Terra preta has some serious political challenges to face. Excerpted from my post,
Agrichar future:
Charcoal production as a tool to combat global warming can be understandably counterintuitive. Char's mode of action in the soil is only partly understood, the degree of benefit to the soil is not well documented. Claimed char additions may be difficult to monitor.
Various blog and forum posts ask: Does the fuel value of charcoal provide a dangerous incentive to divert agrichar to fuel use? To overharvest biomass? Can the reality of terra preta nova be separated from marketing pitches by commercial pyrolysis interests?
Excerpted from Back40's post,
Mental Rut:
...politics isn't about sense, it's about power, status and money. Agrichar is a threat to the income and security of politicians and bureaucrats who exploit climate change. It's a better carbon sink and doesn't need any subsidies, regulations or coercion. This undermines some of the other exploits, exposes their weakness and inappropriateness for the current problem set. That can't be allowed. If agrichar isn't subsidized or controlled in some way, they'll try to make it illegal to protect their rackets. It's too good, too cheap and too free to be allowed to go unregulated.
