[Terrapreta] (correction) Re: Soil test and CEC
lou gold
lou.gold at gmail.com
Wed Nov 7 18:02:45 EST 2007
I misquoted the line from the Wendell Berry poem.
It should be:
"...feeling the earth's empowering brew rising in root and branch."
That's the best way of describing Terra Preta.
TERRA PRETA IS THE EARTH'S EMPOWERING BREW
I love it!
Perhaps you will too.
lou
On Nov 7, 2007 8:40 PM, lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com> wrote:
> GREAT.
>
> That's what you and Sean and I and
> a whole lot of others are doing, here
> and in many other places.
>
> There's a wonderful poem by Wendell
> Berry where he speaks of
> "feeling the earth's brew rising in root and branch."
>
> I feel that way about Terra Preta. I can't argue the
> details very well but I sure can share what I feel.
> I guess that's what I do.
>
> all best to all,
>
> lou
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2007 8:30 PM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
>
--
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071107/1b9c7b2b/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list