Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] The dark side of black earth

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: lbsaltzman@aol.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] The dark side of black earth
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:21:28 -0500

It is interesting how a promising, but unproven idea can be co-opted and
turned into a high tech, high energy solution.  With the work that
Permaculture designers like Darren Doherty are doing with carbon farming, we
have many safer alternatives to storing carbon in the soil.  Biochar was only
one part of the complex and sane manipulation of the environment that the
natives of the Amazon used to build sustainable food forests.  Isolating just
biochar, and suddenly shipping it all over the world doesn't sound like a
good idea.  Let's use local resources to build carbon into the soil.


-----Original Message-----
From: rafter t. sass <liberationecology@gmail.com>
To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 6:30 am
Subject: [permaculture] The dark side of black earth



Great discussion of what happens when you look at terra preta mimicry
hrough a geoengineering lens...
rafter t. sass
he Liberation Ecology Project
iberationecology.org
18-567-7407
kype: raughter


egin forwarded message:
> From: Ethan G <ethanagri4@gmail.com>
Date: February 20, 2009 12:22:23 AM EST
To: growing_foodandjustice@lists.riseup.net
Subject: [food_justice] a 2nd look at biochar: fact or fiction?

I want to apologize for my recent haste in promoting "biochar" as a
climate solution on this list. I admit I was so blinded by my
respect for scientist James Lovelock -- and impressed by his
endorsement of biochar as "the one solution" for climate change --
that I suspended my usual skepticism a
gainst technologies that
appear too good to be true. Yet looking deeper, I realize that there
are good reasons to be critical of biochar and opposed to its
industrial production.

Fortunately, Biofuelwatch has come out with a new paper critiquing
biochar. The conclusion: "Lobbying is underway for a massive scaling
up of biochar production, and yet there is little to substantiate
the many proclaimed benefits. It is critical that we address this
issue with caution, especially given the many dire consequences
associated with any technology that involves large biomass demand
and manipulation of poorly understood soil ecosystems!"

I think it is very important to understand the many ways that
industrial agriculture contributes to global warming ... but in the
course of advocating the very legitimate & real benefits of
sustainable agriculture as a climate solution (like the Rodale
Institute has been doing) we also need to be able to discern when
agricultural schemes like biofuels and, now, "biochar" are likely to
cause more harm --and injustice -- than good.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf

Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation:
Fact or Fiction?
Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker, February 2009

INTRODUCTION
Soils are extremely diverse and dynamic, playing a fundamental role
in supporting communities of plants, detritivores (which break down
organic matter) and microbial communities, interacting
with the
atmosphere, regulating water cycles and much more. As we face the
catastrophic impacts of climate change, efforts to "engineer" the
climate are proliferating. Among these is a proposal to use soils as
a medium for addressing climate change by scaling up the use of
biochar. Unfortunately, like other such schemes to engineer
biological systems, it is based on a dangerously reductionist view
of the natural world, which fails to recognize and accommodate
ecological complexity and variation.

Research on biochar is clearly indicating that there simply is no
"one-size-fits-all" biochar solution, that many critically important
issues remain poorly understood, and that there
are likely to be serious and unpredictable negative impacts if this
technology is adopted on a large scale. Yet proponents still do not
hesitate to make unsubstantiated claims and to
lobby for very significant supports to scale up their technology.
Thus far there has been little public awareness or debate over the
large-scale application of biochar. The speed with which lobbying
efforts are moving forward at national and international levels is
alarmingly similar to the situation observed with agrofuels several
years ago; poorly considered, based on unsubstantiated claims and
accompanied by an effective "greenwash", the industry grew very
rapidly and secured policy and financial support measures which even
the UN's Food and Agricul
ture Organization has proclaimed a mistake.
It is imperative that we do not repeat the errors by embracing yet
another technology that is poorly understood, inherently risky and
will likely encourage further land conversion and expansion of
industrial monocultures.

WHAT IS BIOCHAR AND HOW IS IT PRODUCED?

