Why are the Warministas afraid of Biochar?

My scepticism about the AGW proposition is obvious and well known but that does not prevent me from offering an opinion of the efficacy of the schemes devised and promulgated to address the issue. Where I tend to take a rather Hippocratic approach, namely that any idea to address “Climate Change” should in the first instance do no harm but secondly I believe that there should be other benefits from the plan that will remain a benefit even if the AGW enthusiasts are proven to be as wrong as I tend to think they are. Thus I am all for making every thing we do as energy efficient as we can make them, and if we are to try to mitigate carbon emissions then ideas like Biochar are far superior to stupidity like a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme

According to a new study, as much as 12 percent of the world’s human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could be sustainably offset by producing biochar, a charcoal-like substance made from plants and other organic materials. That’s more than would be offset if the same plants and materials were burned to generate bioenergy, says the study. Additionally, biochar could improve food production in the world’s poorest regions as it increases soil fertility.

Biochar is made by decomposing biomass like plants, wood and other organic materials at high temperature in a process called slow pyrolysis – a form of incineration that decomposes organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. Normally, biomass breaks down and releases its carbon into the atmosphere within a decade or two. But biochar is more stable and can hold onto its carbon for hundreds or even thousands of years, keeping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide out of the air longer.

Other biochar benefits include: improving soils by increasing their ability to retain water and nutrients; decreasing nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the soil into which it is tilled; and, during the slow pyrolysis process, producing some bio-based gas and oil that can offset emissions from fossil fuels.

The reality is that there is another agenda for most of the Warministas that has nothing at all to do with the climate otherwise it would be them and not the coalition suggesting that we pursue this sort of approach to AGW…
Cheers Comrades

Advertisement

2 thoughts on “Why are the Warministas afraid of Biochar?

  1. “…..AGW enthusiasts are proven to be as wrong as I tend to think they are.”

    Come on Iain, proven to be wrong, the lying sacks of sh!t were blown sky-high out of the water months ago.

    As for biochar, if you can convince the leftards that it won’t work, and must need more taxation to prop it up, you’ll get their steadfast support, if you provide evidence that it will work, they won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.

  2. All political persuasions agree, building soil carbon is GOOD.
    To Hard bitten Farmers, wary of carbon regulations that only increase their costs, Building soil carbon is a savory bone, to do well while doing good.
    Biochar provides the tool powerful enough to cover Farming’s carbon foot print while lowering cost simultaneously.

    Biochar systems for Biofuels and soil carbon sequestration are so basically conservative in nature it is a shame that republicans have not seized it as a central environmental policy plank as the conservatives in Australia have; Carbon sequestration without Taxes.

    Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.
    Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,
    Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
    Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

    Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
    “Feed the Soil Not the Plants” becomes;
    “Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !”.
    Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
    Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
    Microbes like to sit down when they eat.
    By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders & Kingdoms of life.

    This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of penitence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.
    Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic “capture” collectors are up and running, the “storage” sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

    Another significant aspect of low cost Biomass cook stoves that produce char is removal of BC aerosols and no respiratory disease emissions. At Scale, replacing “Three Stone” stoves the health benefits would equal eradication of Malaria http://biocharfund.org/
    The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF).recently funded The Biochar Fund $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
    (1) Hunger amongst the world’s poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
    (2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
    (3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
    (4) Climate change.

    The Biochar Fund :
    Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon
    The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all ( that , and the size of the Biochar corn root balls )
    http://biocharfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=75

    Mark my words; Given the potential for Laurens Rademaker’s programs to grow exponentially, only a short time lies between This man’s nomination for a Noble Prize.

    This authoritative PNAS article should cause a rethink of any criticism of Biochar systems of Soil carbon sequestration;
    Reducing abrupt climate change risk using
    the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory
    actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf+html

    NASA’s Space Archaeology; $364K Terra Preta Program
    http://archaeologyexcavations.blogspot.com/2010/08/time-traveling-via-satellite.html

    For those looking for an overview of biochar and its benefits, These authors have done a very nice job of distilling a great deal of information about biochar and applying it to the US context:

    US -Focused Biochar report: Assessment of Biochar’s Benefits for the USA http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf

Comments are closed.