Biochar and climate change
- Thread starter WouldBe
- Start date
Biochar seems to be getting more frequent mention in the press.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...A-Final-Warning-by-James-Lovelock-review.html
The above article touches on the topic of geoengineering. Never heard much before about this, but there is some stuff on it here: (pdf files)
http://www.cfr.org/geoengineering
Given the increasingly urgent warnings emerging from Copenhagen and elsewhere, I expect both topics will start to become very mainstream topics of discussion within the year.
Piece on the BBC tonight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7960449.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...A-Final-Warning-by-James-Lovelock-review.html
The above article touches on the topic of geoengineering. Never heard much before about this, but there is some stuff on it here: (pdf files)
http://www.cfr.org/geoengineering
Given the increasingly urgent warnings emerging from Copenhagen and elsewhere, I expect both topics will start to become very mainstream topics of discussion within the year.
Piece on the BBC tonight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7960449.stm
Yeah, but the press is so often lacking in understanding of the subject...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/george-monbiot-climate-change-biochar
Funnily enough, if there was one regular journo who I thought would understand it, it would be Monbiot. Here, he's just being a twat.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
To be honest, I think he's got a pretty good point if those figures he's quoting in the high hundreds of millions of hectares are what charcoal advocates are actually pushing.
Yeah, but I don't think anyone in their right mind is suggesting that biomass (and hence biochar and hence terra preta) is the sole solution to anything. It's just a piece in a range of changes that need to happen in order to achieve sustainability.
Number 1 on the list, by a long way, is reduction of consumption. Electricity, transport fuel, water, waste, economic growth, etc.. It just can't go on.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Meanwhile powerstations are still burning fossil fuels so wouldn't it be better to use this biochar (OK it's not 100% bio fuel as some fossil fuels will have been used in the production of foods that get eaten to produce the sewage) in coal fired powerstations thus reducing the amount of fossil fuels that need to be burnt?
It would be very interesting to compare the amount of fuel that can be made from the UK's sewage output vs. the amount of coal burnt in the UK's power stations. My intuition is that the latter completely dwarfs the former, as with all biofuels.
And this is completely opposed to the current politcal/economic system. The whole economy is based on ever-increasing consumption.
Reduce-Reuse-Recycle, in that order.
Current policy has the order completely backwards
Yeah, so arguing that only biomass (or only wind turbines....or only insulation....or only hybrid cars...etc..) won't fix everything, so we'll carry on like before is a bit dim.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure, but this stuff is being promoted heavily by people (e.g. the coal industry) with zero interest in reducing fossil fuel consumption, but strong interest in creating new vehicles for a market in carbon credits. The sort of scale they're talking about, hundreds of millions of hectares, just isn't doable without large scale ecosystem destruction, significant impacts on food production and on indigenous peoples. Even if the approach worked as advertised this would be a disaster (except for their investors) but I'm also quite sceptical about whether this stuff does work as advertised if you try to do it industrially and quickly.
I went off and read up a bit about terra preta after this business first surfaced and I already knew a fair bit about soil formation. It looks to me like forming these types of soils is very likely to be a long-term proposition. Meaning it takes decades to hundreds of years for the bacteria and other soil wildlife to do their stuff and it also appears to require charcoal soil amendments being used fairly sparingly along with a lot of other types of biomass to get those results.
You can't just industrially harvest and burn a significant fraction of planetary biomass and then stick it in a hole someplace and expect the same results.
I went off and read up a bit about terra preta after this business first surfaced and I already knew a fair bit about soil formation. It looks to me like forming these types of soils is very likely to be a long-term proposition. Meaning it takes decades to hundreds of years for the bacteria and other soil wildlife to do their stuff and it also appears to require charcoal soil amendments being used fairly sparingly along with a lot of other types of biomass to get those results.
You can't just industrially harvest and burn a significant fraction of planetary biomass and then stick it in a hole someplace and expect the same results.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Well quite. The real argument is biomass and wind turbines and insulation and hybrid cars etc. won't fix everything - a large change in lifestyle has to accompany these infrastructure changes.
So how does that one play out? Much like the bioethanol adventure from last year. Industry lobbies government for a way to profit, then declares "It's a great idea." When they've bolstered their coffers, it emerges that it is, in fact, hugely detrimental, so is unanimously declared as evil and wiped from the list of "Steps to save the world." The mass media never even questioned why bioethanol on an industrial scale was being made from corn, which is something like the 84th best crop for production.
