[Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbonsink

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Ron,

"Charcoal in Burned Forests No Way to Store Carbon"

That looks and smells like hyped bad press against charcoal-in-soil as an effective carbon sink.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; Laurens Rademakers<mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com> ; terra pretta group<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 12:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbonsink


  Terra Preta members

  Sean said in message received today at 3:23 Denver time:  
      "I don't think we can let it stand, when some media hype says charcoal-in-soil CANNOT sequester carbon."

     RWL:   I don't believe that was anyone's message and it was certainly not the message in the Science article.  The research related only to charcoal-in-humus.  I failed to mention that a part of the research was apparently to understand observed CO2 release effects after a naturally-occurring fire in a (Swedish) forest.

      My reason for reading and reporting on the article was to alleviate fears of the type you express.  I think the University press-release was not reflecting the science in the article itself.

      We also have a lot of beetle kill in Colorado and a growing (but still tiny) mood to convert some to charcoal for in-forest sequestration.

  Ron


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
    To: Laurens Rademakers<mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com> ; terra pretta group<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
    Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 3:23 PM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbonsink


    Hi Ron, et. al,

    We were hearing/talking about a story the other day of "pine beetles" and "spruce bark beetles" destroying (killing) 10's of millions of hectares of and billions of tons of trees in the Boreal forest in Canada and Alaska.  You can see pictures of this on lots of sites on the web ... 

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/pine-beetles-climate.php<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/pine-beetles-climate.php>
    http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/forestry/sprucebeetle.html<http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/forestry/sprucebeetle.html>

    etc.

    These trees are dead and decaying fast, on Boreal forest land.  The CO2 emissions potentials are staggering.  I think Max, or Peter said it the other night,  "These 13 million hectares of dead trees in Canada will emit more CO2 per year than 5 times the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning done by all the humans living in Canada!

    Any of this dead wood in Boreal forests (from bark beetle infestations) that is turned into charcoal will NOT DECAY, will not be food for microbes (like humus is), nor will it emit CO2 into the atmosphere in something far shorter than our remaining lifetimes, like it will if we leave the dead trees to decay.  Charcoal-in-soil does sequester every ton of charcoal you put into the soil for thousands of years.  We all get this right?!  I think we can stop alarming rates of CO2 emissions from decaying trees by pyrolyizing the dead wood into charcoal.

    When Katrina blew into the Gulf coast, some ~302 million trees were knocked over (killed) and are also decaying fast (probably because of the climate there, in Louisiana and Mississippi, decaying much faster than trees above the Arctic Circle).  We ought to turn these into charcoal, too.  Because if we do not, it will surely release more CO2 than if we do nothing.


    It is also entirely possible, too, in my opinion, to reduce CO2/CH4 emissions rates from decaying biomass on areas of land.  Charcoal mixed with humus might make humus decay faster, but the charcoal carbon DOES NOT DECAY in anything short of millennia.  Put more charcoal carbon into or onto soil than there is organic carbon containing matter that can decay and then there is absolutely some sequestered carbon in that soil that was not there before.  This is true no matter what soil you put it into.

    Regards,

    SKB
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
      To: Laurens Rademakers<mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com> ; terra pretta group<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
      Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 12:23 PM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbonsink

          <snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080504/0b0858dd/attachment.html