BIOCHAR: The Latest
Biochar news is soaring through the Internet, and so is controversy. Bottom line -- BIOCHAR IS A MIRACLE CURE BUT LIKE OTHER POWERFUL REMEDIES IT MUST BE USED ONLY AS DIRECTED.
Here is a bunch from the March International Biochar Initiative newsletter:
Chapter 1 of Biochar for Environmental Management now Available Online
The Introduction, Foreward, and Chapter 1 in PDF Format of Biochar for Environmental Management is now available online at the IBI website, thanks to Earthscan Press. In March 2010, the entire book will be available on the IBI site to read online. For more information, click here.
IBI is pleased to announce the following new resources for biochar researchers, gardeners, farmers, and photographers.
IBI Biochar Trials Document Now Available
Many people all over the world are now experimenting with biochar in their home gardens. Farmers, nursery operators and schools are all looking for more information about how to use biochar. The interest is high, but until now, there has not been much information available outside of the academic world. The good news is that for all the budding experimentalists out there, IBI Extension Director Julie Major has compiled A Guide to Conducting Biochar Trials. This guide is now available to download as a pdf file from the IBI website.
A Guide to Conducting Biochar Trials will help you design your scientifically valid biochar experiment at any scale ranging from a few pots in a greenhouse to a large farm. The Guide contains data sheets for you to record the details of your design setup and your results. If you would like to register your project with the IBI, send an email with your contact information to Julie Major.
Biochar Bibliography: Search IBI's RefShare Database for Peer-Reviewed Articles Relevant to Biochar, Black Carbon, and Terra Preta.
This database offers up-to-date references with abstracts, whenever available. It is maintained and updated by IBI, and contains articles relating to a wide range of biochar-related topics organized in folders. Available here
Announcing the Biochar Gardens photo group on Flickr. Biochar Gardens is a place for farmers and gardeners to post pictures of their gardens, farms, containers and greenhouses that use soil amendments based on biochar. Please share pictures of your garden at all stages of growth, from preparing your soil to harvesting. Members would also love to see your pictures of composting and your methods for making charcoal and preparing your biochar soil amendments. You can indicate how you would like to share your photos and if you like, leave contact information so that potential users can get your permission to use your photos in their publications. See the photos here.
16 March 2009, BBC News, Engineer on turning sewage into charcoal. Video interview with German engineer Helmut Gerber as he demonstrates his pyrolysis machine. See it here
16 March 2009, BBC News, How to make your plants grow faster. Video interview with Dr Bruno Glaser from Bayreuth University in Germany as he shows results of his experiments with biochar. See it here.
12 March 2009, Nòva, Il bio-segreto di Eldorado. The bio-secret of Eldorado. Two video interviews here: one with inventor Nat Mulcahy demonstrating his pyrolyzing biomass stove, and one with Franco Miglietta, a researcher at the Institute of Biometeorology, CNR, in Florence, Italy, showing his biochar field trials. See it here.
March/April, Orion Magazine, Plants Suck, by Bill McKibben who says: "After twenty years of studying climate change, if I'm sure of anything, it's that there's no one fix that will save the world." And also, "If you could continually turn a lot of organic material into biochar, you could, over time, reverse the history of the last two hundred years. During those two centuries we've taken millions of years of compressed organic material-weeds and sticks and dinosaurs and plankton-and drilled and mined them up to the surface so we could burn them. All that ancient biomass is now up in the atmosphere, causing problems. Big problems, like melting the ice caps. The biggest problems ever." Read more here.
30 March 2009, CNN, Can 'biochar' save the planet?, by Azadeh Ansari. Focus of this article is on researchers in Athens, Georgia. Includes interviews with research engineer Brian Bibens, biochar researcher Christoph Steiner, and Eprida CEO, Danny Day. Read more here.
28 March 2009, Green Left Weekly, Can biochar help stop climate change?, by Renfrey Clarke. Review of Australian biochar research finds much promise and calls for more investment: "Private capital, meanwhile, remains unwilling to take the risks involved in developing a large-scale biochar industry. The need is obvious for governments to step in." Read more here.
28 March 2009, The Guardian, Letters: Credit and criticism for biochar. Several letters in response to George Monbiot including one from IBI Executive Director, Stephen Brick.: "We don't have all the answers on biochar production and utilization; indeed the mission of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) is to seek these answers, objectively and quickly." Read more here.
27 March 2009, The Guardian, Charleaders must cool enthusiasm for setting fire to the planet, by George Monbiot. Monbiot responds to rebuttals of his March 24 column. Read more here.
27 March 2009, The Guardian, This gift of nature is the best way to save us from climate catastrophe, by Peter Read. Read more here.
26 March 2009, The New Republic, Saving the world-with monster microwaves, by Rob Inglis. A look at Carbonscape's microwave biochar technology and the controversy aired in The Guardian. Read more here.
26 March 2009, G-Online, Biochar - a solution to climate change?, by Katie Lee. A review of biochar research in Australia with quotes from Annette Cowie, forest scientist for New South Wales's Department of Primary Industries in Sydney, Australia. Read more here.
25 March 2009, The Guardian, We never said biochar is a miracle cure, by Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen. Response from NASA climate scientists to Monbiot: "It is unfortunate that George Monbiot has insinuated that one of us (Jim Hansen) is a believer in biochar as a "miracle" solution for the climate crisis. If he is basing this on our published papers, then he has grossly misunderstood them." Read more here.
25 March 2009, Solve Climate, Biochar and George Monbiot's misguided rant, by Max Ajl: "Monbiot is right to pillory ... vast plantations of socially and ecologically disruptive fast-growing monoculture trees. But that doesn't mean biochar isn't a good idea, even if it makes for good copy to attack it and its proponents in the harshest terms." Read more here.
25 March 2009, Environmental Research Web, Competing to solve climate change. "UK based newspaper the Financial Times and sustainable development charity Forum for the Future are running a competition to find the most innovative solution to the effects of climate change... The winner will receive $75,000 donated by global electronics giant Hewlett-Packard." One of the finalists is the biochar producer Carbonscape. Read more here.
25 March 2009, Greentech Media, Cars into electricity, corncobs into ammonia. Review of some pyrolysis technologies including processes to make ammonia-based fertilizer and biochar from crop waste. Read more here.
24 March 2009, The Guardian, Biochar: Much is unknown but this is no reason to rule it out, by Chris Goodall. Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet responds to Monbiot: "George
Monbiot is right to tell biochar enthusiasts to calm down... Nevertheless in his eagerness to get us to tone down our enthusiasm he goes too far. Biochar is a useful and important way to help reduce
atmospheric concentrations of CO2." Read more here.
24 March 2009, The Guardian, Biochar: let the Earth remove CO2 for us, by James Lovelock. Earth scientist James Lovelock responds to Monbiot's column critical of biochar and its proponents. "George Monbiot is wrong to dismiss biochar out of hand - burying carbon is one way to tackle climate change." Read more here.
24 March 2009, The Guardian, Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world, by George Monbiot. The Guardian's environmental columnist criticizes biochar and its proponents:"The latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up; yet many who should know better have been suckered into it." Read more here.
24 March 2009, Reuters, Harnessing pig power for clean energy, by Gerard Wynn. Discusses the challenges of soil carbon sequestration, including biochar. Read more here.
23 March 2009, ISTOÉ Magazine, And the good news of the land, article in Portuguese about Brazil's terra preta, biochar research, and the upcoming IBI conference in Sao Paulo in 2010. Read more here.
23 March 2009, The Engineer, Green giants? In-depth analysis of technology developments in China and India with mention of biochar as a preferred sequestration technology along with information on India's Environmental Engineering Research Institute [NEERI] where biochar research is ongoing. Read more here.
23 March 2009, Farm and Dairy, No-till works, but is not always applicable for storing carbon. Article compares no-till methods to other soil carbon sequestration techniques including biochar.
Read more here.
19 March 2009, InSciences, Climate change is such a serious threat to national security that military organizations are now part of the solution. Report on the Climate Change & Security at Copenhagen
conference and discussion of "fast-action" mitigations that include reduction of soot emissions and increased use of biochar. Read more here.
19 March 2009, Business Day, The colour of carbon, by Denise McNabb. Report on progress and setbacks for emissions trading schemes in Australia and New Zealand and news that "Cit Investment Research ... is also sceptical about the magnitude of achievable abatement from forestry and biochar..."
Read more here.
19 March 2009, CNET News, Manmade biomass coal offers storage and fuel, by Candace Lombardi. Report on Carbonscape's Black Phantom machine: "The invention combines two popular environmental efforts: using biochar for carbon capture and storage (CCS), and developing alternative fuel sources from biomass." Read more here.
Additional stories on the Black Phantom are here and here and here.
17 March 2009, Canadian Business Online, Alterna Energy extols virtues of biocarbon, by Joe Castaldo. "Inside the boardroom of Alterna Energy's office in Prince George, B.C., a row of what appear to be coal briquettes rest on a ledge. Company president and co-founder Leonard Legault picks one of them up, rests the plum-sized object in his hand and explains, 'This is a carbonized apple.'" Read more here.
16 March 2009, BBC News, Biochar: Is the hype justified?, by Roger Harrabin. "A growing worldwide movement is now bringing together the soil scientists fascinated by the benefits of biochar..." The author interviews some of the scientists, including Bruno Glaser of University of Bayreuth where new studies show that "biochar may almost double plant growth in poor soils." Read more here.
15 March 2009, The Prep, BioChar Experiment. Report on biochar science project in the newsletter of Seton Hall Preparatory School: "Environmental Science teacher Dave Snyder has partnered up his class with a cutting edge green start-up that is modernizing some environmentally positive agricultural techniques that actually go back centuries." Includes detailed description of experimental method. Read more here.
14 March 2009, Waikato Times, Prizewinner is a gas. Jake Martin, 17, won three of the top prizes in New Zealand's Realise the Dream national awards for science students for his wood gasifier that produces biochar which Jake uses to fertilize his mum's vegetable garden. Read more here.
12 March, 2009, The Guardian, Battersea woman wins eco award, by Katie Wilson. "A Battersea woman and her team beat off stiff international competition last week to be crowned winners of the Cooling the Planet environmental award." Their idea was to use hydro-pyrolysis to produce energy and biochar from landfill waste.Read more here,
12 March 2009, Il Sole 24 Ore, Lucia Stove, born in Tortona, is the solution to bring energy and biochar to villages, by Marco Magrini. The story of Nat Mulcahy and how he came to invent his co-axial gasification stove that produces biochar. In Italian. Read more here.
12 March 2009, Cornell Sun, Univ. turns waste into renewable energy. The Cornell University Renewable Bioenergy Initiative will use multiple approaches to produce energy from university biomass waste, including pyrolysis. "Having many different complementary bioenergy approaches under one roof is especially intriguing because we have in our landscapes multiple feedstocks that require differential treatment," said Prof. Johannes Lehmann, crop and soil sciences. Read more here.
