[Terrapreta] Biochar present at the Bali Conference

Wed Nov 21 19:25:59 EST 2007

Hi Christoph,

This is great news, well done with getting the slot I know very many
applications did not get a hearing. BEST Energies also has an exhibit
(booth style) at the meeting. Unfortunately we are there in the first
week and your side event is in the second week. If you are there in the
first week, please come and find us.

Regards,
Adriana Downie
BEST Energies

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Steiner [mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:15 AM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Terrapreta] Biochar present at the Bali Conference

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:
>
<!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAbxxJInXmQU6ZPRDFG1n46MKA
AA
> 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/a
t
> 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/a
t
> 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:
>
<!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAbxxJInXmQU6ZPRDFG1n46MKA
AA
> 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_summaryforpolicymaker
s
> .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_S
e
> 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/a
t
> 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/a
t
> 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/a
t
> 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:
>
<!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAbxxJInXmQU6ZPRDFG1n46MKA
AA
> 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/a
t
> 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
> ******************************************
>
>

_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org