Forgive me, cos I'm just a simple farmer, but I did a bit of rural research this afternoon. Everywhere where I had a bonfire last year or the year before (about 40 spots all in) the weeds are now at least 3 times higher than elsewhere. That, to me, means the soil is more fertile. I don't know why, probably much like those Aztecs didn't know why, but I do know that stuff will grow better in charcoal-rich soil.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
On the first point, that's exactly the problem. There may well be some useful and worthwhile techniques for soil improvement and carbon sequestration in there someplace, but industrial and financial interests are likely to predominate and they generally won't care if it works, just that it's profitable.
On the second point, there could be any of several things going on there. Most likely reason is that fresh charcoal is going to improve local water retention, in turn leading to a short-term boost in plant growth.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I wasn't advocating switching totally from fossil fuel to sewage biochar.
By burning biochar alongside fossil fuel you would reduce the amount of fossil fuel being burnt thereby reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure, but neither I nor, I strongly suspect, Monbiot have any problem with the idea of using pyrolysis at say a farm level, and incorporating whatever amounts of charcoal a few more years of research says makes sense into the soil as an amendment, while getting some usable biofuel and/or fertiliser out of the process. Subject to the same caveats as any form of sustainable biofuel production, you don't burn stuff that would be better used as food, mulch etc. then it looks like a worthwhile approach to pursue, although some more science would be good in order to see what the best way to go about it might be for any given combination of soil, crop, climate etc.
That's not the issue. The issue is that the energy industry and assorted carbon offset scammers are making wild claims about it and lobbying like crazy to get it into carbon trading legislation without waiting for any clarity about the science and it's those people who are talking about plantations while quoting well-meaning guys like Lovelock and Goodall to validate their scams.
To me this looks all too similar to the biofuels gold-rush in the early 2000's. Lots of investor hype, industry/scammer lobbying and very little science to back their claims up.
That's not the issue. The issue is that the energy industry and assorted carbon offset scammers are making wild claims about it and lobbying like crazy to get it into carbon trading legislation without waiting for any clarity about the science and it's those people who are talking about plantations while quoting well-meaning guys like Lovelock and Goodall to validate their scams.
To me this looks all too similar to the biofuels gold-rush in the early 2000's. Lots of investor hype, industry/scammer lobbying and very little science to back their claims up.
Monbiot does have this tendency to veer into pontification, resembling a finger wagging country parson. But there is little argument about the soil regenerative and carbon-locking powers of biochar.
It offers a way to turn organic material what has been previously treated as mere waste, collected in highly centralised systems, into a mass-produced, envrionmentally friendly and sustainable product that could contribute to an agrarian revolution in Britain. 'British biochar' if produced in enough quantities could be exported worldwide.
Britain needs to start producing stuff and shed of it's empire psyche of being waited on hand and foot by the rest of the globe. The global economic downturn and the approaching climate crunch represent a perfect storm. The country needs to start becoming a NET exporter of food, if food supply and unaffordably high cost issues are to be avoided. Regenerating soil to a level of such fertility that obviates the need for petroleum based agrochemicals should be a key national priority.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Charcoal soil amendments might have some role to play in improving soil fertility, but they certainly aren't a magic bullet. I would argue that effective (ie localised) nutrient recycling is far more important, particularly in relation to the phosphorus cycle.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
An adequate level of carbon in the soil is helpful for nutrient recycling, so it is hard to understand how nutrient recycling is far more important than is an adequate level of carbon in the soil
But anyway, although restoring soil carbon levels improves soil at least semi-permanently, that is something of a (wonderful) bonus. Its major utility is that it shows that a change in agricultural methods and waste management could ameliorate and even reverse the present high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And by using methods that can be applied by peasant farmers to directly improve their own land and their own lives.
It's kind of bizarre that folks are missing that point.
But anyway, although restoring soil carbon levels improves soil at least semi-permanently, that is something of a (wonderful) bonus. Its major utility is that it shows that a change in agricultural methods and waste management could ameliorate and even reverse the present high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And by using methods that can be applied by peasant farmers to directly improve their own land and their own lives.
