Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] carbon sequestration

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Marimike6@cs.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] carbon sequestration
  • Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:55:30 EST

Kathleen offers an interesting question:

"Has anyone done the calculations to figure out how much un-built-upon
green surface we need to re-absorb all the carbon we've flung up out of
the bowels of the Underworld? And what kind of surface works best?
(forest, grasslands, crop-lands etc.?) "

Fast-growing tree or shrub plantations like Paulownias would be the obvious
bet. But here's the rub: you can't burn this stuff, or convert it to
biofuels--
because then you defeat your purpose by re-releasing the carbon.

So you have to either use it as paper pulp, fiberboard or some such salable
product... or till it under to nourish the soil. And I don't think this
(tilling it under) will ever become a widespread mitigation technique...
because land
and ag-grade water will increasingly be at a premium in our approaching world
of nine billion people. The land and water will already be spoken for to grow
food and fuel.

In fact crop residues, like chaffs, sugar cane byproducts like pressmud, corn
stover and almost any leftover plant material you can collect in bulk, are
already being used in the development of novel, salable products, as opposed
to
going back into the soil. So I think one problem for the immediate future is
going to be the gradual and progressive starvation of agriculturally useful
soils of organic materials.

Here in North Carolina most agricultural soils are already tired and worn
out, emptied of any organic fraction generations ago.

Those new chaff-based products and substances that retain their character,
like resins, boards and fabrics, will still hold their carbon. But
increasingly
I think we can count on a lot of acreage being devoted to biofuel crops--
just
a way to recycle the carbon from airborne to airborne form, while extracting
a bit of energy in between.

I just don't see any way a profit-driven economy is going to devote a lot of
time and energy into growing weeds just to bury them in place. And I don't
see
the governments we currently have being willing to pay people subsidies to
set land aside for such purposes.

What I would like to see is more land just being set aside, to grow natural
stuff in place and not have to make anyone who's already rich a little bit
richer. The pressure for real estate development is killing the planet just
as
much as the combustible fuel energy sector.

Here's an example of what's happening right now. Take special note of the
costs per acre, though, to buy up land and set it aside to just grow. This
approach doesn't come cheap!

The Beaufort County Rural and Critical Land Preservation Program

http://www.bcgov.net/public_info_officer/Rural_Critical_Lands/R&CL_Main.php

michael






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page