Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Soil Carbonization - THE TREATMENT for PERMANENT Soil Fertility

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vital Scherrer" <vital233@hotmail.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Soil Carbonization - THE TREATMENT for PERMANENT Soil Fertility
  • Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:39:17 +0100

Hello,
Discussing about carbon in mulches, I wonder whether the article below has ever been published and reviewed in this forum; as I am new here I would have thought it did. But as it is one of the most important issues, it's certainly vital to bring it up (again?). I would appreciate it to get information about experiences and possibly alternative furnace constructions and -methods to produce the low temperature charcoal, possibly suppliers of furnaces or even of the charcoal.
Cheerio
Vital, Madeira, Portugal


SAVING THE PLANET WHILE SAVING THE FARM
How soil carbonization could save the planet while it saves the family farm

A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup
It is not enough to try to browbeat business as well as the population into giving up fossil fuels... Fossil fuels are simply far too convenient, cheap and easy to use for their use to end anytime soon, no matter how repressive government gets. If we are going to solve the problem of global warming, it won't happen by denying the problem, as conservatives tend to do, or by browbeating people into spending more money on less convenient alternative energy sources, as liberals would seem to prefer. The only realistic solution - what must be done - is to make the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere a non-problem.

For a long time, soil geologists and archaeologists faced a mystery.

The mystery was a nagging one, but not an urgent problem that impelled soil scientists to travel to the Amazon jungles to solve. But it was an intriguing problem which was finally solved by an archaeological survey - a survey which involved soil geology.

For many years, it had been known that among the extremely weathered and infertile soils of the Amazon basin, some of the least-fertile soils on the planet, there are large, widespread patches of highly fertile soil. Soil that is not just fertile, but extremely fertile - so fertile and so valuable that for many years it has actually been mined and exported. What was the difference? The only visible difference was that the fertile soil is black, pitch-black, and grew just about anything with ease, and the infertile soils, just a few meters away, are a pale yellow color, and are so infertile that almost nothing except native weeds can grow in them.

Archaeologists had long noted that in the black soil, there were also abundant pottery fragments, apparently left behind by pre-columbian aboriginals. Not just a few, either, but in many places in the black soil, the pottery fragments were so numerous that they made up as much as ten percent of the soil volume - but the pottery fragments only occurred where the soil was black. The source of the pottery fragments was a considerable mystery to the archaeologists, as nothing was known about where they came from or how they came to be there in such abundance. So a few years ago, archaeologists undertook a survey of the black earth ("terra preta" as it is locally known) areas to determine just where the pottery came from and how many indigenous peoples must have been living in the area.

The results of the survey were startling indeed. The black earth areas, about twice the size of Great Britain, together had supported as many as three million people - more than had been believed to have ever inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere at any one time. They had realized that the black earth was fertile, but had never imagined that the Amazon basin could be so hugely productive.

The survey solved another mystery, too, this one a historical mystery. In the year 1541, the first European exploration of the Amazon river occurred when Francisco de Orellana, a Spanish conquistador, floated down the Amazon river from a tributary in the Peruvian Andes to the mouth in the Atlantic, a distance of more than five thousand miles. The privations of the journey, lack of food, prevalence of jungle diseases and the like took their toll, and the crew of Orellana's expedition died, almost to a man. By the time he returned to Spain to tell his tale, he alone remained. His epic history included stories of huge cities, with markets bulging with foods of every description, and of course, gold. Orellana's tales contributed greatly to the legend of El Dorado. But when the Spanish finally returned to the Amazon eighty years later, all they found was empty jungle, with a few scattered natives subsisting off of the rain forest. Oreallana's descriptions were dismissed as fantasy by generations of historians. Impossible, they said, couldn't have happened.

What we now know is that the Amazon did, indeed, support large communities of aboriginal peoples, which seem to have mysteriously vanished into the hunter-gatherer tribes seen by later European explorers. But we also know, from archaeological evidence, that they may (and probably did) survive into post-Columbian times, only to quickly disappear. And it was apparently the disease brought by Orellana and his men that caused the sudden decline, as European contact did in so many other places. When the cities were swept by disease, they were abandoned, and the jungle quickly reclaimed the sites, leaving nothing behind for explorers to find eighty years later. So, as we now know, the legend of the rich cities of the Amazon did have a basis in fact. And it was the terra preta, the black soil, which sustained that vast culture, that was the real gold of El Dorado.