It's kind of bizarre that folks are missing that point.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
I think some of the reason for the anit-biochar stance must come from the view that humans have dumped many thousands of gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere in historical times, and that this has caused global CO2 levels to rise sharply.
This view is repeatedly challenged by folks who point out that human CO2 emissions are marginal. They point to the 770Gt per annum emitted by nature generally, compared to 32.4Gt emitted by human activities (source).
It does seem fair enough to think that a 5% perturbation to a system in homeostasis -- particularly one subject to huge natural fluctuations -- should be self-correcting. Lovelock's "daisy-world" model seems relevant here. Photosynthesis proceeds more readily when it is warmer, and in the presence of higher levels of CO2. The more vigourous photosynthesis then soaks up more CO2, restoring the balance.
Clearly, that isn't happening. But suppose, just suppose, that Gaian homeostasis is failing and the Arctic ice melting not because of the 5% increase in the planet's annual output of CO2 caused by human activities, but because an important part of the planetary mechanisms that would normally absorb such an increase is broken.
These are two very different scenarios, and would require very different responses.
This view is repeatedly challenged by folks who point out that human CO2 emissions are marginal. They point to the 770Gt per annum emitted by nature generally, compared to 32.4Gt emitted by human activities (source).
It does seem fair enough to think that a 5% perturbation to a system in homeostasis -- particularly one subject to huge natural fluctuations -- should be self-correcting. Lovelock's "daisy-world" model seems relevant here. Photosynthesis proceeds more readily when it is warmer, and in the presence of higher levels of CO2. The more vigourous photosynthesis then soaks up more CO2, restoring the balance.
Clearly, that isn't happening. But suppose, just suppose, that Gaian homeostasis is failing and the Arctic ice melting not because of the 5% increase in the planet's annual output of CO2 caused by human activities, but because an important part of the planetary mechanisms that would normally absorb such an increase is broken.
These are two very different scenarios, and would require very different responses.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I don't think it's true that people urging caution on this are missing the point, we get the point, we're just alarmed that it looks like it's being talked up into being seen as some kind of magic bullet that will allow us to continue to do fuck all about our carbon emissions from fossil fuels, while burying enough biochar to offset them in the earth.An adequate level of carbon in the soil is helpful for nutrient recycling, so it is hard to understand how nutrient recycling is far more important than is an adequate level of carbon in the soil
But anyway, although restoring soil carbon levels improves soil at least semi-permanently, that is something of a (wonderful) bonus. Its major utility is that it shows that a change in agricultural methods and waste management could ameliorate and even reverse the present high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And by using methods that can be applied by peasant farmers to directly improve their own land and their own lives.
It's kind of bizarre that folks are missing that point.
it's the same scenario as with biofuels, where something that has the potential to make a useful but relatively small contribution to the overall aim of mitigating the climate change risk from increased atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is seized upon by politicians and multinationals then implemented in a wholly inappropriate and unsustainable manor so that it causes at least as many problems as it's solving.
it's the same as that previous thread where you were quoting freeman dyson and making out that we could easily offset our entire global carbon emissions by better land managment techniques to sequester the carbon in the soil... yes it's got the potential to be a small part of the solution, but if you look into the figures at all it rapidly becomes obvious that trying to do it on a much bigger scale will have huge knock on effects on other land uses.
this is what monbiot's getting at in that article.
from the bbc article I linked to earlier...
that's around 2% of global CO2 emissions, which seems to be a fairly realistic figure, but barely scratches the surface of the 60-80% reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that we need to make.
can you see from those figures why people like monbiot, myself and bernie are sounding a little note of caution here?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
you're making a very basic mistake, and one that climate sceptics who should know better have been deliberately pushing for years - not saying that's what you're doing, but please bear this in mind when reading such material, and try to avoid posting up in this manner on here again or I'll assume you are doing it deliberately.
it's entirely disingenuous to talk about the total natural global emissions of CO2, and compare that with the anthropogenic emissions, and then talk about a 5% increase in overall Co2 emissions.
the figure that matters is the overall balance between emission and absorbtion, which was roughly at equilibrium prior to us coming along a few hundred years ago and starting to burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels, at the same time as chopping down fast areas of forests, and changing our land management practices so that even farmland became a net emitter of greenhouse gasses.
now the biosphere has actually increased it's uptake of CO2 to some extent to absorb some of the additional CO2 we're emitting, largely through absorbtion into the oceans, but also to some extent through increased absorbtion rates into forests and other plants. However it's not been able to increase it's absorbtion rates by anywhere near enough to be able to match the rate of increase in emissions.
