The fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in the past 100,000 years and that the curve of increase in CO2 over the past 100 years matches the curve of temperature increase over that same period is not a hypothesis - it is an empirical fact. But hey, Exxon-Mobile has spent a lot of money casting doubt on the 97% of climate scientists that view our current climate as being increasingly anthropogenically altered, and what does Exxon-Mobile have to lose from our economy going carbon negative?
I encourage folks interested climate change solutions and forests to read the chain under David Yarrow's initial post. There are many interesting concepts in it to grapel with. I had a guy with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy tell me that they were promoting the notion of replacing power generation by coal with biomass energy from North Carolina's 18 million acres of forest (mostly hammered already) and sequestering the leftovers as terra preta via torefaction. Seems like a great way to degrade our biodiversity and the productive capacity or our soils to me, which would also impair the soils and forests ability to sequester carbon. Josh On Apr 3, 9:18 am, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting philosophy here, however, not all of us accept the premise > of a world-wide climate change actually occurring! Give me a minimum of > 1,000 years of temperature data then come to me with an established > pattern at averaged world-wide temperature increases, not 150 years > worth. Until then, this doctrine remains a hypothesis at best.... > > Steve Springer > > Urban Forestry > > City of Bartlett > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of David Yarrow > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:08 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [ENTS] Fw: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow > industrial biochar > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Yarrow <mailto:[email protected]> > > To: danny day <mailto:[email protected]> > > Cc: alan page <mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:29 AM > > Subject: Re: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow industrial > biochar > > yes, there is serious transcontinental backlash underway against the > idea of industrial biochar. and with good reason, i think. we have too > many examples of doing a great idea stupid. or, to rephrase in the > specific context, industrial solutions won't solve our > industrial-created troubles. a corollary idea is that truly wise > thinkers are rare. and too many people are single shot, silver bullet > thinkers: we must make enough biochar to sequester enough carbon to > offset all our emissions and fix global warming. > > i've had disagreements with folks who believe making biochar from trees > is our ideal way to implement a modern terra preta strategy, convinced > that ancient indigenous amazon tribes cleared the forest and charcoaled > the trees. this is almost a reflex, since most people's idea of > charcoal is hardwood char for cooking, and few have heard of making char > from anything else. and further, it's an american tradition: before > coal mining became industrial scale, most eastern forests were cleared > and burned in heaps to make potash and char for industry. > > first of all, i doubt hardwood trees are our best source of biomass to > char. last year i had the chore to bust up char made from woody > underbrush. very hot, sweaty job that took quite a while. > > on the other hand, last year we made char from softwood, corn stalks, > weeds, leaves, straw, hay, horse manure, and weathered boards. that > stuff crumbles to powder in your hand -- and likely is more attractive > habitat for microbes. cleared forest land sprouts with vigorous, dense > non-woody underbrush and weeds that can be easily cleared and charred > every year. > > second, any sensible shift to renewable energy begins with "reduce" -- > energy & resource conservation. 25 years ago i coined the phrase "more > is better, but less is best." buckminster fuller, who learned system > design on board naval vessels said "do more with less." we can't > sustain our current extravagant consumption of energy no matter what > energy source we exploit. this is not a technological issue -- it is a > moral and ethical challenge. how much is enough? our first response > must be to consume less, share more and leave more for future > generations. > > third, early in geological evolution, micro-organisms in sea and soil > generated the earth's atmosphere by their respiration, and maintain the > composition of gases necessary for more advanced, complex life forms. > microbes form the basal tissue of earth's lungs whose breathing in & out > to sustain the atmosphere. together with microbes, trees and forests > evolved later as earth's secondary lung tissue to sustain the atmosphere > to stabilize climate and moderate weather. trees and microbes are also > earth's primary engine to create new topsoil. > > cutting forests to cure climate change is like surgical removal of lungs > to fix respiratory disease -- like the poverbial cutting off your nose > to spite your face. the wise response is to regenerate our trees and > forests to restore and strengthen this crucial respiratory function of > the biosphere, not initiate a new cycle of deforestation and soil > degradation. > > however, that said, forests today are in catastrophic condition due to > decades of bad, exploitative forestry practices. left alone, forests > will slowly regenerate, but in our onrushing global warming