11 March 2009, The Australian, Carbon hopes push case for charcoal, by Jill Rowbotham. In-depth review of pyrolysis research in Australia, biochar and climate policy and the struggle to produce enough biochar to supply research programs. Read more here.
4 March 2009, BBC News, Big problems need big solutions, by Tim Lenton. Lenton discusses implications of his study on geo-engineering. He says: "Perhaps the most potent option, on the century timescale at least, is to grow plants to get CO2 out of the air and then convert their biomass to both charcoal and (bio)fuels." Biochar is also attractive as a potentially income-generating option. All other options are likely to cost money. Read more here.
25 February 2009, New Scientist, Hacking the planet: The only climate solution left?, by Catherine Brahic. A look at geo-engineering options. Includes an interesting graphic side-by-side view of biochar and other options. Graphic is here and Read more here.
Industry Press Releases
20 March 2009, Carbonscape, NZ company makes shortlist in UK climate challenge. Read more here.
23 March 2009, Mantria Industries, Mantria Industries, LLC and Carbon Diversion Inc. release EternaGreen BioChar specs. Read more here.
30 March 2009, EternaGreen, BioChar Brokers offers first online and retail sales of EternaGreen™ BioChar. Read more here.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query biochar. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query biochar. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Friday, March 28, 2008
POST # 100
Wow! Can it really be?
I've wondered for a few days about what might be an appropriate topic. Some have suggested that I write about my decision to live in Brazil, but I think that there's something a lot more important than that.
I know that very few people have the time to follow the links I provide, so let me simply repost from a recent edition of treehugger. I believe that this truly is the only way that we are going to be able to protect our forests. I would like you consider that it might be applied to saving the Amazon forest. How? I don't really know the answer but maybe we can start a conversation about it.
I know a little place called Vila Fortaleza that might be appropriate for some kind of a demonstration project but it will take a lot of help from our friends. Maybe there are other places and people that would be interested in creating projects. Maybe we can create a network.
Maybe we can be part of a movement.
Here is the repost from treehugger.
BIOCHAR: AN ANSWER
by Tim McGee, Helena, MT, USA on 03.23.08
Science & Technology
Wow! Can it really be?
I've wondered for a few days about what might be an appropriate topic. Some have suggested that I write about my decision to live in Brazil, but I think that there's something a lot more important than that.
I know that very few people have the time to follow the links I provide, so let me simply repost from a recent edition of treehugger. I believe that this truly is the only way that we are going to be able to protect our forests. I would like you consider that it might be applied to saving the Amazon forest. How? I don't really know the answer but maybe we can start a conversation about it.
I know a little place called Vila Fortaleza that might be appropriate for some kind of a demonstration project but it will take a lot of help from our friends. Maybe there are other places and people that would be interested in creating projects. Maybe we can create a network.
Maybe we can be part of a movement.
Here is the repost from treehugger.
BIOCHAR: AN ANSWER
by Tim McGee, Helena, MT, USA on 03.23.08
Science & Technology
Deep, rich, black soil is a farmers dream come true. Healthy soil is full of life, with entire communities living just below our feet. Healthy soil can retain and purify water, provide an abundance of food, and even act as way to sequester carbon dioxide. One key to getting there is amending soil with biochar. Biochar is what you get when biomass is heated in the absence of oxygen through a process called pyrolysis. When incorporated into soil, biochar provides the structural habitat needed for a rich community of micro-organisms to take hold. Incorporating biochar into soil can also act as a way to sequester carbon.
Carbon dioxide sequestration was not likely the original goal of biochar, or terra preta, developed thousands of years ago by the Native Americans in the Amazon region. But today, as we recognize the cost of emitting green house gases, we also recognize the wisdom of using biochar as micro-habitat to improve our soils. Biochar is a classic win-win scenario, a solution that can provide us with a valuable tool for fighting climate change, world hunger, poverty, and energy shortages all at the same time. Sound good?
Tim Flannery, a regular fixture here at TreeHugger, was interviewed this week by Beyond Zero (Listen to the Podcast), and discussed the benefits of biochar, or terra preta, as a sequestration technique.
One of the clear benefits Tim sees of biochar for carbon dioxide sequestration is that it is easily measured. You can literally weigh the carbon before you use it for soil amendment. This ease of measurement makes biochar easy to manage in any carbon sequestration calculations, which are notoriously difficult to quantify.
Another point Tim made is that when biochar is added to the soil, it is at a much lower risk of returning to the atmosphere than if it were carbon in a living forest. Biochar is mostly inert, and is known to stay in the soil for thousands of years. It is also not subjected to the risk of being blown down in a hurricane, or cut down, or otherwise placed in a process for a more rapid return of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
As a sequestration technology, biochar is simple, easy, and proven. Although sequestration alone might be enough of a reason to consider biochar, the benefits of biochar in agriculture are really the reason this solution is gaining momentum quickly. The use of biochar has been shown to increase water retention, microbial activity, uptake of minerals by plants, as well as continued deposition of healthy soil. Two new organizations have emerged that highlight the multi-faceted solution of biochar.
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) has emerged as the center for biochar research and development. The IBI:
"Provides a platform for the international exchange of information and activities in support of biochar research, development, demonstration and commercialization. It advocates biochar as a strategy to:* improve the Earth’s soils;
* help mitigate the anthropogenic greenhouse effect by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering atmospheric carbon in a stable soil carbon pool; and
* improve water quality by retaining agrochemicals.The IBI also promotes:
*sustainable co-production of clean energy and other bio-based products as part of the biochar process;
* efficient biomass utilization in developing country agriculture; and
* cost-effective utilization of urban, agricultural and forest co products."
Biochar begins to answer problems surrounding biodiversity, water purity, deforestation, hunger, and poverty. As we recognize the 'services' healthy soil can provide biochar continues to gain value as a strategy to mitigate many of these issues at the same time. Another important new organization centered around biochar as a multi-faceted solution is the Biochar Fund.
"The Biochar Fund is a social profit fund that completely changes the way in which chronic hunger, deforestation, energy access and climate change are addressed amongst the world's poorest populations: small subsistence farmers at the tropical forest frontier. The fund's systemic interventions create a synergy that breaks and reverses an environmentally destructive, unsustainable and socially catastrophic land use cycle. By doing so, we help communities gain the knowledge, tools and financial means needed to lift themselves out of poverty once and for all. Simultaneously, the biochar concept has the capacity to help tackle climate change in a significant and cost-effective way. It allows us to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."
Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “The Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.” Biochar offers us the opportunity to stop destroying our soils, enhance the communities that live under our feet, and create sustainable human communities as well. For more on biochar and recent developments please follow the links below to a wealth of information.
:: Beyond Zero Emissions
:: The International Biochar Initiative (IBI)
:: Biochar Fund
Friday, August 14, 2009
THE NEW BLACK GOLD
The International Biochar movement took a major step of expansion this week with the first US biochar conference at the University of Colorado. There's a fine update by Bill Hewitt at GRIST on the current status of the biochar movement. Due to slow Internet connections I can't post any of the pics but here are the text and links of this fine update:
Go to original at Grist
Imagine a system that can:
The International Biochar movement took a major step of expansion this week with the first US biochar conference at the University of Colorado. There's a fine update by Bill Hewitt at GRIST on the current status of the biochar movement. Due to slow Internet connections I can't post any of the pics but here are the text and links of this fine update:
Go to original at Grist
Imagine a system that can:
- (potentially) store billions of tons of carbon in soil for centuries;
- dramatically reduce agricultural waste, forest debris and some municipal solid waste, thus eliminating the production of greenhouse gases that result from their decomposition;
- generate energy to both power itself and a surplus for use in surface transportation or electricity generation; and
- greatly increases the productivity of agricultural soil, thus reducing the need for expensive and polluting fertilizers.
This is the promise of biochar—the carbon-rich remains of “burning” organic matter via an oxygen-free process. According to the International Biochar Initiative (IBI), biochar “has four value streams: waste reduction, energy production, soil fertilization, and carbon sequestration.” This has implications for both developing and developed economies—- and, most importantly, the interrelated problems of global warming and food security.
Based on the work of researchers in the Amazon who discovered the startling properties of terra preta, land that had been improved hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of years ago, soil scientists have been pursuing a way to replicate the success of the Amazonian Indians in producing spectacular fertility in the midst of the relatively infertile rainforest.
One of the key components of terra preta is charcoal. Modern biochar, however, isn’t derived from the same process that agricultural societies have been using for millenia to produce charcoal. Instead, biochar is a product of the breaking down of biomass by a controlled thermal degradation—not burning. The most prevalent method of producing biochar is through pyrolysis.
The first step in biochar production is providing feedstock. This can be agricultural waste that would otherwise sit in the field to decompose or be burned, in both cases generating greenhouse gases. Other sources are forest debris or waste products like the enormous fraction of municipal solid waste comprised of grass cuttings and leaves. The feedstock is placed into a pyrolysis chamber—a nearly airtight device that intensifies heat but limits exposure to oxygen to avoid burning. The chamber can be a small unit processing as little as a few pounds of biomass for a family’s cooking and gardening needs, or a large one with a capacity of as much as a 100 tons per day.
Since pyrolysis is performed with little or no oxygen present, it produces no combustion byproducts such as black carbon (soot), carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. Instead, gases such as hydrogen and biofuels are produced, which can be used to provide the necessary heat for the pyrolysis process with some left over for other uses.
The remaining solid material—the biochar—can be used as a soil additive that, according to most of the research to date, has a remarkable ability to enhance agricultural or horticultural productivity.
One key international governmental organization, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), believes “the role of the soil in capturing and storing carbon dioxide is often one missing information layer in taking into consideration the importance of the land in mitigating climate change.”
The UNCCD, along with the IBI, pushed hard to include biochar in the draft negotiating text for the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks. This means that biochar and other methods of employing agriculture to mitigate carbon emissions may well lead to the issuing of offset credits for these methods. This is the big prize that could lead to the massive deployment of biochar production worldwide.
Biochar has been embraced by worthies such as Chris Goodall and James Lovelock. Tim Flannery, in his foreword to Biochar for Environmental Management, says: “The biochar approach provides a uniquely powerful solution, for it allows us to address food security, the fuel crisis and the climate problem, and all in an immensely practical manner. With its careful evaluation of every aspect of biochar, this book represents a cornerstone of our future global sustainability.”
Dr. Johannes Lehmann—co-editor of Biochar for Environmental Management, chairman of the IBI, and a professor at Cornell University—is one of the driving forces behind the growing recognition of biochar’s value. Like any good scientist, however, he’s conservative in his prognostications. His current work focuses on generating and evaluating research on biochar production and use. His group at Cornell, for instance, is evaluating scores of different chars from around the world.Lehmann does not endorse growing biomass on a massive scale as biochar feedstock—something George Monbiot accused biochar boosters of advocating in a somewhat infamous Guardian column from March.
“It doesn’t make any sense to grow biomass on land specifically and solely for the purpose of generating energy or biochar or a combination,” Lehmann said. “It makes the most sense to talk about agricultural waste.”
