Pawel and David, with ccs to two discussion lists RWL: I have done a bit more research on your backgrounds - and applaud what you are doing. Others might want to read more at
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-what-a-green-new-deal-for-europe-could-look-like/ <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-what-a-green-new-deal-for-europe-could-look-like/> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/green-new-deal-europe-capitalism <https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/green-new-deal-europe-capitalism> See more below > On Sep 28, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Pawel Wargan <pawel.war...@gndforeurope.com> > wrote: > > Ronal, > > Thank you so much for this invaluable feedback and please accept my apologies > for taking so long to reply. > > Just for clarification, our position on geoengineering is based on a few > points that are core to our campaign — and to much of the climate movement. [RWLa: For the last several years, the word “Geoengineering” has been disassociated from biochar - my only topic. I urge being very careful with use of the word “Geoengineering” - which today is almost solely reserved for SRM = solar radiation management.. > > The most crucial is the need to achieve climate justice — this means finding > solutions that do not contribute to the continued exploitation of land and > people around the globe. That excludes CCS. [RWL1: I totally agree with the first sentence - and claim that biochar benefits, not exploits, land and people. I do not understand your reference to CCS -which has only a vague relationship to biochar. I agree that BECCS (which is much like “clean coal”) is very different from biochar. Biochar is today mostly being advanced for soil improvement reasons - not for CDR reasons (which are still valid). And generally is being sold with expectation of positive returns - not costs. > > Second, all of the key scientific models informing political decisions today > assume continued economic growth. Our paper is grounded in post-growth > principles, which call for a reduction in material throughput and energy > demand. This should reduce the need for geoengineering solutions. [RWL2: This second point also has no relation to biochar. Biochar is unique in being able to support non-dispatchable wind and solar systems - which I presume you favor (and are certainly key in all GND programs). Wind, solar and biomass (including biochar) are consistent with both reduced energy demand and reduced fossil fuel demand.. > > Third, the references in the IPCC to geoengineering (particularly BECCS > technologies) were inserted largely by economists — historically, they, not > the scientists, were responsible for drafting policy recommendations on > climate. This has produced recommendations that reflect what is "politically > achievable”, not what is scientifically necessary. [RWL3: To repeat, BECCS and biochar are very different. My experience is that BECCS is primarily favored by climate modelers, not economists. The carbon can simply disappear in a model; with biochar, the (positive) impacts must be considered for every out-year in the model. The Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are giving huge (factors of 3x - 4x) positive benefits after thousands of years. I concur on “scientifically necessary”. Not sure about your “politically achievable” - as we are not moving at all fast enough. For me, biochar should lead in both categories. > > Fourth, we want to end all uses of fossil fuels — zero emissions; not > net-zero emissions. Technologies that enable the continued extraction and > utilisation of oil and gas therefore cannot form part of our programme. [RWL4: My reading of the Green New Deal is different - that we MUST remove atmospheric carbon - which you seem to be denying. I see no reason to say that biochar is designed for “continued extraction” - just the opposite since biochar is both carbon neutral (for every energy end use - not just electricity) and carbon negative. > > Having said that, we want to be accurate in our account of these > technologies. In particular, we see a large role for public sector-driven R&D > in climate and environmental mitigation tools and strategies — and tools like > biochar could form part of that. [RWL5: Thank you for the new last clause re biochar. But we must do much more than R&D. The September technical paper listing publication from the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) has 250 papers - for just one month. There are hundreds of companies selling biochar products. We need to think beyond R&D - and that is the exciting aspect of the GND. (And Greta Thunberg). IBI literature of all kinds is at www.biochar-international.org > > Do you have any academic papers on the topic that you could share, beyond the > one by Zimmerman, Gao, and Ahn? [RWL6: My google scholar search for papers after the one I mentioned gave this (available on Research Gate) as the first (maybe because it had several thousand subsequent cites). I have a very high regard for Professor Lehmann’s work. "Biochar effects on soil biota–a review <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071711001805>”. J Lehmann <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DbRhb7UAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>, MC Rillig <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2QVHtgUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>, J Thies <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SZAJzysAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>, CA Masiello <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1GGkVIQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra> There are several pages on this “priming” issue at section 3.3.2 at page 1822 - also NOT showing concern. [RWL7: Thanks for the response. I hope you better understand biochar a bit. Disparaging it will greatly slow down your commendable efforts with the GND. I’d be glad to comment on any revisions you make. Ron > > All the best, > > Pawel > > Pawel