permaculture

[Ryan Hottle <ry.hottle@gmail.com>]

Dear Permaculturalists,

I'm a supporter and practitioner of Permaculture and think biochar is among
the most promising solutions to global climate change.  I'd like to note
that Clive Hamilton made no mention of any substance or scientific relevance
about the benefits and risks of using biochar as a solution to climate
change.

Biochar is not exclusive in terms of being able to "cure" climate
change--silver bullet solutions don't exist at this point--but it does seem
to offer a promising and multi-faceted approach to producing energy,
improving soils, and sequestering carbon in a single process. "Never do just
one thing" right?

It can be highly decentralized from small scale pyrolysis cookstoves to
community scale combined heat and power carbon negative power plants.  It
can be combined with coppicing/pollarding and forest garden systems.

The soil improving qualities are dramatic particularly in areas with
extremely low soil organic carbon (SOM) such as places at risk of
desertification, sub-Saharan Africa, and denuded landscapes in Tropical
landscapes which tend to have highly leached and low nutrient soils.

One of the most widely used illegitimate attacks is that of the "ad hominem
attack" wherein the person promoting a specific idea is attacked instead of
the idea itself; by discrediting or disgracing the person the idea is
necessarily diminished.  Of course, this attack is  an illogical one.  The
idea itself is never really discussed, only the messenger.

If you want to attack messengers, however, Clive Hamilton must also go up
against Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Johannes Lehmann, Dr. Christoph Steiner, Dr.
John Gaunt, and the other hard-nose scientific investigators who have been
doing all the significant work on this topic.

I will be launching a website shortly which documents both the potential
pros and the potential cons of using biochar as a solution to climate
change, improving soils, and generating energy and how it might be
incorporated into a sustainable agricultural systems (read: permaculture).

If any there are any specific concerns, questions, ideas or thoughts
regarding biochar I'd be happy to answer them.  I just simply can't let this
illogically argued attack pass without comment.

All the best,
Ryan D. Hottle





On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Scott Pittman <scott@permaculture.org>wrote:

> Biochar is also Lovelocks solution to global warming, and the only
> solution,
> according to him, and he has no faith that mankind will heed his advice.
>
> Scott Pittman
> Director
> Permaculture Institute
> www.permaculture.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:34 PM
> To: permaculture
> Subject: [permaculture] 3 . Flip-flop Flannery is a climate
> changeopportunist
>
> 3 . Flip-flop Flannery is a climate change opportunist
>
> Clive Hamilton writes:
>
> Malcolm Turnbull's new climate change plan is another in a long line
> of diversionary policies aimed at taking the heat off the coal
> industry.
>
> His emphasis on biochar -- turning agricultural waste into charcoal
> and spreading it onto paddocks -- is reminiscent of attempts by the
> Bush Administration to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol by allowing fossil
> pollution to be 'offset' by changes in agricultural practices.
>
> The move was rejected by the rest of the world in 2000 because it
> would have removed entirely any obligation on rich countries like the
> United States and Australia to cut their fossil emissions. No wonder
> the coal industry backed the US move enthusiastically.
>
> The new Coalition focus on soil carbon has been supported by
> Turnbull's confidant and de facto greenhouse advisor Tim Flannery, for
> whom biochar is the latest fad.
>
> One of the last prominent scientists in Australia to acknowledge
> global warming, Flannery has been flip-flopping on solutions to
> climate change since The Weather Makers appeared in December 2005.
>
> He initially argued that we should forget about governments and rely
> on the good sense of individuals to cut Australia's emissions, urging
> others to follow his lead and install their own solar panels.
>
> When he was criticised for shifting responsibility onto individuals
> and away from polluters and the Government Flannery changed tack,
> abandoning his "firm belief" that consumers should not wait for
> government to act, and advocating a carbon tax. He later changed his
> mind and endorsed emissions trading instead.
>
> Flannery has moved seamlessly from one technological enthusiasm to the
> next. In 2006 he lent his support to the development of nuclear power
> in Australia. "Only nuclear power can save us", he declared, playing
> straight into the hands of Prime Minister Howard who was happy to
> quote Flannery in support of his nuclear push that formed part of his
> climate denial strategy.
>
> But after criticism in 2007 Flannery changed his mind, giving a
> "resounding 'no'" to nuclear power in Australia. No explanation seems
> to have been offered for the reversal.
>
> Flannery's next burst of enthusiasm was for geothermal energy which he
> spruiked heavily in 2007, arguing that hot rocks "potentially have
> enough embedded energy in them to run the Australian economy for the
> best part of a century". (He properly disclosed that he held shares in
> hot rock developer Geodynamics.)
>
> He has had little to say about hot rocks since taking up the biochar
> idea in 2008. He now believes biochar "may represent the single most
> important initiative for humanity's environmental future". Turnbull
> referred to Flannery's endorsement when announcing his latest plan.
>
> But it is the future of the coal industry that has been the platform
> for Flannery's most spectacular back-flips.
>
> As a skilled media player, throughout 2006 and 2007 Flannery made
> headlines by calling for the closure of "filthy" coal-fired power
> plants. He argued for the withdrawal of the industry's "social licence
> to operate" and said the time has come to end coal exports. He likened
> coal to asbestos and attacked proposals for carbon capture and storage
> as "stupid".
>
> Then last year he executed a complete about-face, accepting
> Australia's financial interest in burning and exporting coal and
> supporting "clean coal" technologies like carbon capture and storage.
>
> The effect of Flannery's frequent contradictory public interventions
> on climate change has been to confuse those who look to him for
> guidance. Which of his expressed opinions should they believe? What is
> his solution to greenhouse pollution -- solar energy, nuclear power,
> geothermal, "clean coal" or biochar?
>
> The mish-mash of policy proposals also plays into the hands of the
> polluters because a Flannery statement can be found to support almost
> any position.
>
> The same can be said for his direct political interventions.
>
> As Australian of the Year Flannery expressed the view of many when he
> condemned a "decade of delay" in which Australia under the Howard
> Government had become "the worst of the worst in terms of addressing
> climate change".
>
> Yet a week before the last federal election Flannery declared that if
> he were voting in Turnbull's Wentworth electorate he would vote
> Liberal, thereby helping to return John Howard as Prime Minister.
>
> Flannery's ability to write engagingly about climate science has led
> some to believe he must have something sensible to say about the
> solutions to global warming, a misconception Flannery amplifies by
> venturing instant opinions on any topic.
>
> But a talented science populariser can be a policy flake. When in May
> 2007 Tony Jones quizzed him on Lateline about emissions trading his
> answers became increasingly incoherent until he had to admit "I have
> no idea".
>
> Despite his statements being available for checking, when challenged
> about his back-flips Flannery claims that he has been
> "misrepresented", even referring to a "conspiracy" of powerful people
> trying to tear him down.
>
> There's no conspiracy, Tim, just a deep skepticism about opportunism
> when it comes to something as important as global warming.
>
> Clive Hamilton is the author of Scorcher: The dirty politics of
> climate change (Black Inc.)
> --
> Nicholas Roberts
> [im] skype:niccolor
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Google command to search archives:
> site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1936 - Release Date: 2/5/2009
> 11:34 AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Google command to search archives:
> site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring
>
>
>


-- 
Ryan Darrell Hottle,
Climate and Society M.A. Student
Columbia University

Global Climate Solutions
www.GlobalClimateSolutions.org

(740) 258 8450