[Terrapreta] History on the climate aspects of the terrapreta list

[lou gold]

Kevin,

First, my sincere and deep compliments to you for the eloquence, sanity and
utter reasonableness of your statement. I have absolutely
no interest in quarreling with it.

In the same sensibility I would like to offer as briefly as possible an
explanation for why it may be totally sensible to be involved in "Promoting
the GHG benefits of New Terra Preta before we have a process that works..."

The reason is that we need a MASSIVE publicly funded R&D program to
establish where, when and how TP might work. I'm a grass-roots organizer
type of a guy, but for the life of me I just can't see a bunch of good folks
on this forum generating the required levels of information. We need much
more.

There are two rubs:

1) Most of the other (non-TP) alternatives have strong lobbies working to
support funding their R&D. Nukes, solar, wind, scrubbers for coal, etc have
established constituencies and huge research programs. But soil is an
orphan, at best a new kid on the block. We are fighting to get on the
agenda. That starts with vision. Proof (or not) follows.

2) There are huge global issues now surrounding food. These issues of crisis
and opportunity are centered largely (but not exclusively) in the tropical
zone including the fantastic potential of Brazil and the great suffering in
Africa and India. If these area could become most self-sufficient and if new
south-south alliances (Brazil-Africa-India) can emerge it may not be helpful
to US and Canadian farmers (especially if they are forced to drop their damn
subsidies and protectionist tariffs) but it might be a great boon for the
rest of the world. But, as with 1) above this new constituency does not yet
have a competitive or compelling lobby for its needs. Biochar, for a single
example, sees this and wants us to see that a bunch of really poor farmers
might very well be part of the a global solution.

I do not want to pit these concerns against your agenda. I want to add them
to yours.

hugs,

lou

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
wrote:

> Dear Ron
>
> I would suggest that every person on the TP List would agree that burying
> biochar or using it as an agricultural supplement will tend to reduce the
> CO2 content of the Atmosphere. The problem is that nobody seems to know if
> Terra Preta will work and be economic outside of Brazil, as an agricultural
> supplement.
>
> Would you know of anywhere in the World North or south of the 20 Degree of
> Latitude where char has recently been added to agricultural soils in a
> commercially successful manner?
>
> Would not the cause of Terra Preta Advancement be better served if we
> directed our efforts at understanding how it works and how to make it for
> different soil conditions and for different climates, rather than focusing
> on the GHG benefits from TP that can only be realized if we know how to make
> TP work economically??
>
> Imagine if we had a "Terra Preta Farmer's Manual" that told the Farmer how
> to improve his soil and his yields through biochar additions, and provided a
> credible estimate of costs and benefits. If the process was economic, then a
> very large market would develop for biochar. Success in Agriculture is the
> engine that will drive the demand for biochar for soil application. No
> sensible Farmer is going to spread biochar on his land unless it will be
> advantageous. What is needed is extensive Field Testing so that a Farmer
> will have a rational basis for spending money on buying and applying biochar
> to his lands.
>
> The payment or credit per tonne of Carbon sequestered will be determined by
> Governments and Agencies and Markets far removed from biochar and Terra
> Preta. Once these "Outside Forces" set the payment per tonne of Carbon
> sequestered, there could be a mad rush to make charcoal and apply it to the
> land, IF the Farmer can make money by doing it. Perhaps a charcoal payment
> of $30 per tonne is enough to justify using biochar as an agricultural
> supplement... perhaps $200 per tonne of char is required. The sad thing is
> that at the present, we don't know.
>
> I have some marginal land here in Nova Scotia. I want to grow bush beans.
> Can you give me the name and address of anyone in the World who can tell me
> how much biochar I should add to my soil, and what else I should do, to get
> maximum economic results?
> I would like to know:
> * Can I use any wood to make the char?
> * What temperature should the char be made at?
> * What size should it be for best application?
> * How much should I add per acre?
> * What other additives and treatments should I apply?
> * What would be the expected increase in bean yield using the recommended
> biochar based treatment?
> * What would be the "second best treatment"?
> * Would the increased cost of the char additions be justified by the
> increment in yield?
>
> If Farmers had the answers to these questions, then it would be very easy
> to decide in a rational manner whether or not they should add char to their
> soil. Only if the answer was positive would they add biochar to their soil.
> Only then would the World get a GHG benefit from their biochar additions to
> the soil.
>
> "To make a Rabbit Pie, first catch a Rabbit." Would you not agree that to
> get a GHG benefit from New Terra Preta, we must first figure out how to make
> and use New Terra Preta?
>
> Would you also agree that whether we believe in, or disbelieve in GW,
> nothing will happen with New Terra Preta unless the Grower can make money by
> using biochar as an agricultural additive?
>
> Shouldn't our first priority be to figure out how to make New Terra Preta
> work? Only after we can demonstrate that New Terra Preta is economic can we
> expect to get Green House Gas benefits from it. Promoting the GHG benefits
> of New Terra Preta before we have a process that works, is like selling
> chickens before we even have a hen to lay the eggs.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> Ron Larson wrote:
>
>> Greg (with ccs):
>> I'm afraid you are pretty far off base on what this list is about.
>> Go to
>> /2007-January/000000.htmland you will see at the bottom of Tom Miles' introductory message a link (
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/+%29%A0>
>> ) to the purposes of this list. The middle part of that message says:
>> /We hope that soil scientists around the world will contribute to this
>> list with soil answers needed by those others of us interested in a very
>> different aspect of TP soils. That different aspect is that the sequestered
>> charcoal is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere – apparently at a lower cost
>> than any other means of doing so. Hopefully, a large percentage of
>> submissions to this new list will concentrate on TP's climate benefits (and
>> costs)./
>> I helped write those sentences. I feel very strongly that the climate
>> aspects of terra preta are what will drive its introduction ( I predict $100
>> / ton carbon dioxide within 5 years, or .> $350/ ton char). Your comments
>> arguing against what I believe are the views of the vast majority of the
>> list members are slowing down something very important to most of us.
>> Because I feel obligated to understand how members of this list cannot
>> believe in GW, I would appreciate your replying to me (offline) on the
>> single best scientific rationale behind your denier beliefs.
>> I probably would not write except I am upset by the denier Republicans in
>> the US Senate today demanding that the climate cap and trade bill be read
>> out loud in its entirety. More than five hours totally wasted.
>> Ron
>> Ron
>> //
>>
>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>    *From:* Greg and April <mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net>
>>    *To:* Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; lou gold
>>    <mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>
>>    *Cc:* Terra Preta <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>>    *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:57 PM
>>    *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] tipping point
>>
>>    CO2 has as much to do with TP, as the anoxic zone in the Gulf of
>>    Mexico - and all of it is indirect at best. .........
>>    <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080605/e4ba33b4/attachment-0001.html