All this got the curiosity of the archaeologists really going. What could possibly make the difference - why was the terra preta so fertile, when the soil around it was so sterile? They finally felt compelled to call in soil geologists to find out. And the discovery they made astounded them.

The soil scientists studied every possible aspect of the black soil - its minerology, its geological history, its chemistry and its physical structure, but what they discovered was truly amazing to them as well as to the archaeologists. The mineral content of the soil is identical to the sterile yellow clay - there was no geological or mineralogical difference. The only difference between the sterile yellow clay of the Amazon river basin and the incredibly rich and fertile terra preta of that region is the presence of finely divided charcoal powder in the terra preta.

Apparently, the indigenous farmers of the region had taken to carbonizing their farm waste, grinding the charcoal to a fine powder, and adding it to the soil. The richest soil samples, those with the greatest fertility, were between twenty and forty percent charcoal by volume, and the charcoal was powdered to a fine powder - a few hundred microns was the average particle size. There are few bits of charcoal any larger than a quarter of an inch in size. The charcoal was produced in a low-temperature process, not heating it too excessively. It contained within its molecular structure, plant resins that were heat stabilized.

Because nobody had ever bothered to investigate powdered charcoal's effects on soil fertility carefully, soil scientists had simply always assumed that charcoal when added to the soil, was inert and its effects primarily mechanical. Chemically, it is very stable at ambient temperature - even on geological time scales - and does not participate in chemical reactions, so it was simply assumed that any nutrients it trapped were simply unavailable to plants. Close investigation of the terra preta situation proved this to not be the case. Not at all.

What the soil scientists, working with microbiologists, discovered was that a community of bacteria exists in symbiosis with the root hairs of plants. The bacteria produce enzymes that release the mineral ions trapped by the heat stabilized plant resins in the charcoal and make it available to the root hairs of the plant as nutrients. In return, the plants secrete nourishment for the bacteria. Not only that, but the resins within the charcoal act like an ion exchange resin, adsorbing traces of mineral ions onto the charcoal particle surfaces from the rain water, and trapping it within the charcoal's molecular structure, where it can be held for centuries - until the soil bacteria associated with a root hair come along and secrete the enzymes necessary for it to be released once again. So the trace minerals always present in rainwater actually act as a fertilizer - providing the nutrients needed by the crops, year after year. The secret of the soil fertility of the terra preta was finally understood. And it was understood how the indigenous farmers were able to produce bumper crops year after year, decade after decade without a single application of chemical fertilizer and without wearing out the soil.

This was confirmed when the soil scientists grew some test plots. The results were seen recently on a Discovery Channel special about this Amazonian mystery. Viewers saw three plots - the first, the control plot, was natural Amazon yellow soil from which the native vegetation had been removed. The second was identical to the first, except that chemical fertilizer was added. And the third was a plot identical to the first, but to which charcoal was added along with a normal dose of chemical fertilizer. The results were dramatic. On the entire control plot, there grew only a single plant, pathetically stunted, which did not flower. On the fertilized plot, there was a small growth of stunted plants, few having produced seed heads - clearly what could only be described as a failed crop. The charcoal plot was dramatic - lush growth with an abundant crop of seed heads - a bumper crop indeed.

This discovery also solves a mystery that has puzzled farmers in tropical regions for years. It has long been known that growing sugar cane increases soil fertility. Over the years, soil in which sugar cane has been grown can become quite fertile - the opposite of what happens with nearly all other crops, which tend to exhaust soil. We now know the reason why - sugar cane fields are normally set alight before harvesting. The flames sweep through the field, burning off the thicket of leaves and leaving only the cane behind, making it much easier to harvest. What is left behind also includes a small amount of charcoal, which finds its way into the soil, gradually adding to its fertility, year after year. Where I live in Costa Rica, sugar cane, which is a low-value crop, is often grown simply to keep the farm alive and sustain the soil, while the farmer tries to find an alternative use for his land. It is a sad situation, but now there is an alternative. It is to make the land economically productive once again, by doing deliberately what the cultivation of sugar cane does accidentally.


Saving The Family Farm

If the required amount and type of charcoal is added to soils in tropical and semi-tropical regions where these symbiotic bacteria are known to be able to flourish, the chemical inputs required to sustain agricultural productivity can be greatly reduced. In these regions, the high rates of rainfall over thousands and millions of years have weathered most soils to a very poor level of fertility. Soil infertility caused by intense weathering, and the intensive use of costly chemical fertilizers this makes necessary, is the greatest single problem faced by farmers in tropical and semitropical regions. And that problem can now be solved - even for soils so thin and poor that by themselves they can grow little but a few hardy weeds.

