[Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise

[Larry Williams]

Jim, Sean and all-------For your consideration...If we are looking at  
a forest as an organic reservoir for charcoal from a corporate  point  
of view then making charcoal becomes a very simple decision-making  
process. The externalities are not considered because they remove  
dollars from the profits. Energy uses prevail over charcoal's use to  
grow plants.

 From the profit viewpoint, sense is only made by overlooking the  
externalities of:
-the production of O2,
-the production of clean drinking water,
-the degradation of water resources by land erosion,
-the spread of forest pathogens by vehicular traffic or mono-cultural  
practices,
-the loss of board footage of existing immature trees cut in clear- 
cut harvests or
-the loss or dislocation of beneficial biota.

Even if the greenhouse gases (warming conditions) and atmospheric  
particulate pollution (cooling and drought conditions) were caused by  
overlooking (knowingly or unknowingly) the externalities in order to  
accumulate wealth, we are dealing with the dominate influence of  
ecology. Serious climate changes are on us. We need economics to pull  
greenhouse gases out of the atmospheric but let's accept that  
economics do not rule ecology. It is time to get over the belief that  
ever increasing economic growth is possible.

Failing to change our values to appreciate, accept, or work with the  
Earth's biology may... this has not been excluded by scientists...  
cause a run-away carbon release that looks like what happened to  
Venus. Let us rely on the Precautionary Principle   as a standard to  
operate by. Death for children and their families does not stand as a  
value to achieve because of ignorance or profit nor is birth beyond a  
"carrying capacity". Climate change has made us one world, one  
humanity with diverse cultures. How will the current economic models  
carry us into the future? Apparently, very poorly.

There are several examples of forest management that follow the  
Precautionary Principle. The largest company in the U.S. following  
this model is the Collin Pines Lumber Company in northern California  
which operates 295,000 acres of forest producing high-quality lumber  
while maintaining forest ecosystems. There are several other  
companies that operate under sustainable forestry practices in the  
Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. The family owned businesses  
are not subject to corporate leverage buyouts. This means that they  
can leave a valued commodity to mature to it's potential before  
harvesting.

The harvest of wood from a Pacific Northwest  forest can also be  
achieved if we consider how to manage vegetation to capture light  
(photons). Photons drive photosynthesis and we are looking for the  
wood that photosynthesis produces. Individual Tree Harvests allow for  
maximum closure of the forest canopy.

Individual Tree Harvest practices recommend that less than 8% of the  
canopy be removed every 10 years in mixed species stands. Selected  
trees can be harvested provided that the canopy opening, resulting  
from a harvest, is closed within a few years by adjacent vegetation.  
Trees selected for harvest are chosen based on their canopy dominance  
or subordinance. As the stand matures the subordinate trees go into a  
state of decline which is a loss of value, With the used of smaller  
logging equipment on a 10 foot wide road system, a closed canopy is  
possible. Trained road builders can maneuver equipment away from the  
root system with the least soil disturbance. A smaller road system  
allows for less construction expenses and more frequent harvesting.  
In this region, Western Red Alder trees make an excellent addition to  
a stand because of their ability to fix nitrogen.

With a nearly closed canopy, we can harvest for lumber and for  
charcoal while maintaining a growing carbon reserve. There is no  
reason to deplete the carbon resources with this harvesting technique.

I mention these sustainable family owned forest businesses, some of  
which practice Individual Tree Harvest techniques, to suggest that  
our goal (or is it my goal) is to use charcoal as a added value to  
forest harvests and use the Terra Preta process to protect the living  
sphere of the Earth, it's human ridership and foster business. I have  
been led to believe that we have one last chance to recover from  
cultural suicide. Keep your eye on the Arctic ice pack-------Larry






--------------------------------
On Jan 7, 2008, at 6:11 AM, Jim Joyner wrote:

> Sean K. Barry wrote:
>>
>> Depleting biological reservoirs of carbon, like standing forests  
>> and/or other perennial growing biomass could create problems, like  
>> biodiversity decline, and such.  I suggest strongly that  
>> biological reserves are not utilized for the production of  
>> charcoal.  It is important not to remove all the forestland to  
>> make charcoal to put into soil.  I think charcoal should be made  
>> from biomass which grows annually and would otherwise die and  
>> decay annually.  Agricultural residues are the preferred biomass  
>> feedstock, I think.  The site for charcoal deposits is the land  
>> that those agricultural residues came from.  We need to recycle  
>> available "renewable" (every year) biomass into charcoal into  
>> soil, rahter than let it decay into CO2 emissions as it does now.
> Sean,
>
> We've touched on this before but I think you are missing something  
> with crop residues. In the case of woody residues (like grape  
> vines) there is little else to do with these, and making them into  
> biochar would seem a good idea. But the mass of crop residues in  
> this country are from grains and beans. There are hardly any  
> residues with beans, and there is almost always resulting soil  
> erosion anyway. With grain and seed crops, at least in my  
> experience, the residues are not great (I would like to see actual  
> figures to see how much could be converted). But, great or not,  
> they are typically left on or in the soil to stop soil erosion.
>
> If you are presenting a farmer with the choice between slowing  
> erosion (keeping residues on the soil) and some far off benefit of  
> charcoal in the soil, I doubt you will make a sale. Maybe a farmer  
> would be enticed if he/she were paid enough in carbon credits, but  
> that would only increase erosion -- which would lead to another set  
> of environmental problems.
>
> Also, with the small amount of feedstocks (relative to what is  
> needed overall in the soil), it might take many  years of  
> entraining charcoal in the soil. That not only has a significant  
> financial cost but requires a lot more fuel to be burned to do so.
>
> I'm guessing here but I think judicious use of forests, that is,  
> were we harvest mature growth without clear cutting, could convert  
> trees, no longer absorbing CO2 on balance, into standing  
> reservoirs, like houses or furniture. Of course, it would be  
> important to convert these reservoirs to biochar when these wooden  
> structures are not longer useful.
>
> I don't really offer this last as a solution, as much could be lost  
> due to sloppy to bad lumbering processes and I don't know if the  
> process of converting wooden discards into biochar is practical. I  
> simply offer these as starting point ideas. But, depending on crop  
> residues for feedstocks might well give us other problems just as  
> great as CO2 -- might not even reduce CO2 on balance -- and is not  
> likely to be very attractive to farmers.
>
> Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080107/7293a565/attachment.html