[Stoves] [biochar-policy] New report, highly favorable to biochar

[Kevin C]

Dear Ron

Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>:

> Kevin:
>
>    I have decided it best that I reply generally and not reply to  
> your specifics.

# If you make specific claims, as you have done, and specific  
statements are made to refute them, then "general replys" don't  
suffice. General replies to a specific statement are "dodging the  
bullet."

  The reasons:
>
> a.  It will encourage you and others to write long comments on  
> articles they have not read.  I’ll bet there is a technical library  
> somewhere near - or write the authors.

# Making sweeping statements about an article behind a paywall, and  
then refusing to deal with my specific "counterpoints" is  
"intellectual evasion." If you wish to make specific statements,  
please provide teh cite to support your claims, and not just an  
Abstract, with teh paper being hidden behind a paywall.



> b.  You are trying to encourage use of the words “climatechar”  and  
> “geochar” that are nonsense words and will lead to confusion where  
> none should exist.

# That is your unsupported opinion. A "biochar" that contained  
excessive levels of toxic heavy metals would clearly be unsuitable for  
use as a "Growchar", but would be an excellent "producer outlet" as  
"Climatechar" or "Geochar."

> c.  I don’t think you will ever agree that when biochar is placed in  
> the ground you get two benefits automatically.  There is no conflict  
> between a CDR benefit and a soil benefit.

# Of course not, but that is not the issue! The issue is equating  
"Biochar",as "Growchar", with chars that could could indeed serve a  
ghood purpose as "Geochar" or as "Climatechar", while being unsuitable  
for use as a "Growchar".

That is me talking, not
> the article (which you have to read to understand).  No one is going  
> to put char in soil (only then called biochar) or anywhere for  
> climate reasons alone.

# That is the first time I have seen you acknowledge that probable  
reality. However, if "Geoengineering" or "Carbon Credits" result in  
payment for application of chars to soils, contaminated chars that  
don't meet "Growchar Grade Biochar Standards" can be sold as "Geochar"  
or "Climatechar". In the meantime, lets focus on building a palpable  
economic case for teh use of "Growchar Grade Biochar" in agriculture.

   (There are serious proposals to do that for
> biomass, not char.)

# Please explain how biomass application to soils can have a "climate  
benefit."

> d.  It should be obvious to anyone reading the abstract that of  
> course this was a paper focussing on geoengineeering.  I never  
> claimed otherwise.

# Look at the Subject Heading of the thread you started. At the very  
best, it is misleading, in that the "general impression" of the  
meaning of "biochar" is "charcoal added to the soil for an  
agricultural benefit". Not a "Geoengineering benefit.

  What I did claim will not be good news to climate
> and biochar deniers - that biochar appears now to be at the top of  
> the CDR alternatives.

# This is what we call a "strawman." Who specifically is denying that  
charcoal is not an excellent means of sequestering carbon?

   Four years ago it was near the bottom.  I am
> talking CDR, not soil;  these are different communities.  Very  
> different.  With commensurate objectives.  Who are not talking to  
> each other.

# That is quite understandable. The "Growchar" folks are interested in  
trying to find ways to use charcoaql additions to agricultural soils  
for an economic benefit, while the "Geochar" or "Climatechar" folks  
are interested in changing teh climate or selling char for Carbon  
Credit Payments.

> e.  It is almost impossible to understand the argument when there is  
> no consistency on the meaning below of blue and black print.

