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

[Greg and April]

Fair enough.    Still, consider that the organic foods movement had little in the way of a lobbying effort.    It was as grassroots' as it get's, yet it because people recognized it as a good thing ( until the government got involved ) it grew and grew, until even Big Agriculture saw it's benifets.

I ask you this, Do we really want the government involved at this point?    I'm not so sure, as that's just inviting over regulation before TP even really get's started.

Greg H.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lou gold 
  To: Kevin Chisholm 
  Cc: Ron Larson ; Greg and April ; Terra Preta 
  Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:42
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] History on the climate aspects of the terrapreta list


  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.html and 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/20080605/62c8cd4c/attachment.html