Lehmann considers forest debris and yard waste to be prime candidates for biochar production. But he is circumspect about which wastes might be most cost-effective. Collecting corn stover from fields for the purpose of generating char and energy might be ineffective, but the massive amounts of waste generated by sugar cane production could work very well. Similarly, if money and effort must be expended to collect forest debris for biochar production, then it might not be worthwhile. However, it could be cost-effective if the debris is being collected anyway for fire prevention.
Biomass is often left on the ground to decompose, creating huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, or is burned in the fields or in forest fires, creating carbon dioxide. Biomass, usually scrub wood or animal dung, is also burned in open cooking fires throughout the developing world, a practice that has drastic dire health impacts for the people routinely exposed to the smoke, mostly women and children. It also generates black carbon (or soot), increasingly being identified as a powerful driver of climate change second only to carbon dioxide.
Among the many projects in which Lehmann is involved is comprehensive research and development on pyrolyzing cookstoves that produce both clean heat and biochar for use by farmers. “You can dramatically expand your feedstock options when you switch from burning to charring,” he said. What matters in all of this, Lehmann emphasizes, is looking carefully at the costs and benefits in each situation, performing “whole systems analysis, from cradle to grave.”
Biochar could get a big boost in the United States if the Waxman-Markey bill is passed. The legislation would allow agricultural and forestry projects to qualify as carbon offsets, a move that sparked outcry from some environmental groups concerned that Congress would prevent regulators from measuring the full carbon footprint of U.S. farming practices.
Nevertheless, offsets retain considerable support in Congress. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is a biochar booster. “As part of the overall effort to lessen the effects of global warming, biochar is an exciting method for sequestering carbon,” he said in a statement for this article. “It is a truly innovative option not only because it sequesters carbon, but also because it improves soil condition and reduces the amount of water and fertilizer required on farms.”
William Hohenstein, the director of USDA’s Office of Global Climate Change, sees biochar in the context of a comprehensive policy construct, along with conservation tillage, tree planting, and other mitigation methods. He envisions the inclusion of these methods in a system of offsets, both domestically and internationally. The Agricultural Research Service, meanwhile, concluded in a recent report that the costs of processing crop residue into biochar and incorporating it into farmland soils could be offset by giving farmers the ability to sell credits for the carbon sequestered by the biochar.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
THE GREAT BIOCHAR DEBATE
[NOTE: I have been updating this post as comments arrive from many notable voices. They are appended to the Monbiot article.]
There's great biochar debate going on in at the guardian.co.uk with heayweights George Monbiot, Chris Goodall and James Lovelock pulling no punches. It's really worth considering. please ...
Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world
by George Monbiot
The latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up; yet many who should know better have been suckered into it
Whenever you hear the word miracle, you know there's trouble just around the corner. But no matter many times they lead to disappointment or disaster, the newspapers never tire of promoting miracle cures, miracle crops, miracle fuels and miracle financial instruments. We have a limitless ability to disregard the laws of economics, biology and thermodynamics when we encounter a simple solution to complex problems. So welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the new miracle. It's a low-carbon regime for the planet that makes the Atkins diet look healthy: woodchips with everything.
Biomass is suddenly the universal answer to our climate and energy problems. Its advocates claim that it will become the primary source of the world's heating fuel, electricity, road transport fuel (cellulosic ethanol) and aviation fuel (biokerosene). Few people stop to wonder how the planet can accommodate these demands and still produce food and preserve wild places. Now an even crazier use of woodchips is being promoted everywhere (including in the Guardian). The great green miracle works like this: we turn the planet's surface into charcoal.
Sorry, not charcoal. We don't call it that any more. Now we say biochar. The idea is that wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components (which can be used as fuel), then the residue - the charcoal - is buried in the soil. According to the magical thinkers who promote it, the new miracle stops climate breakdown, replaces gas and petroleum, improves the fertility of the soil, reduces deforestation, cuts labour, creates employment, prevents respiratory disease and ensures that when you drop your toast it always lands butter side up. (I invented the last one, but give them time).
They point out that the indigenous people of the Amazon created terras pretas (black soils) by burying charcoal over hundreds of years. These are more fertile than the surrounding soils, and the carbon has stayed where they put it. All we need to do is to roll this out worldwide and the world's problems - except, for the time being, the toast conundrum - are solved. It takes carbon out of circulation, reducing atmospheric concentrations. It raises crop yields. If some of the carbon is produced in efficient cooking stoves, it reduces the smoke in people's homes and means they have to gather less fuel, curtailing deforestation.
This miracle solution has suckered people who ought to know better, including James Lovelock, Jim Hansen, the author Chris Goodall and the climate campaigner Tim Flannery. At the UN climate talks beginning in Bonn on Sunday, several governments will demand that biochar is made eligible for carbon credits, providing the financial stimulus required to turn this into a global industry. Their proposal boils down to this: we must destroy the biosphere in order to save it.
In his otherwise excellent book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, Goodall abandons his usual scepticism and proposes we turn 200m hectares of "forests, savannah and croplands" into biochar plantations. Thus we would increase carbon uptake by grubbing up "wooded areas containing slow-growing trees" (that is, natural forest) and planting "faster growing species". This is environmentalism?
But that's just the start of it. Carbonscape, a company that hopes to be among the first to commercialise the technique, talks of planting 930m hectares. The energy lecturer Peter Read proposes new biomass plantations of trees and sugar covering 1.4bn hectares.
The arable area of the UK is 5.7m hectares, or one 245th of Read's figure. China has 104m hectares of cropland. The US has 174m. The global total is 1.36bn. Were we to follow Read's plan, we would either have to replace all the world's crops with biomass plantations, causing instant global famine, or double the cropped area, trashing most of the remaining natural habitats. Read was one of the promoters of first-generation liquid biofuels, which played a major role in the rise in the price of food last year, throwing millions into malnutrition. Have these people learned nothing?
Of course they claim everything can be reconciled. Peter Read says the new plantations can be created across "land on which the occupants are not engaged in economic activity". This means land used by subsistence farmers, pastoralists, hunters and gatherers and anyone else who isn't producing commodities for the mass market: poorly defended people whose rights and title can be disregarded. Both Read and Carbonscape speak of these places as "degraded lands". We used to call them unimproved, or marginal. Degraded land is the new code for natural habitat someone wants to destroy.
Goodall is even more naive. He believes we can maintain the profusion of animals and plants in the rainforests he hopes to gut by planting a mixture of fast-growing species, rather than a monoculture. As the Amazon ecologist Philip Fearnside has shown, a mixture does "not substantially change the impact of very large-scale plantations from the standpoint of biodiversity".
In their book Pulping the South, Ricardo Carrere and Larry Lohmann show what has happened in the 100m hectares of industrial plantations established around the world so far. Aside from destroying biodiversity, tree plantations have dried up river catchments, caused soil erosion when the land is ploughed for planting (meaning loss of soil carbon), exhausted nutrients and required so many pesticides that the run-off has poisoned marine fisheries.
In Brazil and South Africa, tens of thousands of people have been thrown off their land, often by violent means, to create plantations. In Thailand the military government that came to power in 1991 sought to expel five million people. Forty thousand families were dispossessed before the junta was overthrown. In many cases plantations cause a net loss of employment. Working conditions are brutal, often involving debt peonage and repeated exposure to pesticides.
As Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch point out, many of the claims made for biochar don't stand up. In some cases charcoal in the soil improves plant growth, in others it suppresses it. Just burying carbon bears little relation to the farming techniques that created terras pretas. Nor is there any guarantee that most of the buried carbon will stay in the soil. In some cases charcoal stimulates bacterial growth, causing carbon emissions from soils to rise. As for reducing deforestation, a stove that burns only part of the fuel is likely to increase, not decrease, demand for wood. There are plenty of other ways of eliminating household smoke which don't involve turning the world's forests to cinders.
None of this is to suggest that the idea has no virtues, simply that they are outweighed by hazards, which the promoters have overlooked or obscured. Nor does this mean that charcoal can't be made on a small scale, from material that would otherwise go to waste. But the idea that biochar is a universal solution that can be safely deployed on a vast scale is as misguided as Mao Zedong's Great Leap Backwards. We clutch at straws (and other biomass) in our desperation to believe there is an easy way out.
********
Response from Chris Goodall:
Biochar: Much is unknown but this is no reason to rule it out
Biochar - where wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components buried in the soil - is a cheap and highly beneficial way of disrupting the global carbon cycle
George Monbiot is right to tell biochar enthusiasts to calm down. Some of us have been guilty of febrile proselytising for this most unlikely scheme for geo-engineering. It is often thus: it is only after a period of reflection and assessment that some of the disadvantages of a new weapon against climate change become apparent.
Nevertheless in his eagerness to get us to tone down our enthusiasm he goes too far. Biochar is a useful and important way to help reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
First of all, let's ask why small knots of dedicated people have been focusing on biochar for the past five or 10 years. Biochar looks as if it is a cheap and highly beneficial way of disrupting the global carbon cycle.
As plants grow, they naturally absorb carbon dioxide, only to give it back as they die and then rot away. Huge volumes of carbon are continuously moving between the soil, plants and the atmosphere, dwarfing the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. If instead of letting plant matter rot, it is turned into charcoal which is almost pure carbon and stable for many centuries, we are reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
No one disputes the basic science, even George. If we can get this to work on a large scale, we can make a significant difference to greenhouse gas levels. We will have to take the organic outputs of large areas of land in order to achieve this and Monbiot is right to express horrified disbelief at some of the figures that we have suggested.
Here we depart from the path of agreement. Monbiot mentions but then ignores the other benefits of biochar. These are at least as important as direct climate change mitigation. First, soil dosed with charcoal can substantially improve agricultural productivity. Food crops grow better. Trees planted in biochar often have better root systems. Crop yields are improved. This means that we can provide food supplies for more people from a smaller area of land. Growing bigger plants and trees, which are largely made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen has a secondary effect of holding back CO2 that would otherwise be in the air. It is another form of useful carbon sequestration, albeit a once-only gain, adding to the primary effect of storing charcoal in the soil.
The second effect of biochar is to reduce the emission of other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and methane, from the soil. Thirdly, conventional fertilisers added to biochar appear to be much more effective and less likely to be washed away. Biochar-dosed soil therefore maintains its fertility better.
No one argues that biochar's effects are well understood. Scientific investigation is only just beginning. Next month sees the publication of Biochar for Environmental Management, a book edited by Johannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph, two of the world's pre-eminent scientific advocates of biochar. This 400-page book is not the work of gullible fools, it is a resolutely serious attempt to tell the world of the many uncertainties surrounding how best to make and apply biochar.
Its chapters on climate change mitigation are not an attempt to minimise the problems but rather to offer realistic and practical ways of utilising biochar's beneficial properties for the good of the planet and its poorer people. Yes, we don't yet understand fully why biochar works but this is not an argument to ignore it or rule it out. I challenge George to read the science in this book and then tell us whether he is quite so sceptical as he is today.
