[Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?

[Duane Pendergast]

Lou, Sean

 

I've been trying to tease some understanding of the carbon cycle and sinks
into the politics of climate change in Canada. 

 

I provided some information to a parliamentary committee studying Canada's
Kyoto commitment. It suggests accounting for the carbon in wood products as
a carbon sink. It's not much of a stretch to contemplate the possibility the
sink represented by wood products could also be sequestered essentially
permanently if discarded material from demolished houses, etc could be
converted to charcoal used in the formation of terra preta.

 

http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/Wood%20Product%200
5_02.htm

 

My submission was translated to the other official language and provided to
the committee. Members were not receptive to the thoughts presented.   I
guess they are not real quick to take to new ideas, and it's not much wonder
they are skeptical with the wild variety of carbon mangement ideas thrust
upon them by assorted special interests.

 

I've been told by a forester that trees here in Alberta are typically no
more than a hundred years old with some small isolated pockets up to 400
years. The implication was that they burned quite frequently prior to
industrialization. Maybe the burning contributed to soil development through
the production of char. Over a ten thousand year period only a small
fractional conversion to char could have amounted to a substantial sink. The
terra preta concept can be seen as the speeding up of such natural processes
with a little bit of intelligent input from the human component of the
environment.

 

Does this example fit your ideas of a "new paradigm'?

 

I apologize for the bandwidth I've used in advance, as I've already made
reference to this topic some time ago. However, there is something to the
old adage that repetition is the best teacher and many contributors to this
list are not strangers to that concept.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Duane Pendergast

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: September 21, 2007 9:13 PM
To: lou gold
Cc: terrapreta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?

 

Hi Lou,

 

I think you are right.  It will be a new paradigm.  I do like the comparison
of "living energy" versus "detritus energy" (dead energy).

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 

From: lou gold <mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>  

To: Sean K. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  Barry 

Cc: Kevin <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>  Chisholm ; terrapreta
<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  

Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:45 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?

 

Plants live finite lives.  Then they decompose.  Decomposers expire CO2.
Decomposition of a living tree occurs at a higher rate than a tree grows. 

Ergo more outgo.  Get it?



OK, Sean, I'll bite and make a guess.

What if significant portions of plants did not decompose but were instead
converted into relatively inert forms of carbon? What if those inert forms
stimulated more growth (or similar growth with less fertilizer)? What if the
growth required less water? What if the non-charred portions of the plants
were used as substitutes for fossil fuels -- shifting from mining to growing
energy? What if we start to grow many things not grown before
(bio-computers, etc) and always charred a portion (previously called waste)
back into the earth? Isn't this a shift from detritus energy to living
energy?  And isn't this a  "new  paradigm"? 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070922/29088390/attachment.html