[Terrapreta] carbon sequestration but where is TP?

[Brian Hans]

"Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:        But, do you really think that it is an absolute MUST for the IPCC to 
  make TP formation an approved CDM project?
   
  YES! This is my point. TP may have merit to remedy GHG's, TP may 
  have merit in the soil but part of the issue is that there is no 
  complete data one way or another. And its not even that there is complete data...but virtually NO data. Until that data is present...assuming TP does any good is just that, an assumption (or hypothesis). Edward keeps saying that his data will be out in 2008...great...something to sink our teeth into. 
   
  Let me give an example...blood letting was ASSUMED to be a quality 
  practice to rid people of disease for 100's of years...how well did 
  that work out? Was there any LCA done on blood letting? Was there 
  any rigerous testing done on blood letting? If there was...I wonder 
  how long blood letting would have lasted?
   
  Maybe there is possible merit in the other benefits that TP has to 
  offer beyond its possible use as a GHG mitigation strategy?  Do you 
  think the IPCC, which is formed under a charter of the United 
  Nations, might be directed by the UN to see value in TP that exceeds 
  merely what the IPCC endeavors to accomplish?  GHG mitigation is not 
  the only World problem the UN tries to address and in the view of 
  some, maybe not even the most serious problem.  TP can address some 
  issues towards solving some of these other of the World's problems 
  too; like starvation, arable land degradation, and unemployment.  
  These surely could be thrown in to the Life Cycle Analysis of a 
  "biochar into soil" venture, too?
   
  In this case, I would use the motto of the Dr. "First do no harm". 
  Show me some data where you are first doing no harm and second, 
  helping the system and I will PROMISE that people will flock to TP. 
  This is why we need LCA's to show the precise #'s.
   
  And just to add to this comment. Without an LCA, how does anyone 
  expect to get paid to sequester carbon?          CC buyer "well do 
  you have complete accounting of all C and N and S?"  CC seller "No 
  we just assume that it does what we say it does". CC buyer, "Well 
  come back when you have that data. Bye."
   
  Your challenges seem to downplay any possible value to TP without a 
  complete LCA, and/or beyond GHG mitigation.  Do you think that 
  suggests that an LCA is the only way to go?  Do you think that your 
  way to proceed is what we all need to see, hear, and adopt before we 
  would proceed?  Your edict on the matter leaving us only our choice 
  to ignore?
   
  My comments are directed to the original comment of why TP isnt 
  included in carbon sequestration, not soil enhancement. And particularily to the IPCC leaving out TP as a sequestering method.  
   
  And to your question...YES we do need to see and hear some data before we go headfirst into the whole of the world making charcoal expecting to 
  sequester carbon. Yes that is my position...as it should be...as it is in the IPCC...as it should be with all of the forum members. 
   
  Im sure you, Sean, and all the others on the forum feel that TP has alot of merit, as do I. But as a scientist, a hypothesis isnt enough to go on...I need data rigorously challenged to move the hypothesis further along. 

  

   
    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/20071012/55cd2360/attachment.html