[Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Dan, Larry, Others,

That is a thought provoking question, Dan.  It sounds kind of like those hyped History Channel segments, "After We're Gone" or the "Aftermath".  You are right I think about the atmospheric carbon levels being wrong for our species and right for other species.  One could wonder to what species thrive in atmospheric carbon levels on Venus now, too.

The point is, and you said it, "Not that I personally want to become extinct don't-ya-know", but who does?  Do you even want the quality of your life to degrade?  Do you have any children?  What are you going to do to make your life better in the face of current GCC for yourself and/or them in the future?  That's the point.  "Carpe Diem" is all that we can do for anything we do, isn't it?  Global Climate Change in the near term (our lifetimes) isn't about human extinction now or soon nearly as much as it is about the human strife beginning now of the path to human extinction. 

Larry, I hear you ...
"High tech toys cannot produce enough charcoal to effectively lower the atmosphere's CO2 percentages. They are to expensive to produce the quantity that is needed. Would you call it a poor return on investment or the dollar to char deal? "

I can't adopt that defeatist attitude.  I think it's doable.  We can produce enough charcoal and lower CO2 emissions enough to strike a balance.  I think it is a monumental worldwide undetaking to do it, too.  So?  When do we get started, I say.

Regards,

SKB


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Larry Williams<mailto:lwilliams at nas.com> 
  To: Dan Culbertson<mailto:danculb at netcommander.com> 
  Cc: Barry Sean<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; Miles Tom<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Toch Susan<mailto:anaturalresource at gmail.com> ; Pilarski Michael<mailto:friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com> ; Baur Hans<mailto:hans at riseup.net> 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?


  Dan-------If I understand your question regarding "exist(ing) pre-carbon sequestration", you are referring to oil or gas extraction being a normal part of the biological process and why is it bad for the atmosphere now. I have also wondered about that historic carbon, also. My first thought is that we were very fortunate to have that carbon sequestered deep in the earth less we might not have this conversation now. I do have a question, about you not understanding that there is a problem to our use of buried hydrocarbons. Most of my information is off the internet. It is very easy to digest information from commercial radio and television and not hear any of these events except in recent months there have been increasingly more articles. 


  For example, this article, "Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger,  New Studies Say<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html?wpisrc=newsletter>", what is significant is the change in concern for what is happening in the atmosphere over two or three years ago. As new field reports and research papers are released the trend is that we need to act, increasingly so, with each new report. We will be a carbon-free society in far less than 2050 or in the hot house. I would be glad to dialog with you or anyone else on this list, privately if you like.


  Do know that the pre-industrial level for CO2 was around 280 ppm and last year it was 383 ppm.



  From my perspective, we need to radically cut our carbon-negative activities or the weather disasters that have occurred in increasing frequency in recent decades will continue. The larger corporations are talking about being carbon neutral while the bottom line is more important than reality. Carbon neutral means that mankind will be required to adapt to today's existing weather disturbances or if we achieve carbon neutral at some time in the future we can use the CO2 ppm to gage the strength of the weather storms and witness our folly. 


  Those future weather patterns of drought, flood, tornadoes, melting ice, as examples, will continue to devastate humankind. Keep in mind that we are nowhere near being carbon neutral. Do you have much time to read or watch on-line videos? I can supply you with a range of articles and papers.


  Buried charcoal is carbon negative and is the longest term storage that we are able to demonstrate. High tech toys cannot produce enough charcoal to effectively lower the atmosphere's CO2 percentages. They are to expensive to produce the quantity that is needed. Would you call it a poor return on investment or the dollar to char deal? One scientific paper<http://www.wsu.edu/~village/Johnson%2520et%2520al.%2520AA%25202005.pdf> (section: ANCIENT AND MODERN FUEL USE) refers to the lost of 50% of the worlds forests in the last 10,000 years. Sean Barry has given some figures on the amount of wood needed to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. An earlier posting contains his figures. What he didn't mention was when were the forest areas calculated. I see the potential of reclaiming seasonal  water courses in those deserts. See "Harvesting the Water<http://www.permaculture.org.au/harvesting_water/HarvestingWater.html>" - Geoff Lawton and Greening the Desert<http://www.sustainableagriculture.org/desert/> (Sustainable Agriculture). Especially, where there are incised dry stream beds.


  But hey, I like to grow plants and they need water and if I grow a plant then I can make charcoal and you, what's your pleasure?-------Larry




  P.S. Most of this article was written when I read your request to end this topic. Although, I started this article with your comments in mind, a larger question about the different reasons for being on this list came up. So with due respect to your request and not to focus on your first posting but to focus on the larger question of different reasons for being on the Terra Preta list I forward my posting to all. Most importantly, because we have 50% less forests than 10,000 years ago, the use of the concept,Terra Preta fashioned into Terra Preta nova, needs to be practiced in desert regions of the world. Thanks for the question and the responses that followed. May you hold Peace in your thoughts tonight, one and all...






  ---------------------------

  On Mar 10, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Dan Culbertson wrote:


    ...from a planetary perspective I mean.  Didn't all that carbon used to be in the atmosphere long ago?  So, other than making us humans extinct (probably a very good thing for the planet) wouldn't releasing all stored carbon back to the atmosphere just return the environment to the way things used to be long long ago?  Can someone explain why we are supposedly making the planet uninhabitable for all species if all we are apparently doing is making it alternately habitable for the types of species that used to exist pre-carbon sequestration in fossil fuels?  Is there something else that needs to be sequestered other than carbon that wasn't around long ago making planetary catastrophe imminent?  Or is all our concern centered around us humans not liking a planet no longer habitable by us?  Not that I personally want to become extinct don't-ya-know.  I am just curious about it.  Will roachasaures take over after it is too hot for us?  Or will Earth just be a hot sterile rock?

    Thanks,

    Dan
    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
    http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080313/5d029c0e/attachment-0001.html