Of course, this gives such a farmer a considerable advantage in economic terms over his competitors - while his competitors are spending large amounts of money on chemical fertilizer and other soil amendments, he is spending nothing - only the cost of carbonizing his farm waste, grinding the charcoal to a powder, and tilling it into his soil, and then only till the optimum level of carbonization is achieved. And as we shall see, this can be done at an acceptably low cost, even by farmers in developing countries. An additional marketing advantage is that he can maintain soil fertility in an organic manner, helping greatly in certifying his farm as an organic farm, which can mean an increased value for the produce he sells. Soil amendments, primarily fertilizer, are by far the greatest single cost that a farmer in the tropics faces. With proper soil carbonization, that cost simply goes away. Farms that were economically marginal or failing, now can suddenly become not only highly productive, but highly profitable. Instead of selling the farm that has been in the family for generations, the tropical farmer in the third-world now has the option to go back into farming - and make more money than he could ever hope to make by working for wages or struggling to run a small business in the city.

Carbonization of farm waste has traditionally not been practiced, because it has traditionally been slow, inefficient, messy, labor intensive and produces a product for which, until now, there has never been enough use to justify all the trouble - and it has always been assumed to have limited value as a soil amendment. It has always been easier to just plow farm waste under, and allow it to rot. This is fine, but it produces only modest improvements in soil fertility, and they are largely temporary. But as we shall see later in this essay, soil carbonization by small farmers should now be practical, because I have developed a charcoal furnace specifically designed to carbonize farm waste - in a device that is cheap and easy to build, and almost a hundred percent efficient, as well as easy to use.


Saving The Planet

If practiced on a truly large scale, the carbonization of soil in the tropics and subtropics can not only solve, but might even reverse the problem of global warming.

That is quite a sweeping statement, but it is true, as we will see. To understand how this is possible, you need first to understand the biospheric carbon cycle.

This is a very simplified version, so please, if you are a scientist or other academic, don't write me to correct the details. The intent of the following explanation is only to outline the carbon cycle in its very broadest dimensions, so that non-technical readers can understand my explanation of why soil carbonization could have a major, beneficial impact on global warming.

The carbon cycle begins with atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas we all know and are growing to hate. It is a natural part of the atmosphere, however, and prior to the widescale use of fossil fuel in industry, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was roughly 250 parts per million by volume. Digging up carbon-based fuels out of the ground and burning them, adds to atmospheric carbon dioxide, since carbon dioxide and water vapor are the primary combustion products of burning fossil fuels. A century and a half of burning (oxidizing) fossil fuels, most of which consists of carbon, has raised the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to roughly 360 parts per million. We are burning fossil fuels at such a rate that this value is increasing at roughly 10 parts per million per year. This does not sound like a lot, but carbon dioxide is extremely efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere, and that is why its influence is all out of proportion to its concentration, and that is why increasing its concentration even a little bit matters a whole lot.

As you may recall from your high-school science classes, plants breathe in this carbon dioxide (which is all the same, regardless of whether it is natural in origin or comes from human activity), and through photosynthesis, combine it with water and turn it into the carbohydrates that make up the plant - the sugars, cellulose, lignin and other materials. When the plant dies, this carbon, which was sequestered (locked up) temporarily in the plant's tissue, is oxidized by decay organisms and is released back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. The cycle is complete - the carbon dioxide becomes available for another plant to absorb. The theory of planting trees to slow global warming is that trees sequester this carbon in their plant tissues - wood - for centuries. But of course, they eventually will all die and rot away, and so the carbon dioxide they are supposed to sequester will eventually be released back into the atmosphere anyway. Other schemes have been suggested for sequestering carbon dioxide - usually by liquifying carbon dioxide and dumping it on the ocean floor (with unknown and unpredictable consequences for ocean ecology) or pumping it into abandoned natural-gas wells (again with unknown and unpredictable ecological consequences). But all these schemes are expensive and produce no economically useful outputs, so implementing them is problematic at best - it would have to be done by a government program, because there is no economic incentive for the private sector to do it.

