[Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof

[David Hirst .com]

The debate as to what is "sustainable" or not when it comes to fuels seems
to be a very emotional one, with strong feelings that do not find common
ground.

It seems to me that, from an atmosphere point of view, the source of the
carbon being ejected is irrelevant. CO2 is CO2 and, in excess, is harmful.
Where it comes from is about the past, and the atmosphere really does not
care (although we, as thinking and moral beings, may) how long ago the
carbon was last in the atmosphere.

What is important, and which it will care about, is what is going to happen
in the future. Will the CO2 emitted (or a similar amount of CO2) have a
reasonable chance of being taken out again? And how quickly? With biofuels
there is at least the possibility that the land and growing method will do
just that. That is, using the fuel somehow "makes more space" for more
biofuels to be grown in the future and CO2 to be removed from the
atmosphere. Fossil fuels do not offer that possibility. 

However, if we start building systems to extract the CO2, so that emitted
CO2 is a "debt" that we accept we have to do something about (ie pay back)
in the future, then we need to manage this debt, and make sure it does not
get too big. We can also earn ourselves "credits" by taking CO2 out.

In this respect, there seem to be very profound differences in the actions
of "not emitting so much" and "extracting from the atmosphere". They seem
qualitatively different, certainly ethically. But nailing down this
difference seems to be hard.

So how can we reflect this difference in the economics of it all. Is a ton
of CO2 a ton of CO2, or is there some difference between a ton "tagged" with
a debt and one not. If so, how can we persuade our society to recognise this
difference?

Or are they both the same, and my feelings about it are quite unfounded?

Regards

David

 

David Hirst

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: 25 February 2008 16:29
To: Terra Preta; William Carr
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof

 

Hi William,

 

Thanks for your clear voice on this issue.  You are absolutely correct.  It
is far more important to differentiate fossil carbon from other carbonated
energy sources than it is to differentiate energy sources as to their carbon
content.  Even though hay and would are more "carbonated" than Methane-CH4,
it is better to burn biomass for energy than it is to burn natural gas.
Fossil carbon is the enemy to the atmosphere, not biomass carbon, which is
born under the sunshine and actually cleans CO2 from the atmosphere as it
grows.

 

If Terra Preta enthusiasts understand the value of biomass carbon as a
"carbon neutral" energy source, all the better if we understand biochar as
the mechanism to achieve "carbon negative" energy.  Making charcoal out of
some biomass and harvesting some energy out of the same biomass feedstock
can clean the atmosphere of the pernicious carbon, provide a large source of
distributed energy, and improve soils that we sequester that charcoal carbon
into.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

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

From: William Carr <mailto:Jkirk3279 at qtm.net>  

To: Terra Preta <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:45 AM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof

 


> "According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute,  
> industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources  
> for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward  
> hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases  
> as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4)"

Did anybody catch this part?

An invalid comparison if there ever was one.

Crichton is cherry-picking his citations,  trying to prove we don't  
need to DO anything about carbon by going all the way back to HAY !

As if there was some magic guiding force moving our society away from  
carbon, mysteriously operating in the background !



It's an invalid comparison, if you're actually concerned about carbon  
dioxide as a Global Warming gas.

Wood and hay are carbon neutral fuels.   Coal, oil, and gas are not.

Burning biomass has never added a gram of Carbon to the atmosphere  
that didn't COME from the atmosphere in the first place.




************



This reminds me of what a cousin of mine tried to tell me once.

We were at a family picnic, and out of the blue he said:  " did you  
know that if you dump raw sewage into a river, 100 yards down the  
river that water will be safe to drink"?


I looked at him in astonishment.   Several things went through my mind.

1) This was obviously something he'd been told.   What today we call a  
"talking point", particular to his political party.

2) This guy is actually supposed to be intelligent.

3) My cousin is SO convinced of the rightness of his Party's policies  
he didn't even analyze this anecdote before repeating it.

4) Apparently he'd never heard the "solution to pollution is dilution".

Dilute raw sewage ENOUGH, and the amount of live Fecal Coliform  
Bacteria per liter will be low enough that your likelihood of  
infection from it is also low.

But the water ISN'T clean.    The bacteria will find a haven in a  
backwater somewhere, and given a food source may reproduce until it  
reaches toxic levels.   That's why municipalities have Sewage  
Treatment plants.

5) Also apparently, the conclusion the listener is supposed to draw is  
this:   that God has such a complex plan for the world, that he  
designed Nature to automatically clean up after us !

This anecdote isn't a fluke.

I've heard other talking points like this, with similar flawed  
logic:   I occasionally get them in group emails and it's a  
distressing sign of "group think".



*************



I looked at my cousin in disgust, and told him "YOU can drink it, not  
me !".     He was taken aback.   Apparently not the result he was  
expecting.


And so we come full circle.   Both Crichton and my cousin seem to  
believe there's no need to worry over the problems global civilization  
causes.

Both of them want to dissuade the rest of us from the effort of  
thinking, and possibly doing something about these problems that might  
cost them money in taxes.


I think the "lack of critical thinking" is just what Crichton is  
hoping for.



William Carr














_______________________________________________
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: /attachments/20080227/f3a305d3/attachment.html