• Chris Goodall is the author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet
********
Response from James Lovelock
Biochar: let the Earth remove C02 for us
What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it
I usually agree with George Monbiot and love the way he says it but this time – with his assertion that the latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up – he has got it only half right.
Yes, it is silly to rename charcoal as biochar and yes, it would be wrong to plant anything specifically to make charcoal. So I agree, George, it would be wrong to have plantations in the tropics just to make charcoal.
I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eat eaten.
What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don't need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic.
Incidentally, in making charcoal this way, there is a by-product of biofuel that the farmer can sell. If we are to make this idea work it is vital that it pays for itself and requires no subsidy. Subsidies almost always breed scams and this is true of most forms of renewable energy now proposed and used. No one would invest in plantations to make charcoal without a subsidy, but if we can show the farmers they can turn their waste to profit they will do it freely and help us and Gaia too.
There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?
• James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis.
*********
We never said biochar is a miracle cure
by Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen
George Monbiot's implication that we believe biochar is a miracle solution to CO2 reduction is grossly misunderstood.
It is unfortunate that George Monbiot has insinuated that one of us (Jim Hansen) is a believer in biochar as a "miracle" solution for the climate crisis. If he is basing this on our published papers, then he has grossly misunderstood them. An attentive reader would know his insinuation is false by simply examining our land use-related assumptions in our recently published peer-reviewed paper, Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
Broadly speaking, our climate change mitigation scenarios are strictly illustrative in nature, in other words, they serve to convey the types, magnitude and time frame of mitigation measures needed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts. Although we do mention waste-derived biochar as a possible mitigation option, it certainly does not mean we are advocating that as the panacea. Indeed, as we very clearly outline in the paper, our scenarios assume waste-derived biochar provides only a very small fraction of the land use-related CO2 drawdown, with reforestation and curtailed deforestation providing a magnitude more. Nowhere do we assert or imply plantations should be grown specifically for biochar, or that reforestation should be at the expense of food crops, pristine ecosystems or substantially inhabited land. Furthermore, all relevant numbers used in our mitigation scenarios are derived from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
On the issue of land use changes in general, our paper clearly states any biofuels approach must be very carefully designed, and we cite two major critiques of current biofuels approaches. We agree there are still fundamental uncertainties associated with biochar as a mitigation option, but the peer-reviewed papers we cite describe these uncertainties.
Monbiot's piece might leave readers with the impression that human-assisted reforestation is a lose-lose situation everywhere on the planet. However, there are numerous scientific assessments that indicate there are hundreds of millions of hectares of suitable, sparsely inhabited lands — lands degraded by human activities in the first place. Given that reforestation occurs on a large scale even in nature (for example natural succession), it makes perfect sense to promote sensible, anthropogenic reforestation, among other reasons to undo the damage caused by large-scale deforestation.
Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen are at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute
********
Response from Monbiot
25 Mar 09,
Dear Jim,
I accept that (unlike some of the other people I mentioned) you are not advocating the creation of biomass plantations. But I believe that you might still be making a wrong call here.
Yes, I based what I said on the paper you reference: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? In it you say:
"Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2 drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century [85]."
In the Appendix to the paper you note that:
"Waste-derived biochar application will be phased in linearly over the period 2010-2020, by which time it will reach a maximum uptake rate of 0.16 GtC/yr."
I note that neither in the paper nor in the Appendix do you produce an estimate for the amount of plant material required to supply 0.16GtC/yr, or seek to determine how much of this could be provided by agricultural or forestry wastes.
Chris Goodall, in the book I referenced, proposes that to create 0.4GtC of charcoal we'd need to process about 1.6Gt of biomass. This, he suggests, requires dedicated biochar production across 200m hectares. If his ratios are correct, your proposal would require waste products equivalent to annual dedicated biomass production across 80m hectares. Do such quantities of available waste exist? And how much of it is genuinely available, and genuinely waste? (ie not earmarked for composting/ploughing in/animal bedding, cooking fuel/other forms of biomass burning etc).
Are you in danger of setting up a target which cannot be met by the means you propose?
As for "slash-and-char", if this were to be supported by carbon credits or some other financing mechanism, would that not create a powerful incentive for deforestation - effectively subsidising slash and burn farming?
Best wishes,
George Monbiot
********
response from Kharecha
25 Mar 09
George,
Pushker Kharecha here, Jim's co-author on the 'Target CO2' paper who was responsible for devising the mitigation scenarios.
Re your comments above (3/25/09, 2:22 pm)...First, I think you still might be misunderstanding the nature of our scenarios. As we mention above, they are purely illustrative in nature (as are all such scenarios), thus we are not suggesting that it's absolutely necessary to include biochar in mitigation efforts. The basic point is that fossil fuel emissions reductions alone will not be sufficient to achieve our atmospheric CO2 target of 350 ppm within this century, i.e. we will need to maintain existing biospheric CO2 uptake capacity (by ending deforestation) and restore human-degraded lands (by reforestation, enhancing soil carbon storage, etc.).
As we also mention in the above posting, in our scenarios we assume that the combination of curtailed deforestation and enhanced reforestation are over an order of magnitude greater than that of waste-derived char. This was precisely to acknowledge the fact that these strategies have already proven successful on the necessary scales (when devised properly of course), whereas large-scale char use is still fraught with uncertainties. The bottom line is that even if we omitted the char component from our scenarios, the land use-related CO2 drawdown would be virtually unaffected. If one were looking for substitutes for our char component, a perfectly viable one would be soil carbon sequestration via improved agricultural practices such as conservation tillage (which could actually provide an even higher contribution than the char value we assumed).
Re our specific assumptions for char that you've referred to here, first note that by 'waste-derived biochar', we mean precisely that, i.e. char which is produced from material that would have otherwise not been used (e.g., burned or placed in landfills instead). The value you're referring to (0.16 GtC/yr) is directly from a review paper in a refereed scientific journal (reference 85 in our Target CO2 paper). That review paper lists the following five *current* global sources of waste as the basis of the 0.16 GtC/yr value: forest and mill residues (0.04 and 0.05 GtC/yr, respectively); rice husks (0.04 GtC/yr); groundnut shells (0.002 GtC/yr); and urban waste (0.03 GtC/yr; this one is the most uncertain). All of these sources are assessed to have high/medium availability and suitability, and none of them would entail production of new biomass.
As for whether slash-and-char would encourage deforestation, that is obviously not our intent, nor is it a reasonable inference from our paper. As we state therein, we assume that deforestation is linearly phased out by 2015 (a lofty goal, but again, this shouldn't be taken too literally -- if it ends up not happening until say 2020 or so, that's not the end of the world). Furthermore, we suggest a price (tax) on carbon emissions that increases with time, thus any future deforestation would end up being substantially taxed, not subsidized. So the slash-and-char issue really would only apply to the period over which deforestation is being phased out. And just to clarify, note that slash-and-char was only mentioned in the main text -- it was not included in the mitigation scenarios (see Section 15 of the Supplement).
Regards,
Pushker Kharecha
*********
response from Monbiot:
25 Mar 09
Hi Pushker,
I take your points. What you say sounds reasonable to me.
Best wishes,
George
********
Press Release: IBI Response to Recent Guardian Article on Biochar
March 25, 2009: For Immediate Release:
IBI has taken note of an article by George Monbiot in the UK Guardian on March 24, 2009 that questioned the validity of biochar as a climate mitigation tool and the scientists and others who support the development of biochar.
The Guardian has published responses from several of those biochar supporters mentioned by Mr. Monbiot, including James Hansen, Chris Goodall, and James Lovelock.
IBI sent The Guardian the response below written by IBI staff members Stephen Brick and Debbie Reed.
For more information, contact:
Stephen Brick, IBI Executive Director, sbrick5714@sbcglobal.net
Debbie Reed, IBI Policy Director, dcdebbiereed@yahoo.com
Thayer Tomlinson, IBI Communications Director, info@biochar-international.org
George Monbiot is right on the mark about our seemingly irresistible tendency for embracing miracle cures. And it is refreshing to have the press remind us that the laws of thermodynamics will continue to apply in our quest to reduce global carbon emissions. But his diatribe against biochar-like most such screeds-would have us throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This has been said often, but it needs to be said again: there is no magical pathway for cutting global carbon emissions. There is only a collection of steps-complex, costly, and, politically challenging. Put another way, there is no single remedy for the whole problem; but there are, very likely, one hundred different actions that can each bear one percent of the burden. Serious people have understood this for some time, and this would include, we believe, a large fraction of the general public that Mr. Monbiot presumably wishes to warn.
Biochar, produced and used appropriately, should be considered amongst the hundred. Done right, biochar produces four value streams: waste reduction, energy production, soil fertilization and carbon sequestration. Biochar can be made from animal manures and food processing wastes. These residuals are costly to those who produce them, and create greenhouse gas emissions if left untreated. Bio-gas and oil can be used for heating, generating electricity and transportation. Biochar can reduce the need for conventional, fossil-fuel based fertilizers. Finally, biochar can lock up carbon in the soils for extended time periods.
We don't have all the answers on biochar production and utilization; indeed, the mission of the International Biochar Initiative is to seek these answers, objectively and quickly. We know that there are bad ways to make biochar, that crop monoculture for producing feedstock is not a good idea, and that biochar does not affect all soils equally. None of this should rule biochar out of court, however, as we also are assembling a body of knowledge on how to produce and use biochars that are beneficial. In this way, biochar resembles many other carbon-cutting technologies that face uncertainties. In our case, all we seek is an opportunity to be heard fairly as we move towards Copenhagen.
We have no doubt that exaggerating the benefits of biochar is not helpful. On the other hand, the potential of biochar deserves serious consideration. Mr Monbiot's glib dismissal of this potential is unwarranted.
Stephen Brick is the Executive Director of the International Biochar Initiative
Debbie Reed is the Policy Director of the International Biochar Initiative
[NOTE: I have been updating this post as comments arrive from many notable voices. They are appended to the Monbiot article.]
There's great biochar debate going on in at the guardian.co.uk with heayweights George Monbiot, Chris Goodall and James Lovelock pulling no punches. It's really worth considering. please ...
Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world
by George Monbiot
The latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up; yet many who should know better have been suckered into it
Whenever you hear the word miracle, you know there's trouble just around the corner. But no matter many times they lead to disappointment or disaster, the newspapers never tire of promoting miracle cures, miracle crops, miracle fuels and miracle financial instruments. We have a limitless ability to disregard the laws of economics, biology and thermodynamics when we encounter a simple solution to complex problems. So welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the new miracle. It's a low-carbon regime for the planet that makes the Atkins diet look healthy: woodchips with everything.
Biomass is suddenly the universal answer to our climate and energy problems. Its advocates claim that it will become the primary source of the world's heating fuel, electricity, road transport fuel (cellulosic ethanol) and aviation fuel (biokerosene). Few people stop to wonder how the planet can accommodate these demands and still produce food and preserve wild places. Now an even crazier use of woodchips is being promoted everywhere (including in the Guardian). The great green miracle works like this: we turn the planet's surface into charcoal.
