[Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

[lou gold]

I don't think you are "wrong" as much as just not seeing how huge the
consciousness
gap between educated elites and roots understandings. It will be awhile
until the gap
between culture and agriculture can be bridged in modern society.

The whole terra preta approach is, in essence, quite off the modern map.
This is one reason that I'm sort of skeptical that what the ancients
understood might
be reduced to a mere cocktail of ingredients to be applied to the land.



On Nov 18, 2007 5:40 PM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Dear Duane and Erich
>
> I am getting increasingly cynical about the IPCC. They seem bent on
> grasping anything to blame Man for the Global Climate Change that is
> upon us, and proposing "status quo solutions" involving Big Business and
> capital intensive solutions.
>
> Duane Pendergast wrote:
> > Dear Erich, Kevin,
> >
> > The IPCC Mitigation report does discuss the concept that biomaterial
> could
> > be burned completely for energy, the resultant CO2 could be captured,
> > recompressed using some form of energy, and injected into the ground a
> la
> > schemes to sequester carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants.  That gets
> the
> > IPCC into the carbon negative concept.
> >
> That is a big stretch. Nobody can agree that nuclear waste dissolved in
> glass can be stored safely, yet they blithely seem to assume that CO2
> can be stores safely (ie, no leakage.) They seem to overlook teh extra
> carbon that will have to be burned to make teh power to compress the CO2
> to hide it.
> > It is inexplicable, that with all the expertise they have mustered, they
> > don't even mention the concept of partial combustion leaving some char
> for
> > sequestration. Sure some energy production would be foregone - but the
> > energy consumptive steps of CO2 separation/compression would also be
> > avoided. I would bet it would be easier to demonstrate lasting
> sequestration
> > with a solid product than a gas too.
> >
> They are certainly not stupid, but they certainly seem to be obtuse, in
> "overlooking" charcoal sequestering. One wonders why they would make
> this oversight.
> > I spoke to a local agricultural/climate mitigation expert about the fact
> > terra preta is missing from the IPCC a couple of months ago. (That
> expert is
> > now a Nobel Prize winner by the way.)
> Can your Friend give you any insights into what the IPCC people are
> really up to? I have heard of some resignations from the Panel... would
> he know teh total extent of qualified people who resigned, and why they
> resigned?
> >  He is interested and he charitably
> > suggested the IPCC is possibly just not sure enough of it's efficacy to
> > bring the concept forward to their grab-bag of potential solutions. I
> find
> > it hard to buy that, as there are plenty of other proposed solutions in
> > their arsenal that are far from proven - indeed some are
> counterproductive
> > re atmospheric greenhouse gas reduction.
> >
> I am trying to "see where thy are coming from", and the only thing I can
> see is that someone is being set up to make scads of money off the sale
> of Carbon Credits. Does this make sense? Can either of you see another
> motivation?
> > I'm guessing there is just no champion for Terra Preta on the IPCC
> > authorship list, and that the contributors have their own pet theories
> > and/or financial interests to promote.
>
> Well if the Panel needs a Champion before truth and science can surface,
> it is a sad commentary on the calibre of their "science." Perhaps that
> is why they have to resort to "consensus Science." That is one of the
> finest oxymorons of our time.
> >  Perhaps some of you should be
> > applying to contribute to the IPCC as authors. Here is a how to guide.
> >
> > http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/nominations-dec2003.htm
> >
> Firstly, nominations have closed on 5 Jan 2004. Secondly, depending on
> the real Mandate that the Authors were given, it might be that they were
> not allowed to propose charcoal as a sequesterant. Somehow, I just can't
> see them issuing an Addendum supporting charcoal as a way to remove CO2
> from the atmosphere. "Sorry fellas, our Authors overlooked Charcoal, but
> we now issue an Addendum to our report, supporting it."
>
> Perhaps I am being overly suspicious of conspiracies and cover-ups, and
> misdirection. Hope I am wrong. I'd appreciate any comments on where I am
> wrong, and what I might be overlooking.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> > Duane
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> > [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin
> Chisholm
> > Sent: November 18, 2007 6:54 AM
> > To: Shengar at aol.com
> > Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> >
> >
> > Dear Erich
> > Shengar at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> This IPCC menu of remediation fits TP to a T, However they don't say
> >> the C word (charcoal), our friends at Biopact at least know that
> >> Biotic-Carbon-Capture & Storage, (CCS) , and 'negative emissions
> >> energy' should read Charcoal to the Soils.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://biopact.com/2007/11/ipcc-scientists-call-on-bioenergy-and.html
> >>
> > This is peculiar indeed!! I think it detracts significantly from their
> > work, in that it suggests a studious attempt to avoid any suggestion of
> > "distributed carbon control." More specifically, it suggests that they
> > are supporting central plants and big industry, to the exclusion of
> > newcomers and small business. It also suggests a hidden agenda, a
> > support of central control, and an imbalanced approach to dealing with
> > the problem.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Erich J. Knight
> >> Shenandoah Gardens
> >> 1047 Dave Berry Rd.
> >> McGaheysville, VA. 22840
> >> (540) 289-9750
> >> shengar at aol.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> See what's new at AOL.com
> >> <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your
> >> Homepage <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>.
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Terrapreta mailing list
> >> 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
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071118/1f5e4e7b/attachment.html