Biochar and climate change

[free spirit]

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.

er yes, and the point being that you can't do that with biochar alone... indeed biochar is only a relatively small (but important) part of the process.

 

[Jonti]

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.

Again, you are making a lot of assumptions.

Principally, you are assuming that the food manufactured by the plant from CO2 and sunlight (!) is removed from the situation so allowing the nutrients in the fertiliser to be exhausted. If the plant tissue is returned to the soil instead, the soil will never run out of nutrients. They'll just go round and round, powered by the suns energy.

 

[Jonti]

Don't be stupid.

The problem is politics.

The problem is people playing politics with the science, yes.

 

[Jonti]

er yes, and the point being that you can't do that with biochar alone... indeed biochar is only a relatively small (but important) part of the process.

And who is saying Thou shalt have no tools but biochar?

No-one on this thread.

 

[laptop]

The problem is people playing politics with the science, yes.

Whatever use is made of the information provided by science is politics.

To claim that science can be considered separately from politics is a politics, and a bizarre one.

 

[free spirit]

So the problem is an ideological one?

It is wicked to for humans to put CO2 in the atmosphere, even if they take steps to ensure their activities remove the same amount?

How does that work, exactly?

no, if we really did take steps to ensure that we safely and sustainably remove the same amount of carbon that we're adding to the atmosphere then there'd be no problem at all on a global warming / climate change front.

the problem is that nobody has yet come up with any way of doing this that comes even close to the same ballpark as the current and predicted future emissions levels, that doesn't involve a serious reduction in emissions alongside whatever sequestration techniques they're advocating.

biochar has a potential contribution to make, but it's a very small part of the overall picture, and therefore shouldn't be getting trumpeted in a way that makes it sound like it's a magic bullet that's going to allow us to carry on with business as usual.

 

[Jonti]

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.

Biochar is not so much a fuel source, as a way of treating organic waste. That waste is presently allowed to rot (emitting CO2). Instead of returning the carbon to the atmosphere where there is a dangerous surplus, the idea is to return to the earth, where there is a damaging deficit.

You may not like the political implications of that technology, but that's another discussion.

 

[Jonti]

Sorry laptop, however bizarre it may seem to you, one can in fact consider the inverse square law (for a specific, and I hope non-controversial, scientifc example) separately from politics.

We need to know what the options are, before we can begin to think about the political implications.

 

[Jonti]

no, if we really did take steps to ensure that we safely and sustainably remove the same amount of carbon that we're adding to the atmosphere then there'd be no problem at all on a global warming / climate change front.

the problem is that nobody has yet come up with any way of doing this that comes even close to the same ballpark as the current and predicted future emissions levels, that doesn't involve a serious reduction in emissions alongside whatever sequestration techniques they're advocating.

biochar has a potential contribution to make, but it's a very small part of the overall picture, and therefore shouldn't be getting trumpeted in a way that makes it sound like it's a magic bullet that's going to allow us to carry on with business as usual.

I've repeatedly given links that report biochar sequestration is considered capable of removing CO2 at the rate of current emissions.

I'll go back through the thread and find them for you.

 

[laptop]

Sorry laptop, however bizarre it may seem to you, one can in fact consider the inverse square law (for a specific, and I hope non-controversial, scientifc example) separately from politics.

We need to know what the options are, before we can begin to think about the political implications.

And application of the inverse square law - for example to building regulations - is politics.

If Newton had just published, the building industry would likely be arguing for us to consider intelligent falling - purely, as I said, to delay change.

 

[free spirit]

And who is saying Thou shalt have no tools but biochar?

No-one on this thread.

wouldbe had quoted the bit of the study relating to the use of biochar alone, you'd then called this bullshit, I'd then responded to that.

however, you have stated that

<snip>it is hard to understand how nutrient recycling is far more important than is an adequate level of carbon in the soil <snip>

in response to bernie talking about the importance of nutrient recycling vs biochar, and the simple fact is that the more sewage and compostable 'waste' is used to create biochar, the less is available for nutrient recycling.

if you're not talking about turning this type of 'waste' into biochar, then you must be talking about turning wood into biochar, which means we're back onto the who thing of land use conflicts between biochar production, food production and other land uses, as well as the fact that much of the carbon you're going to be locking up in the soil via biochar, would be locked up in the trees of natural forests for centuries anyway, so we're pretty much back to the planting trees to offset carbon routine, just given a fancy new name.