# Sorry about that... my e-mailer has a mind of its own. :-) My  
comments are preceeded by a # sign.

Kevin


>
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Kevin C <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>:
>>
>>>
>>> Kevin,  cc list
>>>
>>>   Not sure if you bought and read the paper.  If so,  
>>> congratulations, but I suggest you re-read it.  If you didn’t buy  
>>> it or otherwise find it in a technical library, I hope you will.
>>
>> # The Paper is $39.95. I have not bought or read it; I have read  
>> only the Abstract.
>>>
>>>    The word “soil” appears three times - including in its  
>>> definition of biochar.
>>
>> # What is tehir definition of "Biochar"?
>>
>> The major statement reads:
>>>
>>>   "Of the three core geoengineering options, biochar performed  
>>> most highly against the co-benefit criterion, scoring moderately  
>>> through its co-benefits to agriculture, namely: improved soil  
>>> conditioning; increased water retention and related lowered  
>>> irrigation demands; and increased productivity and yields.”
>>
>> # This is clearly a paper tailored for "Geoengineering Interests".  
>> The "char material" suitable for meeting "Geoengineering Interests"  
>> can be very different for teh char meeting "agricultural  
>> interests." It is deceptive, misleading, and impractical to require  
>> or infer that "Geochar" is teh same as "Biochar intended for  
>> agriculture"
>>>
>>>    This (for co-benefits) is one of five rankings (out of eight)  
>>> of “most highly” (the top score reported).
>>>
>>>   The great beauty of biochar is there is zero conflict between  
>>> the “geo/climate” function and the soil improvement function -  
>>> apparently difficult for some to realize.
>>
>> # Are they simply saying "Biochar can be used in Agriculture, and  
>> it won't interfere with out Geoengineering objectives"???
>>
>> We are going to see a lot more
>>> biochar for soil improvement when more “geo/climate” analysts  
>>> realize biochar is the best of their options.
>>
>> # Are they saying "Once we get going with Geoengineering, a lot of  
>> char will get used in Agriculture."??? If so, I would suggest they  
>> have "the cart before the horse."
>>
>> The authors of this paper are
>>> saying so.
>>
>> # This is clearly a Geoengineering Paper, wrtitten by people with a  
>> "Geoengineering Agenda." There is no indication that they know  
>> anything about teh economic potential of "biochar" to be of direct  
>> benefit to the Farmer or Grower.
>>
>> I don’t know any other that has, although that is pretty
>>> common for those starting to look at biochar on the soil side.
>>>
>>> One of my complaints about the otherwise wonderful article is they  
>>> failed to mention that biochar production also provides, not  
>>> requires, energy.  This being important to the stoves list to  
>>> which I am also now sending this exchange.
>>
>> # If they have overlooked the fact that there is energy released in  
>> the charring process, this suggests that they know very little  
>> about it.
>>>
>>>  So in sum, you are incorrect.
>>
>> # My statement was:
>>>> This report seems to be reporting on charcoal being used as  
>>>> "Geochar", or "Climatechar". and not on "char" or "charcoal" used  
>>>> as an "agricultural additive."
>> Based on the information contained in the Abstract, it isw  
>> difficult to see where I am significantly in error.
>>
>> The article (peer-reviewed)
>>
>> # If the article was "peer reviewed" by "Geoengineering Peers",  
>> that does not necesarily mean that ""biochar" is good for soils. It  
>> only means that "biochar" is good for Geoengineering.
>>
>> has as
>>> much or more on soils as you could expect in a paper with its  
>>> title - and this is ranking biochar higher even than afforestation  
>>> (which was mentioned, but not in the competition).
>>
>> # An 11 page article on Geoengineering, that mentions "soils" only  
>> three times cannot be considered as a strong recommender for the  
>> use of "biochar" in agriculture. How could they "... rank biochar  
>> even higher than afforestation....", when afforestation was not  
>> even in the competition???
>>
>> # "Geochar" or "Climatechar" could be an excellent market for chars  
>> that were unsuitable or inappropriate for use as "Growchar". I  
>> would suggest that "The Char Market" would be better off if these  
>> different uses for char were segregated.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2014, at 7:02 AM, Kevin C <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Ron
>>>>
>>>> This report seems to be reporting on charcoal being used as  
>>>> "Geochar", or "Climatechar". and not on "char" or "charcoal" used  
>>>> as an "agricultural additive."
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> List:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.   I yesterday obtained at local technical library this paper  
>>>>> (which has a fee) :
>>>>>
>>>>> ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of  
>>>>> options for tackling climate change
>>>>> Rob Bellamy a,b,c,*, Jason Chilvers a,c, Naomi E. Vaughan a,b,  
>>>>> Timothy M. Lenton d
>>>>>
>>>>> Global Environmental Change;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  It provides the most favorable reporting on biochar of any  
>>>>> comparative study I have yet read.  There are 8 decision  
>>>>> criteria, ranked by a selected twelve persons, for three  
>>>>> geoengineering technologies  (Biochar and Air capture on the CDR  
>>>>> side and only sulfur aerosols on the SRM side).  There are also  
>>>>> a similar small number of mitigation and adaptation votes.  The  
>>>>> text is much more positive on biochar than the graphs would  
>>>>> indicate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.  I will later send more on the results.  Where the panel  
>>>>> thought biochar fell down (Efficacy), I think the mapping team  
>>>>> (the paper authors) were not sufficiently aware of biochar’s  
>>>>> unique capabilities in out-year knock-on effects and in being  
>>>>> able to apply geotherapy to land we have ruined.  They worry  
>>>>> about land availability;  now I don’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can’t now recall how the paper came to my attention, but  
>>>>> thanks if from this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>