permaculture

[lbsaltzman@aol.com]

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