Sorry, not charcoal. We don't call it that any more. Now we say biochar. The idea is that wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components (which can be used as fuel), then the residue - the charcoal - is buried in the soil. According to the magical thinkers who promote it, the new miracle stops climate breakdown, replaces gas and petroleum, improves the fertility of the soil, reduces deforestation, cuts labour, creates employment, prevents respiratory disease and ensures that when you drop your toast it always lands butter side up. (I invented the last one, but give them time).
They point out that the indigenous people of the Amazon created terras pretas (black soils) by burying charcoal over hundreds of years. These are more fertile than the surrounding soils, and the carbon has stayed where they put it. All we need to do is to roll this out worldwide and the world's problems - except, for the time being, the toast conundrum - are solved. It takes carbon out of circulation, reducing atmospheric concentrations. It raises crop yields. If some of the carbon is produced in efficient cooking stoves, it reduces the smoke in people's homes and means they have to gather less fuel, curtailing deforestation.
This miracle solution has suckered people who ought to know better, including James Lovelock, Jim Hansen, the author Chris Goodall and the climate campaigner Tim Flannery. At the UN climate talks beginning in Bonn on Sunday, several governments will demand that biochar is made eligible for carbon credits, providing the financial stimulus required to turn this into a global industry. Their proposal boils down to this: we must destroy the biosphere in order to save it.
In his otherwise excellent book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, Goodall abandons his usual scepticism and proposes we turn 200m hectares of "forests, savannah and croplands" into biochar plantations. Thus we would increase carbon uptake by grubbing up "wooded areas containing slow-growing trees" (that is, natural forest) and planting "faster growing species". This is environmentalism?
But that's just the start of it. Carbonscape, a company that hopes to be among the first to commercialise the technique, talks of planting 930m hectares. The energy lecturer Peter Read proposes new biomass plantations of trees and sugar covering 1.4bn hectares.
The arable area of the UK is 5.7m hectares, or one 245th of Read's figure. China has 104m hectares of cropland. The US has 174m. The global total is 1.36bn. Were we to follow Read's plan, we would either have to replace all the world's crops with biomass plantations, causing instant global famine, or double the cropped area, trashing most of the remaining natural habitats. Read was one of the promoters of first-generation liquid biofuels, which played a major role in the rise in the price of food last year, throwing millions into malnutrition. Have these people learned nothing?
Of course they claim everything can be reconciled. Peter Read says the new plantations can be created across "land on which the occupants are not engaged in economic activity". This means land used by subsistence farmers, pastoralists, hunters and gatherers and anyone else who isn't producing commodities for the mass market: poorly defended people whose rights and title can be disregarded. Both Read and Carbonscape speak of these places as "degraded lands". We used to call them unimproved, or marginal. Degraded land is the new code for natural habitat someone wants to destroy.
Goodall is even more naive. He believes we can maintain the profusion of animals and plants in the rainforests he hopes to gut by planting a mixture of fast-growing species, rather than a monoculture. As the Amazon ecologist Philip Fearnside has shown, a mixture does "not substantially change the impact of very large-scale plantations from the standpoint of biodiversity".
In their book Pulping the South, Ricardo Carrere and Larry Lohmann show what has happened in the 100m hectares of industrial plantations established around the world so far. Aside from destroying biodiversity, tree plantations have dried up river catchments, caused soil erosion when the land is ploughed for planting (meaning loss of soil carbon), exhausted nutrients and required so many pesticides that the run-off has poisoned marine fisheries.
In Brazil and South Africa, tens of thousands of people have been thrown off their land, often by violent means, to create plantations. In Thailand the military government that came to power in 1991 sought to expel five million people. Forty thousand families were dispossessed before the junta was overthrown. In many cases plantations cause a net loss of employment. Working conditions are brutal, often involving debt peonage and repeated exposure to pesticides.
As Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch point out, many of the claims made for biochar don't stand up. In some cases charcoal in the soil improves plant growth, in others it suppresses it. Just burying carbon bears little relation to the farming techniques that created terras pretas. Nor is there any guarantee that most of the buried carbon will stay in the soil. In some cases charcoal stimulates bacterial growth, causing carbon emissions from soils to rise. As for reducing deforestation, a stove that burns only part of the fuel is likely to increase, not decrease, demand for wood. There are plenty of other ways of eliminating household smoke which don't involve turning the world's forests to cinders.
None of this is to suggest that the idea has no virtues, simply that they are outweighed by hazards, which the promoters have overlooked or obscured. Nor does this mean that charcoal can't be made on a small scale, from material that would otherwise go to waste. But the idea that biochar is a universal solution that can be safely deployed on a vast scale is as misguided as Mao Zedong's Great Leap Backwards. We clutch at straws (and other biomass) in our desperation to believe there is an easy way out.
********
Response from Chris Goodall:
Biochar: Much is unknown but this is no reason to rule it out
Biochar - where wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components buried in the soil - is a cheap and highly beneficial way of disrupting the global carbon cycle
George Monbiot is right to tell biochar enthusiasts to calm down. Some of us have been guilty of febrile proselytising for this most unlikely scheme for geo-engineering. It is often thus: it is only after a period of reflection and assessment that some of the disadvantages of a new weapon against climate change become apparent.
Nevertheless in his eagerness to get us to tone down our enthusiasm he goes too far. Biochar is a useful and important way to help reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
First of all, let's ask why small knots of dedicated people have been focusing on biochar for the past five or 10 years. Biochar looks as if it is a cheap and highly beneficial way of disrupting the global carbon cycle.
As plants grow, they naturally absorb carbon dioxide, only to give it back as they die and then rot away. Huge volumes of carbon are continuously moving between the soil, plants and the atmosphere, dwarfing the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. If instead of letting plant matter rot, it is turned into charcoal which is almost pure carbon and stable for many centuries, we are reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
No one disputes the basic science, even George. If we can get this to work on a large scale, we can make a significant difference to greenhouse gas levels. We will have to take the organic outputs of large areas of land in order to achieve this and Monbiot is right to express horrified disbelief at some of the figures that we have suggested.
Here we depart from the path of agreement. Monbiot mentions but then ignores the other benefits of biochar. These are at least as important as direct climate change mitigation. First, soil dosed with charcoal can substantially improve agricultural productivity. Food crops grow better. Trees planted in biochar often have better root systems. Crop yields are improved. This means that we can provide food supplies for more people from a smaller area of land. Growing bigger plants and trees, which are largely made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen has a secondary effect of holding back CO2 that would otherwise be in the air. It is another form of useful carbon sequestration, albeit a once-only gain, adding to the primary effect of storing charcoal in the soil.
The second effect of biochar is to reduce the emission of other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and methane, from the soil. Thirdly, conventional fertilisers added to biochar appear to be much more effective and less likely to be washed away. Biochar-dosed soil therefore maintains its fertility better.
No one argues that biochar's effects are well understood. Scientific investigation is only just beginning. Next month sees the publication of Biochar for Environmental Management, a book edited by Johannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph, two of the world's pre-eminent scientific advocates of biochar. This 400-page book is not the work of gullible fools, it is a resolutely serious attempt to tell the world of the many uncertainties surrounding how best to make and apply biochar.
Its chapters on climate change mitigation are not an attempt to minimise the problems but rather to offer realistic and practical ways of utilising biochar's beneficial properties for the good of the planet and its poorer people. Yes, we don't yet understand fully why biochar works but this is not an argument to ignore it or rule it out. I challenge George to read the science in this book and then tell us whether he is quite so sceptical as he is today.
• Chris Goodall is the author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet
********
Response from James Lovelock
Biochar: let the Earth remove C02 for us
What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it
I usually agree with George Monbiot and love the way he says it but this time – with his assertion that the latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up – he has got it only half right.
Yes, it is silly to rename charcoal as biochar and yes, it would be wrong to plant anything specifically to make charcoal. So I agree, George, it would be wrong to have plantations in the tropics just to make charcoal.
I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eat eaten.
What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don't need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic.
Incidentally, in making charcoal this way, there is a by-product of biofuel that the farmer can sell. If we are to make this idea work it is vital that it pays for itself and requires no subsidy. Subsidies almost always breed scams and this is true of most forms of renewable energy now proposed and used. No one would invest in plantations to make charcoal without a subsidy, but if we can show the farmers they can turn their waste to profit they will do it freely and help us and Gaia too.
There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?
• James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis.
*********
We never said biochar is a miracle cure
by Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen
George Monbiot's implication that we believe biochar is a miracle solution to CO2 reduction is grossly misunderstood.
It is unfortunate that George Monbiot has insinuated that one of us (Jim Hansen) is a believer in biochar as a "miracle" solution for the climate crisis. If he is basing this on our published papers, then he has grossly misunderstood them. An attentive reader would know his insinuation is false by simply examining our land use-related assumptions in our recently published peer-reviewed paper, Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
Broadly speaking, our climate change mitigation scenarios are strictly illustrative in nature, in other words, they serve to convey the types, magnitude and time frame of mitigation measures needed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts. Although we do mention waste-derived biochar as a possible mitigation option, it certainly does not mean we are advocating that as the panacea. Indeed, as we very clearly outline in the paper, our scenarios assume waste-derived biochar provides only a very small fraction of the land use-related CO2 drawdown, with reforestation and curtailed deforestation providing a magnitude more. Nowhere do we assert or imply plantations should be grown specifically for biochar, or that reforestation should be at the expense of food crops, pristine ecosystems or substantially inhabited land. Furthermore, all relevant numbers used in our mitigation scenarios are derived from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
On the issue of land use changes in general, our paper clearly states any biofuels approach must be very carefully designed, and we cite two major critiques of current biofuels approaches. We agree there are still fundamental uncertainties associated with biochar as a mitigation option, but the peer-reviewed papers we cite describe these uncertainties.
Monbiot's piece might leave readers with the impression that human-assisted reforestation is a lose-lose situation everywhere on the planet. However, there are numerous scientific assessments that indicate there are hundreds of millions of hectares of suitable, sparsely inhabited lands — lands degraded by human activities in the first place. Given that reforestation occurs on a large scale even in nature (for example natural succession), it makes perfect sense to promote sensible, anthropogenic reforestation, among other reasons to undo the damage caused by large-scale deforestation.
Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen are at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute
********
Response from Monbiot
25 Mar 09,
Dear Jim,
I accept that (unlike some of the other people I mentioned) you are not advocating the creation of biomass plantations. But I believe that you might still be making a wrong call here.
Yes, I based what I said on the paper you reference: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? In it you say:
"Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2 drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century [85]."
In the Appendix to the paper you note that:
"Waste-derived biochar application will be phased in linearly over the period 2010-2020, by which time it will reach a maximum uptake rate of 0.16 GtC/yr."