The term "biochar" was invented by Peter Read (one of the most
outspoken lobbyists for vast 'biochar' plantations) to describe
charcoal used as a soil amendment for agriculture.
Some companies use the word 'biochar' to describe any use of
charcoal, even for fuel or industry, because the word 'biochar'
sounds more 'clean and green' than charcoal.
Charcoal is made by burning organic matter like wood, grasses,
manure or residues from sugar cane or palm oil production under
conditions of low oxygen. Low oxygen burning is
referred to as pyrolysis. A number of different pyrolysis techniques
are possible, depending on speed, temperature and oxygen delivery.
In addition to the charcoal byproduct, this form of pyrolysis also
produces "bio-oil" and "syngas", both of which can be further
refined into road transport or, potentially, aviation fuels.
Pyrolysis can be used to generate electricity, fuel ships, boilers,
aluminum smelters and cooking stoves.

"MAGICAL CHARCOAL"?

The biochar lobby's blueprint for solving the climate, food and
energy crises

Companies like Eprida, Dynamotive, Best Energies, Heartland 0D Bioenergy,
Shell, Brazil's Embrapa, JP Morgan Chase, Biochar
Engineering, the executive director of the Indonesian palm oil
association (GAPKI) and the Bolivian Agribusiness company Desarollos
Agricolas, among others, claim that 'biochar' production is "carbon
negative:" Firstly, carbon emitted during pyrolysis is supposedly
offset by the carbon absorbed by new plant growth, and therefore
"carbon-neutral," the same (false) claim made for other plant-based
energy technologies. But in addition, during pyrolysis, a portion of
the plant carbon is retained in the charcoal. If the carbon-rich
charcoal is then tilled into soils, that portion, it is claimed, can
be sequestered away, thus reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in
the atmosphere. Unfortunately, this accounting completely ignores
the numerous ecological and social impacts from land use changes
that occur when massive demands for plant biomass are created, and
is not supported by current scientific understanding of the fate of
charcoal in soils. Proponents claim that charcoal can not only
sequester carbon, on a globally significant scale, but also improve
soil fertility, and thereby reduce demand for synthetic fertilizers
and emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) ,
and can conserve and purify water, prevent runoff of chemicals from
farm lands, reduce emissions of nitrogen
oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx) from coal burning power plants, 0D
reduce emissions of black carbon from biomass cooking fires, reduce
methane emissions from decomposing
organic waste piles and more. Sound too good to be true?

The claims on behalf of 'biochar' are based in large part from the
observation of "Terra Preta". Thousands of years ago, indigenous
peoples in Central Amazonia developed
methods for creating highly fertile and carbon rich soil by mixing
charcoal from a variety of biomass sources with other diverse
organic materials and using those in their gardens and fields.
Amazonian rainforest soils normally lack nutrients and contain
little organic matter. But the soils tended and enriched by these
peoples still to this day retain much of the
original carbon-rich charcoal and are much more fertile than
surrounding soils. The question is: can we replicate their success
using industrial production?

WHAT THE INDUSTRY AND LOBBYISTS WANT

Modern day applications and proposals for 'biochar' range in size
and scope: small-scale operations are promoted as providing people
living on forest frontiers with a means of
maintaining soil fertility and hence reducing deforestation.
Charcoal-making cooking stoves are promoted as a means for reducing
the problems of black soot, and respiratory
illness created by open cooking fires. Large scale use of pyrolysis,
which produces charcoal as a byproduct, aims to contribute
significantly to addressing the energy demands in
industriali
zed countries. Finally, scientists such as James Hansen,
Johannes Lehmann, Peter Read, Tim Flannery advocate climate
geoengineering, using "carbon negative"
bioenergy technologies including 'biochar' from hundreds of millions
of hectares of "energy crops" and trees.

Prior to any genuine and open public debate, well-connected
lobbyists are hard at work promoting 'biochar': Their main
international forum, the International Biochar Initiative, was
present at the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) climate conference in Poznan. There the UN
Convention to Combat Desertification,
(UNCCD), and the government of Micronesia succeeded in getting
biochar included in the draft agenda for the Copenhagen climate
negotiations in 2009. UNCCD is calling for the inclusion of biochar
into the "dialogue for the post 2012 climate regime", alongside
"afforestation and reforestation". They also seek revision of CDM
guidelines, (claiming that additionality can be directly and
accurately measured for 'biochar'), and the abolition of the 1%
limit for credit that currently applies to "afforestation and
reforestation". A recommendation could be made to the Subsidiary
Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in June 2009,
followed by endorsement in Copenhagen UNFCCC, December 2009.