Wargan > Campaign Coordinator > <D2D78A50E3DA4198A186502C69426837.png> <http://www.gndforeurope.com/> > @gndforeurope <https://twitter.com/gndforeurope> > @pawelwargan <https://twitter.com/pawelwargan> > > > > On 15 Sep 2019, 05:40 +0200, Ronal Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>, wrote: >> Pawel and David: cc two lists >> >> I assume you know that the CDR and Geo lists (addresses given below) >> have suggested that those of us who expressed concern on your draft GNDE >> Blueprint for Europe should contact you with notes like the following. This >> is my response. In addition to my original concerns given below about your >> three sentences on biochar, I submit that biochar should be much more highly >> ranked for these additional reasons: >> >> a. Numerous articles showing (for crop productivity reasons) >> continued use over thousands of years (especially as Terra Preta in the >> Amazon); an investment opportunity then and now - not an expense. >> b. Rapid growth as an industry: hundreds of companies making and >> selling biochar, hundreds of technical articles every month, multiple >> annual biochar-only symposia - on almost every continent, numerous active >> web sites, etc. >> c. Can provide valuable dispatchable backup energy for >> non-dispatchable wind and solar, at a lower cost than battery storage. >> d. Growth of the biomass resource prior to harvesting and pyrolyzing >> is more valuable than simply planting trees, if there are no plans for the >> certain return of their temporary captured CO2 to the atmosphere.. >> e. Biochar fits well into all three of the carbon-related topics of >> your paper: carbon neutral mitigation, carbon negative CDR/NET/GGR, and >> adaptation. >> f. Biochar will be especially valuable to the poorest - often also >> those with the least valuable land. >> g. A potential for use in our (quite sick) oceans - as well as on land. >> h. Apparently the least cost way to minimize wildfire damage, by >> offering a home for the over-growth of biomass accompanying decades of fire >> suppression. >> i. No need to provide insurance for CO2 stored deep underground. >> j. CO2 released after combustion of the valuable pyrolysis gases is >> much cheaper to capture than via direct air capture; both immediate uses >> possible (greenhouses) and generation of high-value chemicals (from CO and >> H2) >> k. Has considerable potential for preventing release of CH4 and NOx. >> l. Considerable (half for some soils?) reduced need for irrigation and >> fertilization. >> m. Favorable economics from the smallest applications (rural >> cookstoves at a few kWth) to the largest (electric power plants at hundreds >> of MWe); and for different types of ownership. >> n. Pyrolysis can be cleaner than combustion, and much more climate >> friendly than allowing methanation. >> o. Improves composting (lowers odors, faster finishing, longer >> benefits) >> p. Seems to fit every aspect of the GND >> >> >> Ron >> >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Ronal Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net >>> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> >>> Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf >>> Date: September 2, 2019 at 9:57:48 AM MDT >>> To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> >>> Cc: via geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>, >>> "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> >>> <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>" >>> <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>> >>> Reply-To: rongretlar...@comcast.net <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net> >>> >>> Andrew and list: >>> >>> Thanks for the lead. >>> >>> The comparable portion for biochar states (P 64) >>> >>> " BIOCHAR >>> A method of converting biomass into charcoal and mixing this into the soil >>> to store the burnt carbon. >>> >>> But field trials showed that biochar-treated soils were less effective in >>> sequestering carbon than untreated soils: the added carbon stimulates >>> microbes to release more CO2. >>> >>> Claims that addition of biochar enhances agricultural productivity has not >>> been consistently demonstrated. >>> >>> >>> No citations. I conclude this biochar part of the paper received no >>> serious attention. >>> >>> Sentence 1 is OK, but char-ists would never use the term “burnt >>> carbon”; there is also a growing literature on using charcoal as an >>> additive in concrete, asphalt, etc - not only soil placement. >>> >>> >>> Sentence 2 refers to a soil phenomenon called “priming”. This >>> Google-available paper "Positive and negative carbon mineralization >>> priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils “ by Andrew R. >>> Zimmerman, Bin Gao,and Mi-Youn Ahn >>> has this as its final sentence of the abstract: >>> "The data strongly suggests, however, that over the long term, biochar >>> - soil interaction will enhance soil C storage via the processes of OM >>> sorption to biochar and physical protection. “. >>> >>> >>> Sentence 3’ s key phrase is: "…not been consistently..”. True - there >>> are negative result outliers (that can be easily caught by testing). But >>> the vast majority of biochar outcomes have been and continue to be >>> positive. We are seeing more than 200 technical publications per month on >>> biochar - mostly favorable. >>> After millennia, the Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are valued at >>> triple or more the economic value of nearby non-biochar soils- because of >>> triple or more productivity. If positive timing is occurring, its impact >>> is negligible. >>> >>> >>> There may be value in this report, but I’m not going to investigate it >>> further - based on this biochar example. I am still favorable to the GND >>> (Green New Deal) concept. Biochar can be a key part of making it work. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 2, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> <GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/07388CBD-2BE2-47E1-9762-C7E07E56A311%40comcast.net.