I note that neither in the paper nor in the Appendix do you produce an estimate for the amount of plant material required to supply 0.16GtC/yr, or seek to determine how much of this could be provided by agricultural or forestry wastes.
Chris Goodall, in the book I referenced, proposes that to create 0.4GtC of charcoal we'd need to process about 1.6Gt of biomass. This, he suggests, requires dedicated biochar production across 200m hectares. If his ratios are correct, your proposal would require waste products equivalent to annual dedicated biomass production across 80m hectares. Do such quantities of available waste exist? And how much of it is genuinely available, and genuinely waste? (ie not earmarked for composting/ploughing in/animal bedding, cooking fuel/other forms of biomass burning etc).
Are you in danger of setting up a target which cannot be met by the means you propose?
As for "slash-and-char", if this were to be supported by carbon credits or some other financing mechanism, would that not create a powerful incentive for deforestation - effectively subsidising slash and burn farming?
Best wishes,
George Monbiot
********
response from Kharecha
25 Mar 09
George,
Pushker Kharecha here, Jim's co-author on the 'Target CO2' paper who was responsible for devising the mitigation scenarios.
Re your comments above (3/25/09, 2:22 pm)...First, I think you still might be misunderstanding the nature of our scenarios. As we mention above, they are purely illustrative in nature (as are all such scenarios), thus we are not suggesting that it's absolutely necessary to include biochar in mitigation efforts. The basic point is that fossil fuel emissions reductions alone will not be sufficient to achieve our atmospheric CO2 target of 350 ppm within this century, i.e. we will need to maintain existing biospheric CO2 uptake capacity (by ending deforestation) and restore human-degraded lands (by reforestation, enhancing soil carbon storage, etc.).
As we also mention in the above posting, in our scenarios we assume that the combination of curtailed deforestation and enhanced reforestation are over an order of magnitude greater than that of waste-derived char. This was precisely to acknowledge the fact that these strategies have already proven successful on the necessary scales (when devised properly of course), whereas large-scale char use is still fraught with uncertainties. The bottom line is that even if we omitted the char component from our scenarios, the land use-related CO2 drawdown would be virtually unaffected. If one were looking for substitutes for our char component, a perfectly viable one would be soil carbon sequestration via improved agricultural practices such as conservation tillage (which could actually provide an even higher contribution than the char value we assumed).
Re our specific assumptions for char that you've referred to here, first note that by 'waste-derived biochar', we mean precisely that, i.e. char which is produced from material that would have otherwise not been used (e.g., burned or placed in landfills instead). The value you're referring to (0.16 GtC/yr) is directly from a review paper in a refereed scientific journal (reference 85 in our Target CO2 paper). That review paper lists the following five *current* global sources of waste as the basis of the 0.16 GtC/yr value: forest and mill residues (0.04 and 0.05 GtC/yr, respectively); rice husks (0.04 GtC/yr); groundnut shells (0.002 GtC/yr); and urban waste (0.03 GtC/yr; this one is the most uncertain). All of these sources are assessed to have high/medium availability and suitability, and none of them would entail production of new biomass.
As for whether slash-and-char would encourage deforestation, that is obviously not our intent, nor is it a reasonable inference from our paper. As we state therein, we assume that deforestation is linearly phased out by 2015 (a lofty goal, but again, this shouldn't be taken too literally -- if it ends up not happening until say 2020 or so, that's not the end of the world). Furthermore, we suggest a price (tax) on carbon emissions that increases with time, thus any future deforestation would end up being substantially taxed, not subsidized. So the slash-and-char issue really would only apply to the period over which deforestation is being phased out. And just to clarify, note that slash-and-char was only mentioned in the main text -- it was not included in the mitigation scenarios (see Section 15 of the Supplement).
Regards,
Pushker Kharecha
*********
response from Monbiot:
25 Mar 09
Hi Pushker,
I take your points. What you say sounds reasonable to me.
Best wishes,
George
********
Press Release: IBI Response to Recent Guardian Article on Biochar
March 25, 2009: For Immediate Release:
IBI has taken note of an article by George Monbiot in the UK Guardian on March 24, 2009 that questioned the validity of biochar as a climate mitigation tool and the scientists and others who support the development of biochar.
The Guardian has published responses from several of those biochar supporters mentioned by Mr. Monbiot, including James Hansen, Chris Goodall, and James Lovelock.
IBI sent The Guardian the response below written by IBI staff members Stephen Brick and Debbie Reed.
For more information, contact:
Stephen Brick, IBI Executive Director, sbrick5714@sbcglobal.net
Debbie Reed, IBI Policy Director, dcdebbiereed@yahoo.com
Thayer Tomlinson, IBI Communications Director, info@biochar-international.org
George Monbiot is right on the mark about our seemingly irresistible tendency for embracing miracle cures. And it is refreshing to have the press remind us that the laws of thermodynamics will continue to apply in our quest to reduce global carbon emissions. But his diatribe against biochar-like most such screeds-would have us throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This has been said often, but it needs to be said again: there is no magical pathway for cutting global carbon emissions. There is only a collection of steps-complex, costly, and, politically challenging. Put another way, there is no single remedy for the whole problem; but there are, very likely, one hundred different actions that can each bear one percent of the burden. Serious people have understood this for some time, and this would include, we believe, a large fraction of the general public that Mr. Monbiot presumably wishes to warn.
Biochar, produced and used appropriately, should be considered amongst the hundred. Done right, biochar produces four value streams: waste reduction, energy production, soil fertilization and carbon sequestration. Biochar can be made from animal manures and food processing wastes. These residuals are costly to those who produce them, and create greenhouse gas emissions if left untreated. Bio-gas and oil can be used for heating, generating electricity and transportation. Biochar can reduce the need for conventional, fossil-fuel based fertilizers. Finally, biochar can lock up carbon in the soils for extended time periods.
We don't have all the answers on biochar production and utilization; indeed, the mission of the International Biochar Initiative is to seek these answers, objectively and quickly. We know that there are bad ways to make biochar, that crop monoculture for producing feedstock is not a good idea, and that biochar does not affect all soils equally. None of this should rule biochar out of court, however, as we also are assembling a body of knowledge on how to produce and use biochars that are beneficial. In this way, biochar resembles many other carbon-cutting technologies that face uncertainties. In our case, all we seek is an opportunity to be heard fairly as we move towards Copenhagen.
We have no doubt that exaggerating the benefits of biochar is not helpful. On the other hand, the potential of biochar deserves serious consideration. Mr Monbiot's glib dismissal of this potential is unwarranted.
Stephen Brick is the Executive Director of the International Biochar Initiative
Debbie Reed is the Policy Director of the International Biochar Initiative
Monday, December 29, 2008
BIOCHAR -- END OF 2008 UPDATE
.
Here's a summary of excellent articles and links assembled by the International Biochar Initiative
November and December 2008
New Articles
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Ffw.farmonline.com.au%2Fnews%2Fstate%2Fforestry%2Fgeneral%2Foil-mallee-plan-released%2F1364777.aspx&id=preview
11-19-08, Farm News Online, Oil Mallee Plan Released - Australian Forestry Minister Terry Redman announces a plan for the oil mallee industry that includes biochar.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2Fethicallivingblog%2F2008%2Fnov%2F21%2Forganics-carbonemissions&id=preview
11-21-08, The Guardian, Finding a Solution to Soil's Carbon Problem - blogger Bibi van der Zee reports on the Soil Association conference, saying "If you'd told me a week ago that I would spend two days listening to people talk about soil carbon sequestration (and be gripped by it!) I would have laughed in your face."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wickedlocal.com%2Forleans%2Ffun%2Fentertainment%2Fdining%2Fx776455263%2F&id=preview
11-21-08, Wicked Local Orleans, Backyard Grower Preserves Eastham Turnip Tradition. A Cape Cod organic grower uses biochar to produce impressive heirloom turnips.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fsoutheastfarmpress.com%2Fnews%2Fagricultural-research-1128%2F&id=preview
11-26-08, Southeast Farm Press, Manure Shows Promise for On-Farm Fuel. Summary of a US Agricultural Research Service (ARS) study on producing biochar and other products from manure.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fcornandsoybeandigest.com%2Fcorn%2Fblack_gold_soil_1108%2F&id=preview
11-30-08, The Corn and Soybean Digest , Black Gold - Susan Winsor's article is a general information piece on biochar and soil carbon that quotes scientists Bruno Glaser, David Laird and Johannes Lehmann.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biomassmagazine.com%2Farticle.jsp%3Farticle_id%3D2217&id=preview
December 2008 Issue, Biomass Magazine, New Zealand Company Converts Wood to Charcoal. Anna Austin tells us of a new "microwave-assisted pyrolysis" technique called "Black Phantom," developed by New Zealand-based Carbonscape Ltd.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theobserver.ca%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Fe%3D1325256&id=preview
12-02-08, The Observer, Plant Targets Farm Waste. Report on University of Western Ontario's launch of a pilot plant to turn agricultural waste into useful products, including biochar.
Top Tens
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2F2008%2Fnov%2F27%2Frenewableenergy-energy&id=preview
11-27-08, The Guardian, The 10 Big Energy Myths. Businessman and climate-change commentator Chris Goodall has written a book called Ten Technologies to Save the Planet. Biochar is one of them and it commands a whole chapter in the book. This article is Goodall's summary of his book.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fdn16179-ten-ways-to-save-the-world.html&id=preview
12-02-08, New Scientist, Ten Ways to Save the World. Journalist Tamsin Osborne provides this summary of Chris Goodall's book.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fmagazine%2Farticle%2F0%2C9171%2C1864279%2C00.html&id=preview
12-04-08, TimeMagazine, Carbon: The Biochar Solution. Lisa Abend produced a report on biochar, its origins in the Amazon and on IBI's recently profiled practitioner, Josh Frye, who is making biochar from chicken manure. The article quotes Bob Hawkins of Eprida, and scientists Tim Flannery, Dominic Wolfe and Johannes Lehmann. Some inaccuracies in the article will hopefully be corrected in a letter to the editor.
