[Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise

[bakaryjatta]

Dear list members,

I like Frank's 2 cents worth's observation and Sean's response. Leave the
forests to perform their natural function, it is doing it quite well. Using
annual growing biomass as the material for biochar production is most
logical. To have more annually produced biomass one could consider the
agroforestry system as an additional source of feedstock for biochar
production. Tree species used need regular trimming and the trimmings are
mainly small size material that is in my experience easily made into
biochar. The small size also takes less effort in pulverizing the char. .
The end product is unlike the charcoal that is used for fuel and in some
countries illegal to produce. The use of more mature or larger wood requires
more energy throughout the process as well.

In my part of the world a person would be considered foolish to grind up 
charcoal and stick it in the soil.
It is considered too valuable for that and I don't think the Terrapreta
concept would be acceptable, even if people were paid for it. This is not
just a technological issue. If there are difficulties convincing  the
'advanced' people of 'civilized' society, try and tell the people in the
least developed countries what is happening and what they should do.

Hurry up and show results. Seeing might help believing. Coca Cola has
reached all parts of the world. I hope Terrapreta is accepted faster! Maybe
we can get the corporations convinced that saving the planet is a sound
economic policy? I might make quite a difference.

Bakary Jatta
Bwiam village
The Gambia

Sean K B wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> You are absolutely right.  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.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB

>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: dyarrow at nycap.rr.com<mailto:dyarrow at nycap.rr.com>
>  To: Frank Teuton<mailto:fteuton at videotron.ca>
>  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>  Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise
>
>
>  thanks, frank, for highlighting the illogic of treating the pinnacle
>  of biodiversity, and one of earth's primary carbon fixing pathways -- 
>  forests -- as little more than fuelwood for charcoal.  not that we
>  need worry.  seems nature is rapidly finishing what man's folly has
>  begun.  catastrophic increases in forest fires may emit as much carbon
>  as our new coal-burning power plants.
snipped>


>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Frank Teuton <fteuton at videotron.ca<mailto:fteuton at videotron.ca>>
>  Date: Sunday, December 30, 2007 1:04 am
>  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise
>  To: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>,
> Richard.Black-
>  INTERNET at bbc.co.uk<mailto:INTERNET at bbc.co.uk>
>  Cc: terrapreta
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
>
>  > Sean et al;
>  >
>  > I fail to grasp the reasoning behind the idea that emptying
>  > biologically active carbon reservoirs (soil OM, trees, prairies,
>  > etc.) is somehow fundamentally different than emptying
>  > biologically inert (relatively speaking) reservoirs, coal, oil,
>  > gas, peat, etc.
>  >
>  > The simple truth is, we can only manage atmospheric CO2 levels by
>  > learning to manage all the possible reservoirs of carbon,
>  > including biological reservoirs as well as inert reservoirs.
>  > Pumping relatively inert carbon underground is one way, which
>  > includes terra preta approaches...aiming to increase SOM and
>  > standing biomass via perennial plant strategies, including forest
>  > and prairie approaches, is another....stimulating phytoplankton in
>  > the ocean is of course still another.
>  >
>  > In the meantime, it is simple arithmetic that depleting existing
>  > biological reservoirs further is part of the problem, not part of
>  > the solution. Increased deforestation for, say, charcoal
>  > production where the charcoal is then subsequently burned for fuel
>  > empties the forest bioreservoir of carbon, which is not a good
>  > thing. We will need to optimize all reservoirs of carbon to make
>  > this thing work.
>  >
>  > It is my understanding that up until about 1950 the majority of
>  > the increase in atmospheric carbon was due to human land use
>  > impacts, eg, deforestation, tillage, desertification, and similar
>  > phenomena. Not until about 1950 did fossil fuel burning exceed
>  > biome degradation as the leading anthropogenic cause of
>  > atmospheric CO2 increase. If the argument is that we need to put
>  > back the C, I would suggest we need to put it back not only into
>  > inert carbon forms in the ground, but also back into the living
>  > biological systems from whence a great deal of it was also taken.
>  >
>  > It isn't one or the other, but what combinations of both can be
>  > made to work.
>  >
>  > My two cents,
>  >
>  > Frank Teuton
>
>