[Terrapreta] two recent articles on TP

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kevin, Michael,
>  
> Kevin, I think you are right on point ... and it is an important 
> point.  Any recycling of carbon which had its original source in the 
> Biosphere is not the problem that needs to be addressed, as regards 
> its influence on the atmosphere.  *Fossil carbon *is the only problem 
> carbon.  You are correct too, I think, in your assessment that it is 
> misdirected effort to try and solve the increases in atmospheric 
> carbon by attempts dealing with reductions in any of these natural 
> fluxes that recycle carbon.

Sadly, I see all too many Environmental Protest activities that are 
fundamentally just pointless protests. There is a limited "people 
resource", and it is a shame to waste it on a protest, rather than 
focusing the effort on activities where the effort will be well spent 
and where something can be accomplished. Rotating boycotts of gasoline 
Companies consumes resources and time, and accomplishes very little.
>  
> That said, converting biomass carbon into sequestered carbon (via 
> charcoal-in-soil) could be an excellent solution that will reduce 
> atmospheric carbon levels by offsetting fossil carbon emissions.  One 
> other point, counter to this position that cow farts do not matter is 
> the distinction between CO2 and CH4, as emitted green house gases.  As 
> you may know CH4 is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so 
> biosphere carbon which is recycled as CH4 is worse for that atmosphere 
> than CO2 emissions would be.  I don't know if kangaroo gutt bacteria 
> would reduce the concentrations of CH4 in cow burps or farts or 
> whether the cows could continue to digest if their guts could not 
> produce Methane-CH4?  But, it would maybe help reduce radiative 
> forcing by GHG (aka Global Warming), if cows guts did not produce as 
> much Methane out of either end of the cow.

This is a brilliant concept... the Research Work is being continued, 
with the idea of introducing "the right bugs" into cows. Not only would 
tehy reduce methane generation, but they would lead to more efficient 
cows.... instead of a portion of the cow's nutrition being wasted as 
methane, "the right bugs" would enable the cow to utilize its feed more 
efficiently.

Certainly, methane is a more powerful GHG than CO2... by a factor of 
about 20 or so. If we didn't have cows to eat grass, or termites to eat 
wood, they would accumulate, and chances are that a significant portion 
of tehm would end up as methane from other natural degradation processes.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>     *To:* Michael Bailes <mailto:michaelangelica at gmail.com>
>     *Cc:* Terra Preta <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Friday, February 29, 2008 4:46 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] two recent articles on TP
>
>     Dear Michael
>
>     Michael Bailes wrote:
>     > Do goats fart?
>     > or burp?
>
>     They are probably like dogs ... only the Neighbour's dog farts. ;-)
>
>     At any rate, Dauncy's claims about "If we only got away from cows, we
>     would solve our problem" is trival and misdirecting. Cows and
>     termites
>     and goats and living things eat food that contains carbon and
>     hydrogen
>     that came from the Biosphere, and simply return them to the
>     Biosphere,
>     with no net addition.
>
>     Such claims misdirect effort away from activities that could make a
>     difference. For example, if he was advocating burial of char, he
>     might
>     make a difference.
>
>     Best wishes,
>
>     Kevin
>     > M
>