 

[free spirit]

I've repeatedly given links that report biochar sequestration is considered capable of removing CO2 at the rate of current emissions.

I'll go back through the thread and find them for you.

this should be fun...

 

[Jonti]

Nah, fookit, here's a new one instead. Something from Johannes Lehman (whose name has come up before) ...

we're talking about actually pulling down the carbon debt. That's the carbon that the West has emitted in its industrialisation, which is about 200 billion tonnes. Do you see enough land that's appropriate to sort of achieve that sort of pull-down in a short period, in 10, 20, 30 years sort of thing?

JL: Absolutely, and I can tell you why I think that, but what I explain now is of course a theoretical potential that's not fettered against economic realities of competing strategies and political influences. Why I think it is possible, because you can do calculations and look at waste biomass in agriculture or forest thinnings, agricultural by-products, crop residues, etc. These taken together would be more than enough to put a significant dent into the rising CO2 curve. Conversely, there are more than enough soils that would need boosted soil fertility and could very well need this biochar. It is entirely conceivable that this can play a major role.

source
podcast

 

[Jonti]

... and this, which I linked to this piece in post #2 of this thread

“It would only require a 1pc increase in soil carbon on 15 million hectares of land to sequester 8GT of carbon dioxide in the soil, which is equivalent to the greenhouse emissions for the entire planet,” Dr Jones said.

“To pay farmers to sequester this carbon at the rate of $25/t of carbon dioxide would cost $200 billion.

“That might sound like a lot of money but in the corporate world, it is peanuts.

“With a mere $200b, we could reverse global warming in a matter of years and markedly improve soil productivity at the same time.

“It’s not about money — it’s about managing money to manage the carbon cycle — for the future of us all.”

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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 <snip>

Yep ...

 

[free spirit]

Biochar is not so much a fuel source, as a way of treating organic waste. That waste is presently allowed to rot (emitting CO2). Instead of returning the carbon to the atmosphere where there is a dangerous surplus, the idea is to return to the earth, where there is a damaging deficit.

You may not like the political implications of that technology, but that's another discussion.

erm, it's methane that's the problem from rotting sewage... the CO2 is only really emitted if it's then incinerated.


no arguement with the idea that preventing methane being released from the sewage treatment process, and returning the carbon to the soil... just that the process you're advocating is not the best one.

sewage can be treated via anaerobic digestors that collect the methane for use either to be burned to produce electricity, or directly to replace natural gas. The resulting treated sewage can then be safely* used as a fertiliser.

using this process both prevents the methane from being emitted directly into the atmosphere, as well as replacing fossil fuel based methane burnt in power stations to supply electricity, or burnt directly in the homes or industry.

The biochar method only removes the direct methane emissions from the anaerobic digestion process, it doesn't replace fossil fuel based methane and thereby reduce emissions from that source. It then uses the methane to produce the biochar, which means that the carbon from that methane is still released into the atmosphere, but as CO2 rather than methane... ie only around 70% of the carbon in the starting produce is left once it has been turned into biochar.

the next point being that the non-biochar version can be used as a replacement for artificial fertilisers that are either fossil fuel based, or have major carbon footprints from the their extraction, processing and transportation. Add to that the basic fact that we're about to start to run out of several of the current sources of these nutrients (eg quano), so burning off these nutrients to leave inert biochar is not a particularly sensible long term plan.


I believe this is an expanded version of what bernie was getting at earlier in the thread.

 

[Jonti]

Biochar does not even have the official backing that biofuels have in terms of recognition by international treaties. It was not recognised by Kyoto, for example.

If it is being "talked up" it is because it has been ignored in favour of more problematic measures. Perhaps those who like a generous helping of politics with their science can explain why it has been ignored until very recently.

