not get filled with our familiar biases,
> whatever they are. The debaters are in the deck chairs on the Titanic.
>
> And the doers? Well, we are the doers. Let's just keep doing
> everything we can.
>
> OK, that's the lecture that I give to myself. No arrogance or offense
> intended.
>
> hugs,
>
> lou
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2007 6:47 PM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net
> <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>
> Dear Sean
>
> You indicate below:
> "There are 1500+ scientists, global climatologists, having done
> thousands of research projects and written thousands of peer reviewed
> articles where they are in COMPLETE CONSENSUS that global warming is
> caused primarily by humans."
>
> "Consensus Science" is an oxymoron. If it is science, it does not need
> "consensus." If it is Science, then it is proven or disproven by
> facts.
> The fact that there is a need for "consensus" suggests that at
> the very
> best, it is a "work in progress."
>
> The mere fact that there is a need for "consensus Science" is
> proof that
> the statements and conclusions are not scientific fact. If it can't be
> proven or disproven, then it is not Science. It is still at the
> level of
> "belief" or "conjecture."
>
> I would therefore suggest it could be that our present situation of
> Global Warming was NOT caused by Man, industrialization, and
> fossil fuel
> use, and that it could indeed be a natural phenomenon, which Man is
> powerless to stop or reverse.
>
> The World has had global warming in the past, long before
> Industrialization, and it certainly was not caused by Man.
>
> The issue of "Global Warming" is a complex matter. It may very
> well be
> that the Scientists have not found the right hypothesis, or that
> if they
> have, perhaps they simply do not have enough data to prove or disprove
> the hypothesis in an absolute and Scientific manner. Given the
> importance of the issue, that does not stop Man from taking some
> sort of
> action. I personally favour a "No regrets" policy, where action is
> taken
> to support a belief, BUT where these actions have merit on their own,
> and provide a known real benefit.
>
> For example, insulating ones home reduces the need for heating
> fuel, and
> therefore reduces the impact of heating fuel on Global Warming. Most
> people could accept that. However, when someone suggests raising the
> price of gasoline to reduce use, many people scream bloody murder.
> Cheney was wrong... the American Way of Life IS negotiable. If a "new
> view" on gasoline pricing and use is not developed soon in an orderly
> manner, reality will force the ugly truth upon us, in a way that is
> much less than orderly and convenient.
>
> Terra Preta seems to be such a "No Regrets" option. It presently
> seems
> to be "close" to being economically advantageous for agricultural
> reasons alone. How close it is to economic soundness based on
> agricultural benefits is certainly open to discussion, in that the
> Science and technology is not yet here to permit proving or
> disproving
> its economic worth. To me, however, it appears that there are already
> certain "niche circumstances" where TP would be very attractive for
> Agricultural benefit alone, and that there are other circumstances
> where
> TP would be a waste of good money.
>
> I would suggest that the best interests of the Terra Preta
> Community are
> served if we work toward understanding how it works, how to make
> it, and
> where to use it.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> Sean K. Barry wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > Wow!? Human are causing air pollution? Is that what you are
> saying?
> >
> > Green House Gases are the bulk of that air pollution you speak
> of and
> > they have a greater impact on temperatures in the troposphere
> than any
> > other mechanism, including current and historical solar activity
> and
> > cosmic rays (which are completely unaffected by solar activity).
> The
> > resulting climatic changes, including global warming, increased
> > incidence and severity of droughts, 3 category 5 hurricanes in one
> > annual seasons, are a direct result of human activities which
> > introduce ~6 billion tons of new carbon into the atmosphere each
> > year. This is not an issue which politicians seem willing to
> address
> > (unfortunately).
> >
> > There are 1500+ scientists, global climatologists, having done
> > thousands of research projects and written thousands of peer
> reviewed
> > articles where they are in COMPLETE CONSENSUS that global
> warming is
> > caused primarily by humans. There has never ANY CRITICISM of
> even one
> > peer reviewed article, written by any scientists in the past ten
> > years, which stated that global warming was caused by humans.
> This
> > is no longer conjecture. It has not been conjecture in the
> scientific
> > community for a very long time.
> >
> > We humans must BEAR the cost of fixing this or we will suffer the
> > consequences. We are the only living beings that can do
> ANYTHING to
> > change the world. Even if we do something to mitigate the
> problems in
> > our environment, we will have to adapt. The ball is already
> rolling.
> > It's a big ball with lots of inertia. The hysteresis lag in the
> > response of the environment to activities that we do is on the order
> > of a 100 years. We are now seeing the effects of what we did 100
> > years ago. In 100 years more we will still be seeing the
> effects of
> > what we are doing now, even if we try to make amends for it. We
> will
> > absolutely be required to adapt before then!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SKB
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Jim Joyner <mailto:jimstoytn at yahoo.com
> <mailto:jimstoytn at yahoo.com>>
> > *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:40 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Soil test and CEC
> >
> > From: Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com
> <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com
> <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>>
> >
> > I would like to mention again . . .
> >
> > Sean,
> >
> > While I think carbon sequestration is probably a good bet,
> > anthropogenic causes are still something of a conjecture (I
> > realize I may be somewhat politically incorrect here). While
> > global climate change may be a given, there are more better and
> > reasons to believe climate change is due to solar activity and
> > their effect on cosmic rays.
> >
> > I bring this up, not to start an argument about climate
> change and
> > causes but to point out that carbon sequestration will have an
> > attendant cost and someone will have to bare it. The reason
> why I
> > think carbon sequestration is still a good bet is because
> much the
> > expense for it can be borne by the cost of cleaning up the
> Earth's
> > air of pollution -- we know who is causing that and roughly who
> > should pay for it.
> >
> > My other concern is that if humans are not causing climate
> change,
> > we have an even bigger problem: adapting. We will need
> disparately
> > to find better ways to feed people in a changing
> environment. We
> > need to grow crops with better moisture and nutrient retention.
> > So, I would put soil improvement on at least an equal
> footing with
> > carbon sequestration if not a higher priority.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list