At a recent high level conference by IES, GLOBE-EU, GLOBE-EUROPE,
the European Economic and Social Committee and EurActiv considere
d
requests not just for 'biochar'
CDM credits, but double CDM credits. Biochar Europe, which includes
Shell, JP Morgan, a carbon offsetting company, and the Centre for
Rural Innovations (organisers of the First
International Conference on Sharing Innovative Agribusiness
Solutions), is strongly lobbying for the inclusion of 'biochar' into
the EU Emission Trading Scheme, and also for
establishment of a Biochar Technology Platform. In the US, the
'biochar' lobby is well connected with the new administration. The
new secretary of the Interior, Salazar, previously submitted an
amendment to the Farm Bill to support 'biochar' research and
development. One of the main US groups behind 'biochar' is Renew the
Earth, which is very well connected nationally and internationally.
In Australia, the opposition Liberal Party supports large-scale
charcoal use as a soil amendment, in New Zealand the Forestry
Ministry has voiced its support, Embrapa in Brazil is represented in
the International Biochar Initiative. 'Biochar' lobby forums have
been set up elsewhere, for example in Canada and in Mongolia.

PROMISES VERSUS EVIDENCE

Before national and international financial supports are put in
place, and before we scale up production of charcoal for use as a
soil amendment, shouldn't we make sure the
proclaimed benefits are in fact valid? While it is true that Terra
Preta was incredibly successful, the indigenous peoples in p
re-
colonial Amazonia developed their technique over a long period based
on small-scale, biodiverse farming techniques and a knowledge base
that is now largely lost. Charcoal was only part of their technique.
Modern techniques, based on industrial monocultures and seeking
instantaneous economic rewards are quite different. How do the
claims hold up?

DOES BIOCHAR INCREASE SOIL FERTILITY? A CLOSE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE

The farmers who created Terra Preta added diverse types of biomass
to the soil, thus building up humus as well as charcoal. 'Biochar'
advocates, on the other hand, promote stripping the land of
'agricultural and forestry residues', which would greatly reduce
humus. Done on a large scale, this would to replace at least some
humus with biologically 'dead' charcoal, an untested but potentially
very dangerous strategy. As farmers practicing swidden agriculture
have long known, adding some charcoal to the soil can help to make
some soils temporarily more fertile, not least because 'fresh'
charcoal retains nutrients essential for plant growth. This is
different from the long-term fertile Terra Preta. Studies have shown
that soil recently amended with charcoal has been shown to have
quite different properties from Terra Preta. Soil scientist Bruno
Glaser has suggested that it may take 50-100 years for interactions
between soil microbes and charcoal to create soils resembling Terra
Preta.
A recent field study near Manaus, Brazil (one of the few
published in peer reviewed journals) found that charcoal mixed with
synthetic fertilizer enhanced yields more than synthetic fertilizer
alone, but the highest reported yields were obtained using solely
chicken manure instead. Charcoal alone, actually suppressed plant
growth completely after two harvests!3 Other studies have shown that
charcoal amendments can, in the short term, either increase or
decrease plant yields, depending amongst other things on the
quantities of charcoal added, soil type and crop tested.4 There are
no longer-term field studies and so it is not known whether the
increased plant growth sometimes observed with the addition of
charcoal would be sustained over the longer term. The much touted
fertility effect of biochar is thus dangerously unfounded.

In fact much of the industry and research focus is on producing
fertilizer made from a combination of charcoal and synthetic
nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium bicarbonate). This
technology was pioneered by US company Eprida. They use pyrolysis to
produce hydrogen and charcoal which is then used as a medium for
scrubbing the flue-gases from
coal burning facilities. NOx, SOx and CO2, adhere to the charcoal.
For every kg of carbon thus 'captured' from a coal power plant, 33
kg of dry biomass would need to be burned.
Little is known about the fate of this flue-gas carbon in soils, =2
0
even less than is known about the fate of charcoal carbon.
Nonetheless, Eprida claim that this could allow coal
power plants "to reach target [CO2] reductions without reducing
plant efficiencies".5This "enriched" biochar is then used as a slow-
release fertilizer. An innovative means for using
biomass to create fertilizer, perhaps, but the underlying result is
a so-called carbon capture and sequestration technology which will
perpetuate the use of coal and dangerously places absolute faith in
the retention of carbon in soils. Moreover, nitrogen fertilizers
lead to emissions of nitrous oxide, which is about 300 times more
potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Proponents claim
that adding charcoal to fertilizers could reduce nitrous oxide
emissions from soil and reduce the quantity of nitrogen fertilizers
used, if such fertilizers become more efficient as a result of
charcoal amendments. However, soil scientist and chair of the
International Biochar Initiative Johannes Lehmann has stated that it
is not yet known whether charcoal reduces nitrous oxide emissions
and, that overall the impact of charcoal on soil nitrogen is poorly
understood.6