There is another way to sequester the carbon and one that does indeed have a private-sector incentive associated with it. Charcoal consists almost entirely of carbon - by weight, carbon makes up close to 100 percent of charcoal. And charcoal is chemically stable - it does not react readily with either water or atmospheric oxygen at ordinary temperatures, so once in the ground, it will remain there for geological time scales. Indeed, scientists routinely find charcoal from forest fires in sediments laid down during the age of the dinosaurs and before. So once added to soil, carbon in the form of charcoal will remain there until it is physically separated out or oxidized in the interior of the earth. This process of geological consumption simply does not happen on any kind of time scale with which we need to concern ourselves. Charcoal is also easy to make - simply heat up any solid biological product to a temperature of about 470 degrees Farenheit, and the carbon atoms give up most everything else they are attached to - which comes off as the vapor we know as smoke. The carbon atoms simply reattach themselves to each other, and what we have left is elemental carbon - in the form of charcoal. And as we have seen, if farmers knew what it could do for them, they would have a major financial incentive to create charcoal from their farm wastes and add it to their soil, sequestering it permanently.

So how can this possibly have a measurable effect on the atmosphere? After all, the atmosphere of this planet is really big - a hundred miles deep and covering millions and millions of square miles of surface area. Even at the small fraction of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide, that amounts to a truly staggering amount of carbon that we are swimming in - billions of tons. How could a bunch of farmers, carbonizing their farm waste and plowing the charcoal under, possibly have that much of an effect? The answer is numbers. Millions of farmers, all doing this together, could have an enormous impact, bringing atmospheric carbon dioxide right back to its pre-industrial levels. Here are the back-of-the-envelope calculations that show how this is plausible and even feasible:

The weight of all the air above the earth's surface amounts to 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level - that is the same as atmospheric pressure. This means that every square inch of earth's surface (at sea level anyway), has 14.7 pounds of air resting on it. For the sake of convenience of understanding what is happening and visualizing that in our minds, let's convert that to weight per square foot. There are 144 square inches in a square foot, so that means that the weight of the earth's atmosphere at sea level is 2116.8 pounds, or a little over a ton per square foot (we don't feel that pressure, because we are immersed in the air, which presses up as well as down, and from the inside as well as the outside on us, cancelling out the pressure). We know that the volume of that air is composed of carbon dioxide to the extent of 360 parts per million, but since carbon dioxide weighs more than air, for the purposes of these calculationswe need to convert that composition by volume to a corresponding composition by weight. It turns out that at equal temperature and pressure, carbon dioxide is 54% heavier than air, so if we multiply our 360 parts per million by 1.54, it turns out that the composition of the atmosphere is currently 556 parts per million carbon dioxide by weight. It follows then, that of the 2116.8 pounds that the atmosphere weighs per square foot on the earth's surface at sea level, 556 parts per million of that weight is carbon dioxide. Divide the 2116.8 by a million and multiply the result by 556, and you will have the weight of the carbon dioxide only, per square foot, that is bearing down on the earth's surface. The result is 1.17 pounds. But carbon dioxide includes a lot of oxygen, and if we want to know how much charcoal that would represent, we need to get rid of the oxygen in the carbon dioxide. Well, it turns out that 37% of the weight, roughly, of carbon dioxide is actually carbon (the rest is the oxygen), so we need to multiply the 1.17 pounds by 37% to get the weight of the carbon only. Turns out to be 0.43 pounds, or 6.92 ounces. If you turned all the carbon dioxide in a column of air of one foot square and as high as the top of the atmosphere into carbon (or charcoal), that is what the resulting carbon would weigh - 6.92 ounces.

Obviously, since atmospheric carbon dioxide is a vital, even critical part of our biosphere, we don't want to get rid of it all. We want only to get rid of the part that mankind has added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began. So if we calculate what percentage of current atmospheric carbon dioxide has been added by man, the percentage works out to 44%. So of our 6.92 ounces per square foot, the Industrial Revolution is guilty of adding a hair over 3 ounces per square foot.

The rub here is that farmers, to have a significant impact on global warming by adding charcoal to their soil, will have to add this amount for all the planet's surface area, land and ocean alike, not just the area of the planet's surface under cultivation. So we need to know how much of the planet's surface area is under cultivation in tropical and subtropical areas to determine how much they would need to add to save our skins. Turns out, according to United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from other sources, that pretty close to 1.6 percent of the surface area of the planet is given over to agriculture in tropical and subtropical regions. To reset the composition of the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels, the farmers in those regions are going to have to add to their soil, charcoal equal to three ounces divided by 1.6% - or in other words, 190 ounces per square foot of cultivated area.