Projects and Initiatives
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Farticle%2F548658&id=preview 12-06-08, The Toronto Star, A 'revolutionary' remedy for global warming. Reporter Peter Gorrie has a story on the inaugural meeting of the Canadian Biochar Initiative: "Next week, as 10,000 delegates in Poland wrap up another inconclusive United Nations conference on climate change, a small group will gather in Montreal to try to actually do something about the problem."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chron.com%2Fdisp%2Fstory.mpl%2Fheadline%2Fmetro%2F6158073.html&id=preview 12-10-08, Houston Chronicle, Team from Rice wins $10,000 in 'Recycle Ike' Contest. Carolyn Feibel reports that a team of students and scientists from Rice University has won a $10,000 prize for finding a way to use all the wood waste generated by hurricane Ike. The winning idea is biochar. The Rice team will use the money to build a pilot bioreactor for making biochar.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novanewsnow.com%2Farticle-275289-White-Rock-student-heads-to-Poland.html&id=preview
Poznan, 11-23-08, King County Advertiser, White Rock Student Heads to Poland. Biochar in Poznan coverage kicked off with this article about Canadian Youth Delegation member Thea Whitman. Thea is doing post-graduate work on biochar at Cornell University and is starting a biochar cook stove project in Kenya "with a view to incorporate this process into the Kyoto protocol (or its successors) Clean Development Mechanism."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FscienceNews%2FidUSTRE4B45KB20081205&id=preview
12-05-08, Reuters, Scientist Says Ancient Technique Cuts Greenhouse Gas. Gerard Wynn reports from Poznan with a basic background piece on biochar and the IBI.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-change%2Fancient-skills-could-reverse-global-warming-1055700.html&id=preview
12-07-08, The Independent, Ancient Skills 'Could Reverse Global Warming.' Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor, reports on a new biochar project by Craig Sams and Dan Morrell planned for Belize and Sussex, and discusses biochar in the context of the climate talks in Poznan.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treehugger.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F12%2Fbetting-on-biochar-to-break-the-co2-imbalance.php&id=preview 12-07-08, Treehugger, Betting on Biochar to Solve Our Super CO2 Imbalance. This top eco blog has a report from April Streeter on the scene in Poznan covering biochar, the IBI, and a new biochar venture.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.mongabay.com%2F2008%2F1210-africa.html&id=preview
12-10-08, Mongabay.com, Africa Calls for "Full-Range" of Bio-Carbon as Climate Solution. This article says, "The African Climate Solution - a partnership launched at the current climate talks in Poznan, Poland - seeks payments from industrialized nations for efforts by developing countries to sequester carbon through land use practices." Biochar is identified as one of the practices.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fnews%2Fstory%2FDangerous-Sea-Level-Rise-Imminent%2Fstory.aspx%3Fguid%3D4A4237D2-E49F-4E36-BF6F-632232ED133E&id=preview
12-11-08, MarketWatch.com, Dangerous Sea Level Rise Imminent Without Large Reductions of Black Carbon and Implementation of Other Fast-Action Mitigation Strategies. MarketWatch ran this report from the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development on important developments at Poznan regarding fast action on climate change and the role of biochar. As an island nation facing rising seas, the Federated States of Micronesia has called for the use of biochar as a "key piece of the fast-action strategy" that can be deployed immediately to begin backing away from climate tipping points.
James Hansen, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?"
Wardle et al article in Science "Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest Humus"
Lehmann and Sohi Technical Comment Response to Wardle 2008 Science Article
Wardle et all Response to Lehmann/Sohi Technical Comment in Science
September 2008 National Geographic article "Our Good Earth" includes Terra Preta and charcoal. For the complete article, see: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
More Carbon for Soils More Carbon for Crops - Carbon Negative Farming with Bio CharBeyond Zero Emissions interviews Dr Lukas Van Zwietan, senior research scientist of the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), on biochar. To link to the interview or listen to the podcast, click here.
Listen to National Public Radio (NPR) article: Charcoal May Help Improve Soil Quality from April 11, 2008. Researchers say that adding charcoal to soil may provide more benefits for long-term soil quality than compost or manure....to hear the complete story, Click here
Photo courtesy of Richard Haard
Charcoal in agriculture: Experimental research at Fourth Corner Nurseries: Link to the article by Richard Haard.
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/haard4cncharcoalreportjan07
and a followup piece here:
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/haard4cncharcoalreportjan11
Stephan M Haefele, "Black Soil, Green Rice", Rice Today Magazine, 2007
The Australian Broadcast Corp (ABC) recently aired a segment on Agrichar on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 8:00 pm. See the ABC Catalyst website for more information by clicking here. The link contains an article, the 11 minute segment, and a transcript of the program. Much of the program was filmed during the 2007 IAI Conference in Terrigal, NSW, Australia.
Johannes Lehmann, "Bio-energy in the Black", Frontiers in Ecology, 2007
Kelpie Wilson, "Terra Preta", Yoga and Joyful Living Magazine, Sept/Oct 2007
Rebecca Renner, "Rethinking biochar", Environmental Science and Technology, September 2007
Johannes Lehmann, "A Handful of Carbon", Nature Magazine, May 2007
"Scientific American Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure"
Link to Waste Management and the Environment, February 2007, by Ron Wainberg and Adriana Downie: "The Pay Dirt of El Dorado"
Emma Marris, Nature Magazine 2006, "Black is the New Green"
Lehmann, Gaunt and Rondon, "Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems--A Review", 2006
Letters to the Editor in Response to Nature 2006 Article
B. Harder, "Smoldered Earth Policy", Sciencenews.org, 2006
David Chandler, "Down-to-earth Fix for the Carbon Crisis", New Scientist, 2006
Yvonne Baskin, Notes from the 2006 AAAS Annual Meeting
The International Biochar Initiative. http://www.biochar-international.org/.
. Here's a summary of excellent articles and links assembled by the International Biochar Initiative
November and December 2008
New Articles
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Ffw.farmonline.com.au%2Fnews%2Fstate%2Fforestry%2Fgeneral%2Foil-mallee-plan-released%2F1364777.aspx&id=preview
11-19-08, Farm News Online, Oil Mallee Plan Released - Australian Forestry Minister Terry Redman announces a plan for the oil mallee industry that includes biochar.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2Fethicallivingblog%2F2008%2Fnov%2F21%2Forganics-carbonemissions&id=preview
11-21-08, The Guardian, Finding a Solution to Soil's Carbon Problem - blogger Bibi van der Zee reports on the Soil Association conference, saying "If you'd told me a week ago that I would spend two days listening to people talk about soil carbon sequestration (and be gripped by it!) I would have laughed in your face."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wickedlocal.com%2Forleans%2Ffun%2Fentertainment%2Fdining%2Fx776455263%2F&id=preview
11-21-08, Wicked Local Orleans, Backyard Grower Preserves Eastham Turnip Tradition. A Cape Cod organic grower uses biochar to produce impressive heirloom turnips.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fsoutheastfarmpress.com%2Fnews%2Fagricultural-research-1128%2F&id=preview
11-26-08, Southeast Farm Press, Manure Shows Promise for On-Farm Fuel. Summary of a US Agricultural Research Service (ARS) study on producing biochar and other products from manure.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fcornandsoybeandigest.com%2Fcorn%2Fblack_gold_soil_1108%2F&id=preview
11-30-08, The Corn and Soybean Digest , Black Gold - Susan Winsor's article is a general information piece on biochar and soil carbon that quotes scientists Bruno Glaser, David Laird and Johannes Lehmann.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biomassmagazine.com%2Farticle.jsp%3Farticle_id%3D2217&id=preview
December 2008 Issue, Biomass Magazine, New Zealand Company Converts Wood to Charcoal. Anna Austin tells us of a new "microwave-assisted pyrolysis" technique called "Black Phantom," developed by New Zealand-based Carbonscape Ltd.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theobserver.ca%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Fe%3D1325256&id=preview
12-02-08, The Observer, Plant Targets Farm Waste. Report on University of Western Ontario's launch of a pilot plant to turn agricultural waste into useful products, including biochar.
Top Tens
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2F2008%2Fnov%2F27%2Frenewableenergy-energy&id=preview
11-27-08, The Guardian, The 10 Big Energy Myths. Businessman and climate-change commentator Chris Goodall has written a book called Ten Technologies to Save the Planet. Biochar is one of them and it commands a whole chapter in the book. This article is Goodall's summary of his book.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fdn16179-ten-ways-to-save-the-world.html&id=preview
12-02-08, New Scientist, Ten Ways to Save the World. Journalist Tamsin Osborne provides this summary of Chris Goodall's book.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fmagazine%2Farticle%2F0%2C9171%2C1864279%2C00.html&id=preview
12-04-08, TimeMagazine, Carbon: The Biochar Solution. Lisa Abend produced a report on biochar, its origins in the Amazon and on IBI's recently profiled practitioner, Josh Frye, who is making biochar from chicken manure. The article quotes Bob Hawkins of Eprida, and scientists Tim Flannery, Dominic Wolfe and Johannes Lehmann. Some inaccuracies in the article will hopefully be corrected in a letter to the editor.
Projects and Initiatives
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Farticle%2F548658&id=preview 12-06-08, The Toronto Star, A 'revolutionary' remedy for global warming. Reporter Peter Gorrie has a story on the inaugural meeting of the Canadian Biochar Initiative: "Next week, as 10,000 delegates in Poland wrap up another inconclusive United Nations conference on climate change, a small group will gather in Montreal to try to actually do something about the problem."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chron.com%2Fdisp%2Fstory.mpl%2Fheadline%2Fmetro%2F6158073.html&id=preview 12-10-08, Houston Chronicle, Team from Rice wins $10,000 in 'Recycle Ike' Contest. Carolyn Feibel reports that a team of students and scientists from Rice University has won a $10,000 prize for finding a way to use all the wood waste generated by hurricane Ike. The winning idea is biochar. The Rice team will use the money to build a pilot bioreactor for making biochar.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novanewsnow.com%2Farticle-275289-White-Rock-student-heads-to-Poland.html&id=preview
Poznan, 11-23-08, King County Advertiser, White Rock Student Heads to Poland. Biochar in Poznan coverage kicked off with this article about Canadian Youth Delegation member Thea Whitman. Thea is doing post-graduate work on biochar at Cornell University and is starting a biochar cook stove project in Kenya "with a view to incorporate this process into the Kyoto protocol (or its successors) Clean Development Mechanism."
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FscienceNews%2FidUSTRE4B45KB20081205&id=preview
12-05-08, Reuters, Scientist Says Ancient Technique Cuts Greenhouse Gas. Gerard Wynn reports from Poznan with a basic background piece on biochar and the IBI.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-change%2Fancient-skills-could-reverse-global-warming-1055700.html&id=preview
12-07-08, The Independent, Ancient Skills 'Could Reverse Global Warming.' Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor, reports on a new biochar project by Craig Sams and Dan Morrell planned for Belize and Sussex, and discusses biochar in the context of the climate talks in Poznan.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treehugger.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F12%2Fbetting-on-biochar-to-break-the-co2-imbalance.php&id=preview 12-07-08, Treehugger, Betting on Biochar to Solve Our Super CO2 Imbalance. This top eco blog has a report from April Streeter on the scene in Poznan covering biochar, the IBI, and a new biochar venture.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.mongabay.com%2F2008%2F1210-africa.html&id=preview
12-10-08, Mongabay.com, Africa Calls for "Full-Range" of Bio-Carbon as Climate Solution. This article says, "The African Climate Solution - a partnership launched at the current climate talks in Poznan, Poland - seeks payments from industrialized nations for efforts by developing countries to sequester carbon through land use practices." Biochar is identified as one of the practices.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=jn7lhvcab.0.0.iunelpcab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fnews%2Fstory%2FDangerous-Sea-Level-Rise-Imminent%2Fstory.aspx%3Fguid%3D4A4237D2-E49F-4E36-BF6F-632232ED133E&id=preview
12-11-08, MarketWatch.com, Dangerous Sea Level Rise Imminent Without Large Reductions of Black Carbon and Implementation of Other Fast-Action Mitigation Strategies. MarketWatch ran this report from the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development on important developments at Poznan regarding fast action on climate change and the role of biochar. As an island nation facing rising seas, the Federated States of Micronesia has called for the use of biochar as a "key piece of the fast-action strategy" that can be deployed immediately to begin backing away from climate tipping points.