CAN WE RELY ON 'BIOCHAR' TO SEQUESTER CARBON?

There is no question that the carbon in biochar will eventually end
up back in the atmosphere at some point in the future. It is
biological carbon: free to circulate between the atmosphere, soils,
plants,
oceans etc. and thus capable of contributing to climate
change. Fossil carbon, on the other hand, is permanently and safely
sequestered within
the earth's crust. The problem of climate change is caused by the
dual impacts of both extracting fossil carbon and dumping it into
the above ground biological pool, and at the
same time, damaging ecosystems so severely that their capacity to
store carbon is compromised. 'Biochar', like other bio-sequestration
technologies does nothing to stem the
flow of fossil carbon into the biosphere. Instead, it seeks to
address the problem by manipulating "sink capacity" of the
biosphere. Worse yet, the close link between the coal
industry and biochar production models of companies such as Eprida
and Carbon Crucible suggests that 'biochar' will further perpetuate
fossil fuel burning. This would also be the
case if biochar is included in carbon trading mechanisms where it
would be used to "offset" and legitimize further fossil fuel burning.

Can charcoal act as a reliable carbon sink? Amazonian indigenous
peoples succeeded in designing a method which has maintained soil
carbon for thousands of years. Elsewhere, some charcoal remains in
soil have been dated as far back as 23,000 years ago. According to
Lehmann et al., modern large scale charcoal application could
sequester as
much as 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year, which would necessitate
over 500 millions of hec
tares of dedicated plantations. Even if we
could duplicate the success of Terra
Preta on a small scale, the climate impacts of converting large
parts of the planet to 'charcoal plantations' would be devastating
and involve large-scale deforestation and other ecosystem
destruction. The carbon contained in the charcoal might be
sequestered for a while, but how long is "a while"? What if we fail?
What if modern charcoal remained in soils for a hundred years or
even less, but then suddenly released its' carbon back into the
atmosphere? Proponents are confident enough that they argue
'biochar' should be classed as a "permanent" carbon sink, at least
permanent enough to be included in a post 2012 climate agreement. So
far the results from small scale soil-science studies paint a very
different picture. In order for 'biochar' to be properly deemed a
'carbon sink', two conditions must be fulfilled: First, we must be
sure that the carbon in the charcoal will not end up being
broken down and emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Second,
we must also be sure that adding charcoal does not cause large
quantities of the pre-existing carbon in the
soil to degrade and release CO2. Neither can be guaranteed at present.

Can 'biochar' become a carbon source? The success of Terra Preta
proves that under certain environmental conditions, some black
carbon (the type of carbon found in charcoal) can
remain in the soil
for very long periods. But there is equally clear evidence that
black carbon can be, and frequently is, lost from soil. Worldwide,
far more black carbon is produced by wildfires every year than
remains in soils or, through erosion, ends up in the oceans. A
recent peer-reviewed study of black carbon remains from swidden
agriculture in Western Kenya revealed that 72% of the carbon was
lost in the first 20-30 years.7 The processes through which black
carbon is lost are not well understood. Johannes
Lehmann of Cornell University, chair of the IBI, has confirmed that
very little is known about how long charcoal will remain in the soil
and that this will depend on various factors,
including soil type and climate, type of biomass used and
temperature at which it is charred.8 It is not certain that all of
the black carbon lost from soil ends up in the
atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but there is worrying evidence that at
least a significant proportion of it does.