This amounts to 11.8 pounds of charcoal per square foot of cultivated area. Depending on the density of the charcoal and the density of the soil, this is roughly the amount needed to get the optimum 30% by volume to a depth of about three feet. Just perfect! Just what the farmers need to do! And just what the planet needs to give us a second chance! So if every farmer in the tropics and subtropics got on the ball with this program, we could completely undo all the damage that we have done to our atmosphere with our fossil fuel addiction and put things right.


Getting The Job Done

It strikes me that getting this job done should be politically feasible. Everyone involved should be all for it - it gives conservatives a graceful way out of their denial, it gives liberals a project that does not involve government forcing people to do what they do not want to do, it gives farmers a strong economic incentive to sequester and bury huge amounts of carbon, and it gives industry an incentive to help make it a reality, by creating a means, through the Kyoto Protocol, of ridding itself of a troublesome pollutant in a cheap but an environmentally benign (and even beneficial) manner.

So here is how I propose to make this happen. First, the big environmental NGO's need to get on board. They need to see what is at stake here, and how this could be a huge boon to the environment. They need to get to work in the tropics and subtropics of the third world, providing the tools and knowledge, and showing the farmers how they can benefit from this technology.

The governments can get involved by offering Kyoto-Protocol carbon tax credits to farmers. Since it is the farmers who would be doing the sequestration, they should be the ones to benefit under Kyoto - and it gives them further incentives to participate, besides the improved productivity of their soils. It can be another income stream for the farmers if the governments set up the programs in the proper way.

Industry should benefit by building the charcoal furnace equipment I will describe below, and unrelated industries should benefit by finding themselves under less pressure to change products and processes to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. This should give industry, particularly the fossil fuel industry, an incentive to help encourage soil carbonization by third-world agriculture, so industry can go on doing what it is doing now.

In tropical and semi-tropical regions such as Costa Rica, where I live, and other parts of Latin America, where large-scale family farming and industrial-scale farming is already well established, I foresee large companies getting into the soil carbonization business, because farmers simply can't create enough charcoal to meet their needs - it just isn't practical over a reasonable timeframe. So bringing in someone else to do the job makes a lot of sense. The broad details of the business plan of such a company would work something like this - the soil carbonizing business would own farms where kenaf, bamboo and other high-biomass crops are grown as a feedstock, or be located near sugar cane crushing mills, where large amounts of baguase (crushed cane fiber from which the juice has been extracted) is available cheap or for free as a feedstock for the charcoal production process. The company would have large scale charcoal furnaces, a scaled up version of what I will describe below, with which they will produce charcoal powder on a grand scale. The company would approach landowners with a proposition - it will finance the carbonization of all the farm's cultivated soil through a lein, and the farmer can pay back the lein through the improved crop yields over a period of several years - the farmer pays only for increased yields, and for only a set number of years. This is the guarantee of results to the farmer - if there is no increase in yields, there is no cost to the farmer. Once the lien is satisfied, additional profits resulting from increased productivity, from then on, are the farmer's. If the farmers stand to lose their farms anyway from the lack of productivity and high operating costs they already face, and can see the results on neighbor's farms, few would refuse.

In Africa, South Asia and other areas where subsistence farming is the norm, I anticipate that it would be the NGO's and government programs that would provide the means and incentives, the details of which would have to vary from region to region. Governments would provide the charcoal furnaces (financed through foreign aid, most probably), the NGO's the know-how, and the farmers would do the work. They would concievably have a single small-scale carbon furnace, providing charcoal from their field waste for use in domestic cooking use as well as the carbonization of the soil on the farm. Once the farm's soil is adequately carbonized, the farmer could sell his furnace to a neighbor, or use it to produce charcoal for briquette manufacture - an additional income source.


A Cheap, Easy-To-Use And Efficient Charcoal Furnace

When I began researching for this essay, I quickly discovered to my dismay that the technology for producing charcoal has not changed much, literally, in centuries. It is still done, for the most part, the way it always has been done.

It was obvious to me that if I were to persuade large number of people to start producing charcoal, and on a large scale, that I had to come up with a more convenient, faster, more efficient and less messy way of doing it. So I started thinking about how it could be done in the manner needed. I thought about it for some time, and finally, in a flash of inspiration, the answer came to me.