James Hansen, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?"
Wardle et al article in Science "Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest Humus"
Lehmann and Sohi Technical Comment Response to Wardle 2008 Science Article
Wardle et all Response to Lehmann/Sohi Technical Comment in Science
September 2008 National Geographic article "Our Good Earth" includes Terra Preta and charcoal. For the complete article, see: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
More Carbon for Soils More Carbon for Crops - Carbon Negative Farming with Bio CharBeyond Zero Emissions interviews Dr Lukas Van Zwietan, senior research scientist of the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), on biochar. To link to the interview or listen to the podcast, click here.
Listen to National Public Radio (NPR) article: Charcoal May Help Improve Soil Quality from April 11, 2008. Researchers say that adding charcoal to soil may provide more benefits for long-term soil quality than compost or manure....to hear the complete story, Click here
Photo courtesy of Richard Haard
Charcoal in agriculture: Experimental research at Fourth Corner Nurseries: Link to the article by Richard Haard.
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/haard4cncharcoalreportjan07
and a followup piece here:
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/haard4cncharcoalreportjan11
Stephan M Haefele, "Black Soil, Green Rice", Rice Today Magazine, 2007
The Australian Broadcast Corp (ABC) recently aired a segment on Agrichar on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 8:00 pm. See the ABC Catalyst website for more information by clicking here. The link contains an article, the 11 minute segment, and a transcript of the program. Much of the program was filmed during the 2007 IAI Conference in Terrigal, NSW, Australia.
Johannes Lehmann, "Bio-energy in the Black", Frontiers in Ecology, 2007
Kelpie Wilson, "Terra Preta", Yoga and Joyful Living Magazine, Sept/Oct 2007
Rebecca Renner, "Rethinking biochar", Environmental Science and Technology, September 2007
Johannes Lehmann, "A Handful of Carbon", Nature Magazine, May 2007
"Scientific American Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure"
Link to Waste Management and the Environment, February 2007, by Ron Wainberg and Adriana Downie: "The Pay Dirt of El Dorado"
Emma Marris, Nature Magazine 2006, "Black is the New Green"
Lehmann, Gaunt and Rondon, "Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems--A Review", 2006
Letters to the Editor in Response to Nature 2006 Article
B. Harder, "Smoldered Earth Policy", Sciencenews.org, 2006
David Chandler, "Down-to-earth Fix for the Carbon Crisis", New Scientist, 2006
Yvonne Baskin, Notes from the 2006 AAAS Annual Meeting
The International Biochar Initiative. http://www.biochar-international.org/.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
BIOCHAR IS ON A ROLL
With the report last week of biochar's potential for reducing nitrogen pollution and the just-released report that biochar may be able to reduce overall concentrations of atmospheric carbon by as much as 12 percent, biochar news is really on a roll.
Here's the round-up of recent news from the International Biochar Initiative:
- Charcoal takes some heat off global warming Press Release: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory08/10/2010
- Delivering biochar's triple win BBC News08/10/2010
- Biochar Could Put Huge Global Dent in Greenhouse Gases Discovery News08/10/2010
- Biochar Alone Could Offset 12% of All Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Study Treehugger08/10/2010
- Green machine: Don't burn plant waste, bury it New Scientist08/10/2010
Most interestingly, biochar seems to be bridging the chasm of political polarity.
Here is conservative Andrew Sullivan saying at The Daily Dish, "The Only Solution May Be Technology" and liberal Brad Plumer saying at The New Republic, "Yes, Biochar Really Might Be Magical."
Might Biochar not only be a nature and people win/win but a left/right political win/win as well?
If you are new to the biochar concept, here is a brief video introduction (with translation into Portuguese).
Here is one of the leading biochar experts, Johannes Lehmann, Associate Professor of soil biogeochemistry at Cornell University, discussing the characteristics of naturally occurring terra preta including its agricultural and carbon sequestering benefits. He then turns to considering the factors involved with implementation industrial biochar systems for large-scale carbon sequestration and energy provision. Watch this for the BIG PICTURE.
For the "small is beautiful" side of the biochar vision, check out the extraordinary work of the Biochar Fund among traditional farmers in Africa. Incredibly inspiring!
Finally, the global International Biochar Initiative Conference will be held next month in Rio de Janeiro where the latest-and-greatest advances will be presented and a whole new global citizen's movement of earth healers will be launched.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
BIG BIOCHAR EXPERIMENT IN UK
Profile: The Big Biochar Experiment; using widespread biochar trials for citizen-powered science in the UK
The Big Biochar Experiment is a UK-wide initiative and is the largest study on the use of biochar on British allotments to date. The Experiment aims to gather data to assess the effects of biochar on plant productivity and soil health of widely used fruit and vegetable varieties in the UK. The team is comprised of members of Oxford Biochar Ltd, Earthwatch, the Environmental Change Institute (Oxford University), and the UK Biochar Research Centre. Project partner Dr. Dan Bebber of Earthwatch said, “Biochar holds great potential for addressing some of our greatest challenges, including climate change and food security. This novel experiment will provide important insights on biochar's applicability to the UK farming industry, and allow people to get involved in real science."Saturday, August 01, 2009
HOT BIOCHAR NEWS
photo via Carbon Gold
This is a MAJOR step for biochar which is destined to become a global technology for reducing global warming AND feeding more people AND protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.
Carbon Gold Promote Strict Regulations With World's First Biochar Methodology
by Leonora Oppenheim, London, UK on 07.31.09
photo via Carbon Gold
This is a MAJOR step for biochar which is destined to become a global technology for reducing global warming AND feeding more people AND protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.
Carbon Gold Promote Strict Regulations With World's First Biochar Methodology
by Leonora Oppenheim, London, UK on 07.31.09
Today the world's first biochar methodology has been published for public consultation by the Voluntary Carbon Standard. This ground breaking paper has been submitted by the UK based biochar project developers Carbon Gold. They are confident that their methodology will help create an ethical and sustainable structure for a potential biochar offsetting industry. This method of turning waste biomass into charcoal has been lauded as a miracle solution to rising CO2 emissions, but skeptics have also warned that there is plenty of room for error and exploitation.
Organic Farming + Carbon Offsets = Carbon Gold
Carbon Gold may not ring any bells for you, but the big names behind this new company certainly will. Two very successful UK eco-entrepreneurs are now selling the biochar dream, one being Craig Sams, founder of Green + Blacks chocolate and the other being Dan Morrel founder of Future Forests, now The Carbon Neutral Company. Together they are uniting their experience and skills, in organic farming and carbon offsetting respectively, to commercialise the use of biochar as a Clean Development Mechanism.
Monbiot's Warning
Both Sams and Morrell, whilst evangelical about the benefits of biochar as a way to sequester carbon and enrich soil fertility, are well aware of the potential pitfalls an unregulated market could fall into. George Monbiot's polemical article on biochar in The Guardian a few months ago painted an alarming image of biochar enthusiasts turning 1.4 billion hectares of the planet's surface into charcoal, taking over valuable crop fields and exploiting indigenous people's land .
Sustainable + Ethical Methodology
Naturally Monbiot is deeply skeptical of any silver bullet solution to climate change and so should we be, but Carbon Gold is stepping into the ring on the right foot with a methodology and a statement of principles which aims to create a "sustainable, social and environmental policy under which any biochar project should be developed." If the Voluntary Carbon Standard approves the Methodology then all future biochar projects can be independently verified and certified.
Assessing Carbon Emissions
Carbon Gold's Biochar Methodology has been developed in collaboration with greenhouse house gas emissions assessors Ecometrica and claims to "set out the carbon accounting methods and detailed instructions on how to calculate the reduced or avoided emissions from a biochar project." The accompanying Statement of Principles adds that all projects will only use "biomass feedstocks derived from surplus biomass that is a by-product of agricultural or forestry activities and which would otherwise be burned or left to decay."
Respecting Indigenous Land Rights
We are also impressed by the stated social principles which guarantee local employment and training, health and safety, and land rights, paying "due regard to the principles enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous People." We look forward to hearing more from Carbon Gold about the potentials uses of appropriate technologies and community supported implementation of biochar projects. It looks like Carbon Gold are setting off in the right direction, but will this methodology be enough to allay Monbiot's fears of ending up being surrounded by a famine struck blackened charcoal landscape?
Thursday, August 05, 2010
NO LAUGHING MATTER: BIOCHAR MAY OFFER A SOLUTION FOR A BIG PROBLEM
THE NITROGEN PROBLEM:
While greening farms worldwide, much nitrogen washes into lakes, rivers, and the sea, causing rampant algae growth. More nitrogen billows from power-plant smokestacks, blowing in the wind until it settles as acid rain. Still other nitrogen gases remain in the atmosphere consuming the ozone layer. Nitrous oxide is nearly 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide – considered the leading cause of climate change – and the third most threatening greenhouse gas overall.
Concern about nitrogen pollution is increasing. Last September, disruption of the nitrogen cycle topped the list of global tipping points in this Nature study. Other scientists have ranked nitrogen pollution as one of the top threats to global biodiversity. The Christian Science Monitor reported on the many modes and moods of nitrogen here.
A BIOCHAR SOLUTION:
New Study Says Biochar Reduces Emissions and Runoff
Biochar proponents now have an additional benefit to tout, in addition to increasing crop yields and carbon storage of soil: According to a long-term study in Australia, biochar both reduces nitrous oxide emissions from soil by 73%, and reduces inorganic nitrogen runoff from fields by up to 94%.
The study in the Journal of Environmental Quality, done by Bhupinder Pal Singh of Industry & Investment New South Wales and Balwant Singh from the University of Sydney, found that initially biochar produced inconsistent effects. Early on it appeared that biochar increased nitrous oxide emissions. However, after four months the effect was reversed, with aging of biochar in the soil cited as a possible reason for the switch from adverse to beneficial effects, in terms of emissions.
"The impacts of biochars on nitrous oxide emissions from soil are of interest because even small reductions in nitrous oxide emissions can considerably enhance the greenhouse mitigation value of biochar, which is already proven to be a highly stable carbon pool in the soil environment," according to senior author Bhupinder Pal Singh. "This research highlights that impacts of biochar on nitrogen transformations in soil may change over time and hence stresses the need for long-term studies to assess biochar's potential to reduce nitrogen losses from soil." (Science Daily)
It's still way too early to claim that biochar is the proverbial silver bullet techno-fix but this news sure puts a smile on my face without a whiff of laughing gas.
NOTE: There's an excellent compendium of biochar reports covering everything from the backyard to the laboratory here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