Wildfires may play a role in the loss of soil carbon from charcoal,
and an ongoing study is underway to examine whether fires can cause
the carbon in charcoal to be degraded and
released into the atmosphere.9 Meanwhile there is good evidence that
soil microbes can and do metabolize black carbon, which results in
the carbon being emitted into the
atmosphere.10 In fact, one concern is that the large sc
ale
application of charcoal could create an expanded ecological niche
for black-carbon degrading microbes.11 There is also
strong evidence that charcoal can increase soil microbial activity
which degrades preexisting (non charcoal) soil organic carbon into
carbon dioxide. A 2008 peer-reviewed
study suggests that placing charcoal into boreal forest soil led to
the loss of substantial amounts of soil organic carbon over ten
years.12 Initial result of a study in Colombia show
60% increases in soil carbon losses during two years of 'biochar'
use, compared to control plots. Although the final conclusions have
not yet been published, this may well be in line
with other studies suggesting increased microbial activity and
increased loss of original soil carbon through charcoal.13

In sum, there is little basis for confidence that charcoal will
retain carbon in soils. The charcoal itself can be degraded, and
charcoal encourages microbial activity that in some
cases degrades either the charcoal carbon or other soil organic
carbon or both. In other words, charcoal in soil has the potential
to become a carbon source, rather than a carbon
sink. This is especially true if the carbon emissions associated
with large scale land conversion, discussed below, are included in
the equation.

OTHER GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS OF 'BIOCHAR'

Airborne black carbon, or soot, is the second greatest contributor
to global warming after carbo
n dioxide, according to James Hansen.
It is emitted from fossil fuel and biomass
burning. 'Biochar' proponents claim that charcoal-making stoves can
play a major role in reducing black soot emissions which is also
true for many different types of 'clean' biomass
stoves. A review by Dominic Woolf warns that, if the charcoal is not
transported, stored and added to the soil with care, the black
carbon content could become airborne and thus
contribute to global warming. 14 This raises the question of how
biochar is to be integrated into soils. Images from an Australian
biochar trial suggest Best Energies, for example,
simply lays the biochar on top of soil and vegetation without
incorporating it. 15 But to avoid the problem of airborne black
carbon, it will likely be essential that biochar be tilled
deep into soils, a disruptive process which results in carbon
emissions from soil.

CLAIMS ABOUT SOIL WATER RETENTION AND NUTRIENT LEACHING

Biochar proponents argue that biochar can increase the water
retention of soils, reducing the need for irrigation, resulting in
greater plant growth, decreasing water run-off and
thereby reducing soil erosion and leaching of agricultural nutrients
(a major cause of freshwater and marine pollution).

There is evidence that biochar does indeed increase the water
retention of soils – as in the case of Terra Preta. But this has
been shown most clearly for sandy soils
, and does not
appear to hold true for loamy or clayey soils. In loamy soil, it
does not change water retention while in clayey soil it actually
reduces it. Additionally, there is some concern that
charcoal has properties which over time and particularly after a
fire could result in soils actually becoming water-repellent.16

The evidence regarding biochar and nutrient leaching is, once again,
far from uniform, with Johannes Lehmann confirming that far more
research is needed. One study found
that when synthetic fertilizers are used on Terra Preta, nutrient
leaching increases dramatically, well beyond what happens when
synthetic fertilizers are added to lower
carbon soils. In the same experiment, modern charcoal as well as
synthetic fertilizers were applied to soil and this resulted in
lower nutrient leaching compared to using synthetic
fertilizers alone. This study again shows that soils with modern
charcoal behave differently from Terra Preta and that serious
uncertainties remain. Although in that particular
experiment, modern charcoal did reduce nutrient leaching caused by
synthetic fertilizers, the results cannot be extrapolated to all
different soil types.17

"GOOD FOR THE POOR"?

Some biochar initiatives are presented as "pro-poor" strategies to
improve livelihoods, charcoal-making stoves, for example. Indeed,
finding efficient and cleaner alternatives to
open fire cooking is critical. Emissions of black soot from open

cooking fires contribute to global warming while particulate matter
is a major cause of respiratory disease. Collecting
fuel wood for cooking fires is often time-consuming and a major
energy drain, especially for women and children.

