[Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?

[lou gold]

Duane,

That's an interesting concept you have in your testimony: "The
responsibility for controlling carbon dioxide emissions from exported wood
products would be turned over to the importing countries, where it logically
belongs." It essentially says that the consumers should pay full costs
including environmental costs. That would surely cause them to buy less.
Follow the logic through to include all presently cheap products in the
market-place and raise the price to reflect environmental costs.

I do suspect that fire played a role in building soils in the past but I
totally resist the notion (advanced in some forestry circles) that logging
is just a human form of a natural fire regime. It's not true primary because
of the acceleration is a tremendous disruption of the natural equilibrium,
it reduces the amount stored carbon (and lots more) and it has many
"recovery costs".

The "new paradigm" has to include halting further destruction of natural
systems to mine their capital -- wood, soil, water, etc. The "new" really is
a shift from mining and depleting to planting and restoring.




On 9/22/07, Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org> wrote:
>
>  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%2005_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 <lou.gold at gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
>
> *Cc:* Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> ; terrapreta<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"?
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070922/e8c6e35f/attachment.html