Dave, list and ccs
See inserts below.
> On May 14, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Hawkins, Dave <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I you look up the publications of a number of the signers of this letter you
> will see that many of them have published papers emphasizing the value of
> carbon uptake in forests and soils.
RWL1: It would be impossible I think to argue the converse. I’d
appreciate the signer names I should look up who have emphasized biomass for
CDR purposes (i.e. biochar). I recognize none of the 65 as having written
positively on biochar.
> A major reason many of them oppose this amendment is the language requiring
> the adoption of policies that “reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest
> bioenergy.
[RWL2: The full quote (from below) is:
“reffect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and
> recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided the
> use of forest biomass for energy production does not cause
> conversion of forests to non-forest use.”
I agree that one can utilize biomass in a manner that will not provide
carbon neutrality. But I argue that biochar can be legitimately carbon
negative (and easier to prove if the pyrolysis gases are utilized to displace
fossil energy - instead of vented or flared). My best proof are the Terra
Preta soils. If those soils are evidence of carbon negativity, then carbon
neutrality is guaranteed as well. Much biochar is being made with no energy
co-product value - and is still carbon negative - wot when placed in the soil,
but in a “ hort" time. I’ll bet most (Congressional staff?) authors of this
amendment never heard of biochar - but biochar’s rapidly growing acceptance
nevertheless makes this above quote correct - in my opinion. If not - why not?
> Their justified fear is that this language will be interpreted as requiring
> policies to assume that all or most forms of forest bioenergy are carbon
> neutral.
[RWL3: I hope that your “most” (highlighted above) is a concession that
one should not “assume” when one has evidence (Terra Preta) that the assumption
is untrue. Because terra preta exists, carbon negativity from biomass should
not be in question - and therefore carbon neutrality (less difficult) should
not be either.
> Since such an assumption cannot be justified by science, they oppose this
> language.
[RWL4: There might have been 1000 papers in the last year in
respected science journals about biochar’s impacts on soils - not all - but
mostly positive impacts; carbon negativity is rarely disputed in this biochar
literature. I don’t know of one that suggests carbon negativity is not
possible. A list of about 1500 cites are given for 2015 in the bibliography at
www.biochar-international.org (about 4500 cites I recall for all years). So I
am claiming this group of 65 is analyzing biomass and energy - not biomass and
carbon negativity - the subject matter of this list - and they have come up
with an incorrect conclusion on biomass and carbon neutrality - because their
“net” was too small.
Ron
>
> David
>
> ________________________________
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on
> behalf of Ronal W.Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 7:09 PM
> To: RAU greg
> Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter
>
> List, cc Dr. Rau
>
>
> This is to comment on both the Senate Amendment 3140 and Greg’s reaction,
> both received today..
>
> 1.. The actual amendment is near the end of the Senate discussion on the
> amendments - found at
> https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/02/senate-section/article/S470-2,
> saying (in full):
>
> "Amendment No. 3140, as modified
>
> (Purpose: To require certain Federal agencies to establish consistent
> policies relating to forest biomass energy to help address the energy
> needs of the United States)
>
> At the end of part IV of subtitle A of title III, add the
> following:
>
> SEC. 30__. POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY.
>
> To support the key role that forests in the United States
> can play in addressing the energy needs of the United States,
> the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the
> Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
> consistent with their missions, jointly--
> (1) ensure that Federal policy relating to forest
> bioenergy--
> (A) is consistent across all Federal departments and
> agencies; and
> (B) recognizes the full benefits of the use of forest
> biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest
> management; and
> (2) establish clear and simple policies for the use of
> forest biomass as an energy solution, including policies
> that--
> (A) reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and
> recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided the
> use of forest biomass for energy production does not cause
> conversion of forests to non-forest use.
> (B) encourage private investment throughout the forest
> biomass supply chain, including in--
> (i) working forests;
> (ii) harvesting operations;
> (iii) forest improvement operations;
> (iv) forest bioenergy production;
> (v) wood products manufacturing; or
> (vi) paper manufacturing;
> (C) encourage forest management to improve forest health;
> and
> (D) recognize State initiatives to produce and use forest
> biomass.”
>
>
> [RWL: I find this amendment language to be quite acceptable from both a CDR
> and biochar perspective - and so hope someone can say which words they would
> have changed. Of course, I wish that the term carbon-negativity had appeared
> rather than carbon neutrality.
>
>
>
> 2. Re the last line (2)(D), last week I gave testimony on Colorado
> SB16-003 bill that passed a few days later on our legislature’s final day.
> Despite almost every bill dealing with energy or climate failing on a party
> line basis this year, this bill had 2 votes in opposition (one in each house).
>
> The Colorado bill contained a paragraph asking the state foresters to
> address the potential role of biochar in forest health. P 3, line 21 reads:
> “USES FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS IN FORESTS, INCLUDING BIOCHAR, ENERGY,..”
>
> http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0FE77EB9EE65CA4887257F2400641EE2?open&file=003_rer.pdf
>
> All the testimony, mainly from foresters and all positive, noted that
> Colorado forests are overstocked - with no funds to remove (and productively
> utilize) our huge supply of beetle-killed trees. I mention this in hope some
> foresters will help Colorado on this CDR path.
>
>
> 3. So, I find this Amendment 3140 to be in perfect agreement with
> Colorado state action. And the reason is that our SB16-003 recognizes the
> need for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The text of the 65-signatory letter
> mentions only energy. There is no hint the 65 authors were considering CDR -
> nor understand how much all CDR advocates desire a continually increasing
> forest. Removing forests is prohibited in Amendment 3140. Use of forest
> biomass does not have to be carbon positive - and especially if one is
> employing biochar (or, with more difficulty, BECCS).
>
>
> 4. So, considering this list’s focus, I suggest there is no universal
> validity to sentences such as this from the actual letter (given in its
> entirety by Andrew a few days ago).
>
> “This well-intentioned legislation, which claims to address climate
> change, would in fact promote deforestation in the U.S. and elsewhere and
> make climate change much worse. "
>
> I see the exact converse as being more accurate; the letter has a very
> narrow view of what is possible using free sunlight and photosynthesis to CDR
> advantage. If we want healthy growing forests, they can and should be
> managed for CDR purposes. I therefore suggest that the 65-author letter
> should not be used in any way to discourage CDR via biomass and so have to
> disagree in part with Greg.
>
> 5. I do agree with Greg that we need a much broader NET policy (neither
> Amendment 3140 nor the letter has such an aim) and that ocean biomass should
> not be ignored (and especially when used to improve soil fertility).
>
> Ron
>
>
> On May 14, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Greg Rau
> <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
> Exactly why a much broader NET policy and R&D focus is needed, and one that
> does not ignore the ocean.
> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 14, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Andrew Lockley
> <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Attached letter (untitled) from 65 scientists protesting the US approach to
> forest biofuels.
>
> This shows generally that expansion of biofuels as a precondition to BECCS
> will neither be easy nor uncontroversial.
>
> A
>
> --
> 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> <document_cw_03.pdf>
>
> --
> 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