Unfortunately, while charcoal producing cooking stoves reduce soot
and particulate emissions, they are considerably less efficient than
other 'clean' biomass stoves in that a
portion of the biomass collected and burned is retained as charcoal,
hence unavailable as cooking energy. This means that a family will
need to collect 20-30% more wood or
'residues' for cooking than they would need for a more efficient
stove that does not produce charcoal. Proponents of charcoal-making
stoves justify the added demand on the
basis that the charcoal can be used as a soil amendment, improving
yields and reducing the expense of purchasing fertilizer a claim
which, as we have been above, is highly
questionable. The IBI is supporting charcoal-making stove projects
in a number of countries, including India and Mongolia. It is
however not clear whether local people are
presented with a choice between charcoal-making stoves and other
more efficient ones.18

Another "pro-poor" initiative encourages charcoal production as a
means of maintaining soil fertility for farmers on the "forest
frontier" where soils are weak and generally cannot
support farming for more than a few years at best. Proponents,=2
0such
as the company Biochar Fund, claim that "slash and char" will enable
the enrichment of soils and hence
reduce the need for farmers to clear new land. Promoting biochar to
small farmers means using them to test a technique that is far from
proven. If it fails, farmers will be left with
crop failures and debt. Meanwhile, the more promising ammonium
bicarbonate fertilizer will be patented and thus will benefit
companies rather than poor farmers.

The inclusion of biochar in carbon trade schemes will further reduce
benefits to the poor. As Larry Lohmann has shown: "The CDM's market
structure biases it against small
community-based projects, which tend not to be able to afford the
high transaction costs necessary for each scheme."19 In the case of
biochar, concerns over air pollutants created
during pyrolysis, and introduction of toxic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) to soils will likely indicate mandatory testing
before credits are granted, further pricing
farmers out of carbon markets.

INDUSTRIAL 'BIOCHAR' FOR GEO-ENGINEERING?

Any technology that increases demand for plant biomass must be very
carefully scrutinized in light of 1) greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from the conversion of land, and 2) the already
unsustainable demand for agricultural and forest products, soil,
freshwater and biodiversity. 3) impacts on people's access to land.
Some 'biochar' advocates focus on the use of "w
astes and residues"
and crops grown on "marginal and idle" lands. The same claims have
been made for other bioenergy technologies, but the reality is that
there are no large quantities of wastes and residues lying around
unclaimed; not on a scale that can supply facilities over time and
substantially contribute to energy demands. Furthermore,
removing residues and dead wood dangerously depletes soil nutrients,
makes land more vulnerable to drought and reduces biodiversity. Nor
are there vast expanses of "marginal
and idle" lands. Such terminology dangerously excludes land uses
that are not formally recognized as contributing to global markets.
Traditional uses, where formal title is
unclear, are considered "marginal", even when they are critical to
the livelihoods of rural smallholder farmers, pastoralists and
others. This is already resulting in unprecedented
displacement, often violent, as countries, corporations and private
investors increasingly seek access to land for food, energy and
secure, profitable investments.20

When large scale energy crops are required, as would certainly be
the case if biochar is adopted as a strategy to reduce atmospheric
greenhouse gas levels, emissions from land
use change become very concerning. Clearing of forests or grasslands
to make way for energy crop monoculture results in large quantities
of emissions, reduces future sink
capacity and causes further collapse of ecosystems and t
he
biodiversity on which we depend for climate regulation. As
widespread freshwater shortages are predicted, the
regulation of rainfall by healthy forests and soils becomes
increasingly critical, and the allotment of water for irrigation of
energy crops increasingly unsustainable. For a more detailed
discussion about the impact of large-scale bioenergy production for
geo-engineering and for the experience with first generation
agrofuels, see:


www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/publications/Therealcostofagrofuels.pdf

> ,

www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/cnbe/cnbe.html and
www.econexus.info/pdf/Agrofuels.pdf
> .

CONCLUSION

Lobbying is underway for a massive scaling up of biochar production,
and yet there is little to substantiate the many proclaimed
benefits. It is critical that we address this issue with
caution, especially given the many dire consequences associated with
any technology that involves large biomass demand and manipulation
of poorly understood soil ecosystems!

20 Agrofuels and the Myth of the Marginal Lands, Joint briefing
published by Gaia Foundation,
September 2008, www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/Agrofuels&MarginalMyth.pdf
To change your subscriber options (e.g., digest mode,standard
mode,unsubscribe), contact: dianefaydodge@hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
ermaculture mailing list
ermaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
ubscribe or unsubscribe here:
ttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
oogle command to search archives:
ite:http://lists.ibiblio.org/piperma
il/permaculture searchstring





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page