It would be nice if Ron would provide a direct answer to Simon Evans's question.
I read the post on the yahoo group referred to by Ron. There are apparently differences of opinion on whether biochar is ready to be considered as an offset in negotiations under the UNFCCC, but I saw no errors of fact pointed out in that post. Tthe only substantive complaint I could find was that the section on biochar was inadequately referenced. If there are indeed errors of fact in the Royal Society Report, it would be helpful to point them out clearly, succinctly, and, where appropriate, quantitatively. Ken PS. I repeat the post of Simon Evans here for convenience: Please, someone explain to me what is "nonsense", or indeed "misleading" about this quote on biochar from the Royal Society: “Proponents of biomass for sequestration argue that very large rates of sequestration are in principle achievable. For example, Lehmann et al. (2006), quote a potential carbon sink of 5.5 to 9.5 GtC/yr by 2100, larger than the present day fossil fuel source (and approaching 10% of global primary production by plants). Such fluxes suppose that there will be enormous growth in the resources devoted to the production of biofuels, and that some large fraction of this carbon would be converted to biochar. The use of crops for renewable fuels on such a scale would very likely conflict with the use of agricultural land for the production of food and/or biofuels. As summarised in Table 2.4 biomass for sequestration could be a significant small-scale contributor to a geoengineering approach to enhancing the global terrestrial carbon sink, and it could, under the right circumstances, also be a benign agricultural practice. However, unless the sustainable sequestration rate exceeds around 1 GtC/yr, it is unlikely that it could make a large contribution. As is the case with biofuels, there is also the significant risk that inappropriately applied incentives to encourage biochar might increase the cost and reduce the availability of food crops, if growing biomass feedstocks becomes more profitable than growing food.” simon evans On Sep 25, 9:18 pm, Ron Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Simon and Geoengineering List: > > It would take much too much space to explain in detail what I and many > other Biochar supporters found wrong with the Royal Society's treatment > of Biochar. Let me ask you to instead read a lengthy message #1158 I > wrote on 4 September on the deficiencies I saw, given at the > site:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy/ > There are many other RS-negative comments as well nearby. > > Briefly, the RS provided almost no citations compared to those they had > for other Geoengineering options. I feel the authors were new to Biochar > and were overly influenced by one by the group BiofuelWatch (BFW). I > (and Peter Read and many others) claim FW's material to be > unprofessionally prepared (and none is peer-reviewed). Also, there is no > indication of how the Royal Society came to the 4-part conclusions they > had for Biochar - which ranked near the bottom of their options. By my > ranking (no proof of anything of course), Biochar would have been the > top-ranked. > > Biochar papers are coming out at a great rate - almost universally > endorsing Biochar's promise. The UK has an excellent University-based > Biochar center (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar), whose writings > are in significant disagreement with the RS. I'd be surprised (although > I am new to this list) if any other Geoengineering approach has anywhere > near as much commercial activity and rapid growth - none of which is > reflected in the RS report. It would be interesting to hear the rankings > that others on the list would give this newcomer carbon-negative (and > potentially as much carbon-neutral as well) approach. > > Ron > > chsee wrote: > > Please, someone explain to me what is "nonsense", or indeed > > "misleading" about this quote on biochar from the Royal Society: > > > “Proponents of biomass for sequestration argue that very large rates > > of sequestration are in principle achievable. For example, Lehmann et > > al. (2006), quote a potential carbon sink of 5.5 to 9.5 GtC/yr by <snip > > rest> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