A tubular furnace, using an ordinary piece of large diameter iron pipe, heated by a solar energy reflector, would be the answer. Not dependent on its own output as a heat source, any solid organic material feedstock could be used - even wet leaves - and the product would take minutes to produce, rather than hours or even days as is needed for the usual methods. And virtually all the charcoal produced would be available as product, since none is consumed to provide the heat for the process. Push the raw, even wet feedstock in one end, and minutes later, finished charcoal comes out the other. What could be simpler or easier?

So on consideration, the design worked out to something like this - a piece of pipe, blackened on the outside to facilitate the absorption of the heat, about three or four inches inside diameter, and about ten to fifteen feet long, is suspended over a trough reflector, shaped into a parabola in cross-section, with the pipe suspended at the focal point, parallel to the length of the trough. The trough would be about eight to ten feet wide, and is lined on the inside with the solar reflectorizing material, which is nothing more than shiny metal - in a pinch, aluminum foil, shiny side up, could be simply glued to ordinary sheet metal to provide the shiny surface (the shiny aluminum surface could be sprayed with clear acrylic to preserve the shine). The resulting device is mounted with the length on an exact east-west line. If this is done, the only adjustments that need to be made to keep the furnace operating at peak efficiency is to keep the reflector tilted to the current seasonal sun angle. No hourly or daily adjustments need be made. Simply push the feedstock in one end, and if it gets heated to more than 470 degrees during its transit through the pipe, out the other end comes low temperature charcoal, ideal for soil carbonization. Easy as that.

For a third-world farmer without access to electricity, the furnace would be pretty much as described, with the feedstock being loaded from a small bin-like arrangement welded to one end of the furnace pipe. Feedstock would be pushed into the furnace pipe with tool consisting of a small pipe as long as the furnace pipe, on which a disk is mounted on the end, a disk somewhat smaller than the inside diameter of the furnace pipe. The disk's purpose is simply to force the feedstock into the pipe and through it, and clear blockages as needed. As feedstock enters one end of the pipe, the finished charcoal is simply pushed out the other. Gasses driven off by the heating exit through the feedstock end - the other end is left completely blocked by charcoal, which precludes the entry of oxygen and thereby keeps the efficiency high.

There are endless variations on this theme that are possible. For industrial furnaces, the farmer's feedstock tool could be replaced by an auger screw. A gearmotor, switched by a thermal switch, would come on when the sensor detected that the temperature of the furnace pipe exceeded the setpoint, turning the screw and loading the feedstock from the bin and carrying it to the far end of the pipe. It would run until the sun went down or behind a cloud, and the temperature dropped below the setpoint. Loading of the intake bin could be done automatically, too, with another auger screw or a conveyor belt, which could load several furnaces at a time. Output could drop into a hopper emptied by yet another auger screw.

Another variation would be to collect the outgassing products - smoke - which on a large scale, would be worth doing, as the condensate could be processed into useful petroleum substitutes including terpentine, or burned on cloudy days to provide the heat necessary to keep the production going. This would also improve environmental performance by reducing the air pollution that would result from releasing the smoke into the air.


Conclusion

The obscure discovery made by archaeologists and soil geologists working in the Amazon basin a few years ago could have huge repercussions - while it saves millions of farmers in the tropics and subtropics from lives of poverty and destitution, it could also save the world, literally, from the folly of modern man by learning from the discovery of those long-dead aboriginals who made this discovery all those years ago.

The only question that remains is whether we will apply the lesson in time. The tools are there; we have the knowledge and technology to get the job done. We have the incentives to do it. We have the urgent need to get on with the task. Let us not be ignoring what we need to do, and can do. Not only can we better feed ourselves and help millions overcome poverty in the process, but even more importantly, we can save our very home, the only one we have, from the mess we have made of it. There is hope for the planet after all. But we had better get busy.


Internet Resources:

A good overview of what is currently being done in terra preta research and applications has been the subject of a recent symposium at the University of Georgia.

The "Terra Preta Homepage."

Cornell University is pioneering some research in terra preta, and has an extensive web page describing their activities.

Source URL: http://www.bidstrup.com/carbon.htm
Return to Home Page
Write to Scott

Copyright © 2004 by Scott Bidstrup. All rights reserved.

_________________________________________________________________
Der neue MSN Messenger. Schreiben.Sehen.Hören. Wie im echten Leben. - http://www.imagine-msn.com/messenger/default2.aspx?locale=de Jetzt herunterladen!





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page