emergency, > intelligent intervention can accelerate forest regeneration. benign > neglect is not an option. at the least, selective cutting to remove > chaotic undergrowth and excess sapling trees can upgrade forests while > we generate significant streams of biomass for carbon negative energy > and biochar, and create vast new job markets. then we have functional > forests plus energy, fertile soil and sustainable economic recovery. > such "timber stand improvement" is an excellent first step toward an > intelligent practice of sustainable forest stewardship. > > as an ancient forest advocate, the idea of degrading the complex biotic > diversity of these sylvan communities into tree factories to chip up > into biochar & bioenergy is unacceptable -- another example of "stuck on > stupid." so i share the outrage against plantation forestry to feed > industrial biochar production. i believe we can have both mature > forests and biochar & bioenergy production in a sensible, balanced > strategy. > > toward this urgent possibility, i plan to develop a broader definition > of "carbon negative" to embrace ancient forests and conservation > grasslands as well as biochar strategy. so, i > startedwww.ancientforests.usand at our fall biochar symposium i hope to have a > speaker outline an intelligent strategy for forest stewardship that > includes soil restoration with biochar, rock dust, sea minerals and > inoculants. the current trouble is i don't know anyone who can advocate > such and approach, but i just rejoined ENTS (eastern native tree > society:www.nativetreesociety.org) and initiated an email inquiry with > alan page. i hope by the november symposium we will have something > solid to say about how to effect a successful carbon negative marriage > of forest stewardship with biochar & bioenergy extraction. > > given all else i am doing, this seems unrealistically ambitious. but > perhaps if i think and meditate and write a bit on this, others will > appear to carry this idea into fuller expression and action. i can only > do my best to advocate and advance this line of thought. and pray. > > for a green & peaceful planet, > David Yarrow > Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary > 44 Gilligan Rd, East Greenbush, NY 12061 > cell: > 518-881-6632www.carbon-negative.uswww.ancientforests.uswww.nutrient-dense.infowww.OnondagaVesica.infowww.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.orgwww.farmandfood.orgwww.SeaAgri.comwww.TurtleEyeland.orgwww.dyarrow.org > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: danny day <mailto:[email protected]> > > To: David Yarrow <mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:52 PM > > Subject: Fwd: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow > industrial biochar > > I have gotten 200 of these emails being distributed by someone > who thinks biochar totals equal the amounts of sequestion. > > Danny Day, President, EPRIDA > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Enni Seuri <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:59 PM > Subject: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow > industrial biochar > > Dear Dr. Hansen, > > I am writing to request that you disavow your public > support for industrial biochar as a geoengineering solution > to climate change. It is critical that quick techno-fixes > not be used as an excuse to delay emission cuts from coal > and land degradation, and other required personal > sacrifices and social changes. Given that your statements > and scientific studies have been eagerly used by biochar > industry boosters, it is important that you clearly state > you do NOT support biochar production from increased > industrial plantation agriculture. > > In your paper "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should > humanity aim?" you did not make fairly simple straight > forward estimates of the amount of land and biomass waste > required to provide for your illustrative biochar proposal. > I note that neither in the paper nor in the appendix do you > produce an estimate for the amount of plant material > required to achieve your proposed carbon "drawdown of ~8 > ppm or more in half a century", or seek to determine how > much of this could reasonably be expected to be provided by > agricultural or forestry wastes, and how much would by > necessity come from industrial tree plantations. > > This omission is a serious oversight that has facilitated > significant misappropriation of your name to promote > industrial biochar, and thus may lead to significant > ecological harm. Estimates provided elsewhere suggest that > your biochar proposal would require waste products > equivalent to annual dedicated biomass production across 80 > million hectares. Do such quantities of available waste > exist? And how much of it is genuinely waste, and not > earmarked for composting, soil fertilization, animal > bedding, cooking fuel and other ecologically and socially > important existing uses of biomass residues? > > In response to earlier questioning, you have replied that > "Broadly speaking, our climate change mitigation scenarios > are strictly illustrative in nature." This comes from the > climate scientist upon whose every word much of the world > awaits with baited breath. You did not need to "assert or > imply plantations should be grown specifically for biochar, > or that reforestation should be at the expense of food > crops, pristine ecosystems or substantially inhabited > land." Your own facts and figures, when examined, do so for > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
