[Terrapreta] Biochar present at the Bali Conference

Wed Nov 21 18:15:02 EST 2007

Dear Terra Preta List,

I was hoping that biochar finds a hearing at the UN climate change
conference in Bali. I am very glad that biochar got two hours in Bali:
December 13, 13:00 &#8211; 15:00, Bali International Convention Center,
(biochar.org &#8220;events&#8221;)

Am Mo, 19.11.2007, 18:00, schrieb terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org:
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
> 1. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (Duane Pendergast)
> 2. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (lou gold)
> 3. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (Kevin Chisholm)
> 4. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (lou gold)
> 5. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (Duane Pendergast)
> 6. Nice neat susinct Terra preta summery. (Michael N Trevor)
> 7. Re: Nice neat susinct Terra preta summery. (lou gold)
> 8. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (Edward Someus)
> 9. Re: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (Duane Pendergast)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:35:17 -0700
> From: Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: 'Kevin Chisholm' <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>, Shengar at aol.com
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAbxxJInXmQU6ZPRDFG1n46MKAAA
> AQAAAAu5lZW4Koakin9oNuEp9XIQEAAAAA at computare.org>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.) 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'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. 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:18:13 -0200
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: still.thinking at computare.org
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0711181118t3288a8das71572da063e73f96 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Can some of you science guys write to the big league science writers?
> Folks like Andrew Revkin at the NY Times, etc would be good. Emails
> are generally available in connection with their columns. We need a
> campaign.
>
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2007 4:35 PM, Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.) 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'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. 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
>>
>>
>> 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://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.o
>>> rg 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/e82b27ee/at
> tachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:40:35 -0400
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: still.thinking at computare.org
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <47409533.9000100 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> 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://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.o
>>> rg 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0200
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0711181157k149861dasbada30d8f7e75dc7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> 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.ht
>>>> ml
>>>>
>>> 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://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
>> g
>>>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Terrapreta mailing list
>>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.o
>>> rg 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/at
> tachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:25:12 -0700
> From: Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: 'Kevin Chisholm' <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAbxxJInXmQU6ZPRDFG1n46MKAAA
> AQAAAA8xLgPRQcYkWPFFt3Vwo/WAEAAAAA at computare.org>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
> Kevin,
>
>
> The IPCC authorship is so huge that I don't think we could expect a
> scientist dedicated to his own narrow part of the report to have a good
> overview of the international political machinations and financial
> motives lying behind the IPCC.
>
> In spite of some  cynicism about the overall goals of IPCC which I share
> with you, I don't doubt there are many dedicated scientists contributing
> to it. They probably don't have time to look up and see the incongruities.
>
>
> As to suggesting some of you contribute to the IPCC, I had in mind the
> fifth review which might take place in another 5 or so years. Actually
> there are some special reports commissioned by them which would serve the
> purpose of an addendum as you suggest. There is one on carbon dioxide
> sequestration for example.
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers
> .pd
> f
>
> Looking at the title, "Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage" I'm wondering
> if that one word in it "Dioxide", was enough to blind the authors to the
> possibility of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Carbon Storage.
>
> Perhaps the IPCC could be encouraged to do another "special report" on
> the basis of the title modification suggested.
>
> Duane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net]
> Sent: November 18, 2007 12:41 PM
> To: still.thinking at computare.org
> Cc: Shengar at aol.com; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:23:21 +1200
> From: "Michael N Trevor" <mtrevor at ntamar.net>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Nice neat susinct Terra preta summery.
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <006301c82a3a$607eeda0$8e0319ac at USER2>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
> I need a nice neat, short concise and clearly understandable
> summery of just what terra preta was, is, and could be.  This need to be
> in simple easily understood English,  particularly suitable for people who
> use english as a second language.
>
> I think this is something many of us may need as well. I frequently start
> to explain to say elected politicians and literally see their lights go
> off,  the interest fade and then they start looking for the nearest exit.
> Or perhap it is something a number of us should try
> and pound out. We may all be enthusiasts but that doesn not mean others
> are: dirty
> black charcoal in dirt UGH. And you are trying to tell me it can promote
> self sufficiency, reduce carbon, improve soils, and even help reduce
> poverty, sure call me next century...Does anyone have any specific
> suggestion?
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Michael N Trevor
> Marshall Islands
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:46:06 -0200
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Nice neat susinct Terra preta summery.
> To: "Michael N Trevor" <mtrevor at ntamar.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0711181546k58936efcm113fafd3ac5d4e20 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> This is what you need:
>
>
> http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Joyful_Liiving_Terra_Preta_Se
> pt-Oct_0207.pdf
>
> On Nov 18, 2007 9:23 PM, Michael N Trevor <mtrevor at ntamar.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I need a nice neat, short concise and clearly understandable
>> summery of just what terra preta was, is, and could be.  This need to be
>>  in simple easily understood English,  particularly suitable for people
>> who use english as a second language.
>>
>> I think this is something many of us may need as well. I frequently
>> start to explain to say elected politicians and literally see their lights
>> go off,  the interest fade and then they start looking for the nearest
>> exit. Or perhap it is something a number of us should try and pound out.
>> We may all be enthusiasts but that doesn not mean others are: dirty
>> black charcoal in dirt UGH. And you are trying to tell me it can promote
>> self sufficiency, reduce carbon, improve soils, and even help reduce
>> poverty, sure call me next century...Does anyone have any specific
>> suggestion?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>> Michael N Trevor
>> Marshall Islands
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/bd20ddfd/at
> tachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:45:09 +0100 (Közép-európai téli idõ)
> From: "Edward Someus" <edward at terrenum.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: "'Kevin Chisholm'" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>, <Shengar at aol.com>,
> <still.thinking at computare.org>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <474106C5.000017.02672 at TERRA-16190F9E7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
> Is there any new 2007 call for Nominations to serve as Authors of the
> IPCC
> Assessment?
> http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/nominations-dec2003.htm
>
>
>
> ? ? ?
> Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
> Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
> 3R Environmental Technologies Ltd.
> ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
> TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
> TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
> TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
> 3R TERRACARBON:   http://www.terrenum.net
> 3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY: http://www.nvirocleantech.com
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
>
> From: Duane Pendergast
> Date: 2007.11.18. 19:35:17
> To: 'Kevin Chisholm';  Shengar at aol.com
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.) 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'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. 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
> .
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071119/4da2edfd/at
> tachment-0001.html -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 1458 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071119/4da2edfd/at
> tachment-0001.jpe
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:40:34 -0700
> From: Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
> To: 'Edward Someus' <edward at terrenum.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAbxxJInXmQU6ZPRDFG1n46MKAAA
> AQAAAArRpkE6VT8E+gt1F4j3mywwEAAAAA at computare.org>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Edward,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If there is a call for nominations for the Fifth Assessment Report,
> Google
> does not seem to know about it. Here is some schedule speculation from the
>  US DOE.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/partnerships/doe_current.html
>
>
>
>
> Maybe they would like to model Terra Preta?
>
>
>
>
> By the way, I had difficulty replying to your message. It seemed to
> garble the screen by reprinting your message on it many times. Maybe it's
> just my computer.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
>
>
> Question from Edward Someus
>
>
>
>
> Is there any new 2007 call for Nominations to serve as Authors of the
> IPCC
> Assessment?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071119/a1a0f65c/at
> tachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 10, Issue 33
> ******************************************
>
>