More hyperbole, half truths and distortion from the same authors as above.(Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch.)
Unfortunate, that this sort of emotive guff gets the headlines and the web.
Quote:
Biochar is a case in point. The highly influential International Biochar Initiative, which seeks funding via the Clean Development Mechanism, is a hybrid of academics and industry. Biochar, essentially charcoal from burning plant material under low oxygen conditions, is being touted as a new way to sequester carbon in soil.
Indeed, the draft negotiating texts for the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December already include support for biochar. [3] “Even if biochar did sequester carbon effectively, which is far from clear, to contribute to mitigating climate change, we would need to char vast quantities of wood and plant matter, a demand that threatens the earth’s remaining biodiversity as well as communities living on so-called marginal lands,” argues Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch. [4] “Biochar, like other forms of black carbon, actually contributes to warming when it becomes airborne. In one recent Quebec field test, 30% of the biochar dust blew away during transport and as it was being spread over the fields and tilled into the soil. [5] This hasn’t been thought through at all.”
|
The ACTivist magazine - White Roofs, Black Dust And Slippery Slopes
Still more debating tricks, lack of logic and informed opinion here
http://asen.org.au/news/2009/03/26/a...nd-ecosystems/
Their comments in red, mine in blue
[COLOR="Red"]Proposals for ‘climate change mitigation’ through large-scale adoption of ‘biochar’ are a dangerous form of geo-engineering based on unfounded claims.
No not true.
A lobby group (the International Biochar Initiative) made up largely of startup ‘biochar’ and agrofuel companies and academics, many of them with related commercial interests, are behind the push for ‘biochar’. Their extremely bold claims are not founded in scientific understanding.
No not true.
+ It is not yet known whether charcoal in soil represents a ‘carbon sink’ at all. Industrial charcoal is very different from Terra Preta, the highly fertile and carbon-rich soils found in Central Amazonia which were created by indigenous peoples hundreds and even thousands of years ago. ‘Biochar’ companies and researchers have not been able to recreate Terra Preta.
No not true. charcoal is mostly carbon. if you bury it in a hole it stays there and sequesters CO2- probably for eons. This is basic chemistry. Yet you accuse 'biochar enthusiasts',of being 'unscientific'?
While no one has claimed to have replicated Brazillian terra preta, many have reported the usual good effects of adding char. increased crop yiedls, less water and fertiser use, less agricultural run off. The Amazonian Indians were adapting their soil to cope with specific environmental and local concerns (Tropical rainforest where it rains every afternoon and leaches soil nutrients). People in other parts of the world have learnt from the Brazillian indians.
People in Scandinavia may never duplicate BTP but they will gain insights into soil biochemistry if they research and play with charcoal or better char+oganic carbon +clay; +or- fertiliser; + or- humates &biological agents.
+ ‘Biochar’ advocates are promoting ‘targets’ which would require the use of 500 million hectares or more of land to be used for producing charcoal plus energy. Industrial monocultures of fast growing trees and other feedstocks for the pulp and paper industry and for agrofuels are already creating severe social and environmental impacts which worsen climate change. This very large new demand for ‘biochar’ would greatly exacerbate these problems.
No not true. Which particular advocate are we talking about and why do you assume he/she talks for everybody interested in this concept/idea? You make an untrue stement and then extrapolate it "This very large new demand" making it sound much worse. This is just a debater's trick. Try to be honest. This is too important to be playing power games.'
+ There is a risk that ‘biochar’ could in future be used to promote the development of genetically engineered (GE) tree varieties specifically engineered for ‘biochar’ production or to try and extend the range of fast-growing trees, both of which could have very serious ecological impacts.
As above, You make an untrue stement and then extrapolate it making it sound much worse.
+ There is no consistent evidence that charcoal can be relied upon to make soil more fertile. Industrial charcoal production at the expense of organic matter needed for making humus could have the opposite results.
[COLOR="Navy"]No not true.
