Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s
response to you
BC1: But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane
deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my
point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that
are much quicker than 50 years.
[RWL1: Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see below)
that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing for SRM here,
although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent heat transfer - an
approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong warming potential
of increased atmospheric carbon.
I do not know enough on either SRM or the latent-heat-transfer topic to
argue on either point. I will say that I think there is good enough literature
around to say that getting back to 350 ppm in 50 years would be thought by most
analysts to be virtually miraculous.
I am all for faster means of cooling in addition to (not instead of)
removing the CO2. But I cannot yet endorse either SRM or the still-unanalyzed
hypothetical cooling attributed to latent het transfer.
BC2: I'm just looking for biochar to be presented as a well-engineered
component of the re-establishment of healthy carbon-rich soils worldwide. The
difference is in the message presented and the democratic potential of
empowering people to reverse climate change. If that empowering message doesn't
get received then there is the potential to use climate crisis to force
top-down solutions which tend to be heavy-handed. Bad biochar is possible in
such circumstances.
[RWL2: I agree with all. Any new approach can be done badly. It can
also be done well. I see enough advantages to biochar users that the latter
seems more likely. The argument it WILL be done badly is the only complaint
that BFW and Dr. Shiva seem to be making - that is not science. I repeat my
claim that anyone finding a bad result from biochar deserves what they got.]
BC-last: We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're
putting the cart before the horse.
> [RWL7: Sorry, I am not understanding this. What is the cart and what
> is the horse?
> Soil carbon is the cart. Biochar is one of the team of horses that can serve
> to build it up, and the others are good agricultural and forestry practices
> that bring countless ecological benefits. There needs to be a great deal of
> public discourse and education to show these potential benefits and to show
> how depletion of soil carbon had a great deal to do with CO2 levels being
> where they are. That's why we need to talk about soil carbon and not just
> biochar.
>
> By the way, these benefits are directly threatened by the kind of
> agricultural practices that support GMOs. Vandana Shiva has led a principled
> fight against native seeds being displaced by GM seeds. Robust biodiversity
> means a healthy web of microbes and other organisms in the soil. But if you
> have a vulnerable GM seed, those organisms and all their carbon-based food
> chain don't belong.
>
> To put it more simply, healthy soil carbon and GMOs do not go together. For
> all of people's legitimate worry about GMOs' health and economic side
> effects, the harm done to soil, and by extension to climate, gets too little
> attention. I believe farmers need to be in the front lines of reversing
> climate change, so to me Vandana Shiva is heroic. And advocating
> biodiversity in natural systems strikes me as very good science.
[RWL3:
a. I also responded (see below) about my possibly asking for too
much speed on introducing biochar. Brian did not address that, so that is not
the cart-horse issue.
b. Re para #1, I admit to placing lots of attention on soil carbon -
and on this list especially - to the huge sequestration potential that is
there, without any conflict at all between the two objectives. It seems to me
that I am not guilty of putting your soil carbon cart ahead of your biochar
horse. They are to me one and the same. If you are arguing that there are
other ways to increase soil carbon, that is a different issue. Good luck in
getting them adopted as well.
c. Re para #2 - I refuse to get into anything related to GMO -
especially on this list. In a different response to Oliver Morton yesterday, I
said I see zero relation between biochar and GMO materials - and said I refuse
to talk about any purported relationship between them, as proposed by BFW (and
probably believed by Dr. Shiva).
d. Re para #3. Glad to see you agree (I think) here on not
appropriate to couple soil carbon (including biochar as the main way likely to
increase soil carbon) and GMOs (so I don’t understand your raising it in Para
#2). Re Dr. Shiva, I hope you recognize that she is thoroughly against
biochar (not natural enough?). So I strongly disagree on her being heroic. Re
your final sentence, I presume we agree (and disagree with Dr. Shiva) that
adding biochar will improve (not reduce) biodiversity? I repeat that I view
most of her negative views on biochar (largely copied from BFW) as being based
on her anti-science (pro “nature”) perspectives (as discussed by other list
members recently). She is highly dangerous to the goal of CDR - mainly because
of her anti-business and anti-science biases.
Ron
On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:23 PM, Brian Cartwright <briancartwrig...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> To Ron, I will just insert a few things like so to clarify what I think:
>
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:07:27 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote:
> Brian and list:
>
> See inserts below. Re the first sentence below on Dr. Shiva, see a
> message I just sent. I go further than you about “rhetorically overstated”.
> I agree with others that she is dangerous - because she is anti-science, much
> worse than no science.
>
> more below.
>
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Brian Cartwright <briancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just a few comments:
>>
>> Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar and other
>> geoengineering ideas ("role ... should be zero") may be rhetorically
>> overstated. But I just want to look at biochar to the extent that it can be
>> called geoengineering. If I could characterize your views, you generally
>> look to extrapolate the role of biochar to sequester the maximum atmospheric
>> CO2. That would be large-scale geoengineering, I think we would agree. And
>> because there could be substantial benefits to soil and energy supply, you
>> argue that this is a superior tool to other CDR proposals.
