permaculture

["rafter t. sass" <liberationecology@gmail.com>]

Great discussion of what happens when you look at terra preta mimicry  
through a geoengineering lens...

rafter t. sass
The Liberation Ecology Project
liberationecology.org
518-567-7407
skype: raughter




Begin 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 against 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 Agriculture 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  
> 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,  
> 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
> industrialized 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 considered  
> 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 pre- 
> 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,  
> 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 hectares 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 scale  
> 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 carbon 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, such  
> 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 "wastes 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 the  
> 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