 

[sus]

wouldbe had quoted the bit of the study relating to the use of biochar alone, you'd then called this bullshit, I'd then responded to that.

however, you have stated that

in response to bernie talking about the importance of nutrient recycling vs biochar, and the simple fact is that the more sewage and compostable 'waste' is used to create biochar, the less is available for nutrient recycling.

if you're not talking about turning this type of 'waste' into biochar, then you must be talking about turning wood into biochar, which means we're back onto the who thing of land use conflicts between biochar production, food production and other land uses, as well as the fact that much of the carbon you're going to be locking up in the soil via biochar, would be locked up in the trees of natural forests for centuries anyway, so we're pretty much back to the planting trees to offset carbon routine, just given a fancy new name.

This is true as long as conventional farming methods are followed. Permaculture woodland gardening techniques can double the yield of conventional monoculture farming. A programme of reforestation/afforestation based on biochar and woodland gardening would provide massive and increasing carbon sequestration without compromising food production.

 

[Jonti]

erm, it's methane that's the problem from rotting sewage... the CO2 is only really emitted if it's then incinerated.

You mentioned compostible waste. Composting produces CO2. That's why ploughing the land releases CO2.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

On that Lehmann quote. One of the classic examples of a side-effect in this domain is indigenous peoples losing their traditional sources of fuel wood and instead burning crop residues and animal dung that would be better used as mulch, increasing soil degradation.

The point being, there may well be other competing uses for these items and the decision about how much of that stuff is best turned into charcoal or used as mulch, in order to achieve sustainability needs to take them into account.

At present, 'biochar' research is at an early stage. It's already clear that the results can vary greatly depending on soil type, crop type and climate and that the blanket claims being made by the industrial advocates are not supportable.

 

[Jonti]

I think it's pretty clear that neither sus or myself are industrial advocates; that we are concerned with sustainable land use and reclamation of exhausted and derelict soils.

 

[Jonti]

For example ...

I'm thinking for instance Africa where there you have a lot of energy use from biomass individually from households, and in small villages. If these households and these villages could be equipped with pyrolysis bioenergy rather than complete burning of their biomass, they could get the same amount of energy out of the biomass that their using, cook the same amount of food per day that they were cooking with their identical amount of biomass and still retain about half of their carbon to be returned to their ever degrading soils. This could mean a tremendous change that would be largely driven by the need to restore soil fertility but by the same token possibly make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change.

source

 

[free spirit]

I think it's pretty clear that neither sus or myself are industrial advocates; that we are concerned with sustainable land use and reclamation of exhausted and derelict soils.

you advocate production and sequestration of charcoal on a level that would be capable of offsetting all global CO2 emissions, and claim not to be an industrial advocate?

how do you square that particular circle?

 

[Jonti]

I didn't advocate it; my only crime is the thought-crime of saying the sums do actually work that way.

 

[free spirit]

Nah, fookit, here's a new one instead. Something from Johannes Lehman (whose name has come up before) ...
source
podcast

from the quote in your post...

but what I explain now is of course a theoretical potential that's not fettered against economic realities of competing strategies and political influences

of course it's theoretically possible to sequester that amount of charcoal in the ground, if you ignore all other factors... unfortunately we live in a finite world in which it is not actually possible to ignore all other factors, and in which doing anything on the scale he's talking about would have huge knock on effects on other competing uses for the land and the raw materials used to make the biochar.

theoreticallly possible yes, a practical real world option... no

 

[Jonti]

Not with "greens" like you around, no.

I can see that.

 

[free spirit]

I didn't advocate it; my only crime is the thought-crime of saying the sums do actually work that way.

I've repeatedly given links that report biochar sequestration is considered capable of removing CO2 at the rate of current emissions.

I'll go back through the thread and find them for you.

how is that not advocating it?

 

[Jonti]

Fly agaric is capable of removing idiotic greens from one's life.

I do not however advocate that course of action, although I must confess I am getting close.

 

[free spirit]

Not with "greens" like you around, no.

I can see that.

what you mean greens who understand the difference between abstract theoretical possibilities with all other factors excluded, and actual solutions that can work sustainably in the real world?

I say again, biochar has the potential to be a small but useful part of the solution to the problems of soil degradation, climate change and waste disposal.

that's it, it is not a magic bullet that can solve climate change by itself.

 

[laptop]

that's it, it is not a magic bullet that can solve climate change by itself.

And the promise of a "magic bullet" is its rhetorical appeal

It's just rhetoric. Not science: not ecology; not economics.