> [RWL1: Yes on last sentence. But I favor Dr. Ken Caldeira’s arguments
> on this list that geoengineering should be redefined to exclude biochar -
> because biochar and most CDR approaches are NOT large-scale. I made the
> point a few posts ago that biochar experiments are happening worldwide at a
> rate that we can’t keep up with. I see zero hazard to anyone with that
> happening. Re last sentence - I hope there are other CDR approaches that are
> as good. I am not trying to keep up with these others, except through this
> list. The more approaches, the better.
>>
>> Just removing CO2 from the atmosphere won't cool the planet quickly enough,
>> because of numerous sinks and feedbacks.
> [RWL2: Disagree. I know of no peer-reviewed paper making this
> “irreversibility” claim in a manner I can believe. If we put our mind to
> it, we can be back at 350 ppm in 50 years.
>
> But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane
> deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my
> point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that
> are much quicker than 50 years.
> There are others saying this. Those saying there is a much lower maximum
> are also saying they are making conservative assumptions.]
>> I advocate soil carbon sequestration for other primary benefits: reversing
>> aridification of enormous areas of land that are increasingly radiating heat
>> because of losing vegetative cover, reversing the damages done by industrial
>> agriculture which have depleted carbon with the plow and with chemical
>> inputs killing off microbes and other soil organisms, and restoring
>> hydrology that comes from forests providing the biological seeds for clouds,
>> and from supporting microclimates to hold moisture in the soil.
> [RWL3: All true. But there is zero conflict I know about with any of
> these benefits and biochar (the main CDR approach falling under “soil carbon
> sequestration”)
>> These benefits use water vapor effects that cool much more effectively than
>> CO2 reduction.
> [RWL4: I have seen no peer-reviewed paper showing this. Many point out
> that water vapor is a more effective GHG than CO2. I do think that latent
> heat transfer has some potential - but believe that in no way conflicts with
> biochar.]
>>
>> And yes, CO2 being sequestered is also urgent. Biochar obviously does that.
>> But if you think that biochar has to be given the whole job, the logistical
>> side-effects could be disastrous.
> [RWL5: I have seen no “logistical side-effects" reported that I take
> seriously. I am NOT arguing that biochar “be given the whole job”. I just
> have not seen any other with biochar’s potential.
> I'm just looking for biochar to be presented as a well-engineered component
> of the re-establishment of healthy carbon-rich soils worldwide. The
> difference is in the message presented and the democratic potential of
> empowering people to reverse climate change. If that empowering message
> doesn't get received then there is the potential to use climate crisis to
> force top-down solutions which tend to be heavy-handed. Bad biochar is
> possible in such circumstances.
> Clearly we can and must get a wedge or more of afforestation - but if
> managed, we can get more CDR by coupling afforestation with biochar. Most
> analysts also ignore the out year potential of greater NPP and soil carbon -
> which I think (can’t prove yet) can double the CDR of what goes directly into
> the ground. To repeat, one Gt C of direct biochar application has a long
> term impact of any other CDR approach sequestering 2 wedges. I know of no
> other CDR approach that can make that claim.
>> I'd rather see us use biochar in concentrated doses (after all, it's still
>> very expensive) as a catalyst and stimulant to effectively prime soil
>> carbon. quickly boosting mychorrizal fungi and microbial communities, and
>> regreening landscapes. The soil carbon is the priority, and biochar is an
>> invaluable tool for the purpose.
> [RWL6: I don’t see us in disagreement. Obviously you will use the
> minimum amount possible (to maximize the NPP). Many already are doing this
> with char placed only near the roots - not everywhere in a field.
>> We agree on a lot of things about biochar. I just think you're putting the
>> cart before the horse.
> [RWL7: Sorry, I am not understanding this. What is the cart and what
> is the horse?
> Soil carbon is the cart. Biochar is one of the team of horses that can serve
> to build it up, and the others are good agricultural and forestry practices
> that bring countless ecological benefits. There needs to be a great deal of
> public discourse and education to show these potential benefits and to show
> how depletion of soil carbon had a great deal to do with CO2 levels being
> where they are. That's why we need to talk about soil carbon and not just
> biochar.
>
> By the way, these benefits are directly threatened by the kind of
> agricultural practices that support GMOs. Vandana Shiva has led a principled
> fight against native seeds being displaced by GM seeds. Robust biodiversity
> means a healthy web of microbes and other organisms in the soil. But if you
> have a vulnerable GM seed, those organisms and all their carbon-based food
> chain don't belong.
>
> To put it more simply, healthy soil carbon and GMOs do not go together. For
> all of people's legitimate worry about GMOs' health and economic side
> effects, the harm done to soil, and by extension to climate, gets too little
> attention. I believe farmers need to be in the front lines of reversing
> climate change, so to me Vandana Shiva is heroic. And advocating
> biodiversity in natural systems strikes me as very good science.
>
> Brian
>
> If this means I am proposing too aggressive an introduction schedule, I
> admit to thinking we are going too slowly. Almost no government funds are
> now being employed - at least in the USA. I think my schedule is about the
> same as proposed by Dr. James Hansen. Any biochar user getting large-scale
> bad results deserves what they get - prior testing is quick, cheap and easy.
> We have thousands of years of experience in many places besides the terra
> preta experience in the Amazon. To my knowledge - all positive.
> Ron]
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
