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

[Mark Ludlow]

Twenty or more years ago there were massive infestations of pine beetle in
Eastern Oregon Ponderosa pine forests. Some portion of the dead trees were
milled into a tongue-in-groove interior paneling marketed as "Pecky". Not a
permanent sequestration technique, but certainly preferable to letting them
rot in place (I thought). Most environmentalists, at the time, opposed
anything but the  "natural" carbon cascade.

 

It seems as if environmental rectitude is as passing as many other fashions.

 

Mark

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 11:31 PM
To: Laurens Rademakers; terra pretta group; Ron Larson
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a
carbonsink

 

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
<mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com>  Rademakers ; 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. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  Barry 

To: Laurens Rademakers <mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com>  ; terra pretta
group <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  ; Ron
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>  Larson 

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.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/20080503/102270cc/attachment-0001.html