For this reason, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising strongly, and are set to have doubled in the space of 150 years by the middle of this century if we're not very careful.
In a nutshell, atmospheric CO2 levels should be looked at as having been in a state of dynamic equilibrium. We've thrown that dynamic equilibrium out of kilter by increasing the rate of emissions faster than the planet / gaia can increase it's rate of absorbtion.
This is entirely our doing, it's got nothing to do with a part of the planetary mechanism that would normally absorb this increase being broken*, it's just that the planet doesn't have, and never has had a mechanism to increase absorbtion at the rate we're increasing emissions. If you look at the historic charts of CO2 levels, it's fairly obvious that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have frequently (on a geological timeframe) either increased or decreased dramatically in response to changes in various factors that affect global CO2 emissions / absorbtion rates...
in fact there's a fairly mainstream view that there are actually several different potential levels where dynamic equilibrium in CO2 can be / has been achieved, with feedback loops kicking in to mean that if we push atmospheric greenhouse gas levels too far out of kilter, we may well never (in human type timeframes) be able to get back to anything like the equilibrium point we started from, as the earth may tend towards a different high equilibrium point that's also equated with much higher global temperatures... aka a runaway greenhouse effect.
*actually we have partially broken the earths ability to absorb carbon by destroying vast quantities of the forests, the soils ability to absorb and retain carbon etc but even had this not been the case it'd not have been able to absorb the rate of increase in emissions we've caused.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
From Bernies c&p
If that's right then biochar could actually be detremental to soil fertility.
This.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Or have we thrown things out of dynamic equilibrium by sabotaging the absorption mechanisms?
As you said yourself "... we have partially broken the earths ability to absorb carbon by destroying vast quantities of the forests, the soils ability to absorb and retain carbon etc but even had this not been the case it'd not have been able to absorb the rate of increase in emissions we've caused".
How can you be sure that in the absense of humans, a 5% increase in the planet's production of atmospheric CO2 would not have caused a similar increase in its uptake? That strikes me as a heck of a claim to make.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
erm, that was no growth if the only input was biochar... ie nothing to replace the other nutrients used in the previous seasons growth cycle.
if you have a plant in a plant pot that was originally filled with fertiliser, but nothing else is added to it other than water, eventually the soil will run out of nutrients to support the plant that's growing in it, and the plant will die. If you then add charcoal to that soil it will still not support plant life. if you add a bit of charcoal and some fertilser / compost / manure / baby bio then the plant will grow, and potentially the charcoal will help increase the moisture retention so that the plant will grow better than if you'd just added the fertiliser / compost / manure / baby bio alone.
as this next bit of the quote makes clear...
Jonti
what the dormouse said
So these people were using completely exhausted soil?
In that case I'm not surprised that charcoal made fossil-fuel based fertilisers more efficient, or that it might also make organic fertilisers more efficient.
But the real task is to restore the soil to fertility, not to treat it as some passive hydroponics medium.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
you've missed the key bit of the quote out.From Bernies c&p
If that's right then biochar could actually be detremental to soil fertility.
of course plants won't grown on charcoal alone, they still need the nutrients they need to grow, the point is that biochar if used in conjunction with other fertilsers etc can increase yields...
which all kinda links nicely into the idea me, bernie and others have been trying to get at, that it's a part of the solution, and using a small part of the sewage waste to produce biochar to add to the soil at the same time as actually using treated* sewage and other suitable composted 'waste' is a great idea, but that overdoing it will simply rob us of useful nutrients to recycle back into the soil and reduce our reliance on fossil fuel based, and mined fertilsers.
*treated via anaerobic digestors with the biomethane collected and used either for electricity generation or directly for heat / cooking etc.
Don't be stupid.
The problem is politics.
How it works is that the carbon industries have an interest in delaying any action on carbon emissions (or, indeed, net carbon emissions).
They want to get their profits made on their existing business model before anything is done - and to push change beyond the accounting horizon, to maintain their share prices.
Their promotion of biochar, or biofuel, or for that matter nuclear power or anything else, as if it were a universal solution therefore serves to prevent action now, and increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Similar threads
