permaculture

[Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>]

My objection is that we can use a given biomass only once: we either return 
it to the soil to maintain humus and feed the microbes and other soil 
organism or we turn it into charcoal. 

Humus is capable of providing both the living environment and the food for 
microbes.  There is no reason to assume that the microbes and other soil 
organisms in my soil would suddenly want prefabricated charcoal “apartment 
buildings” after having evolved without them for billions of years.  

I live in a semi-arid climate on heavy clay soil.  The positive effect on 
fertility of adding biomass to the soil is immediately visible.  According to 
a figure I came across recently, there can be 10 tons or more of soil 
organisms in 1 hectare of rich soil.  These organisms need to be fed!  I 
return every ounce of biomass available in my place to the soil.  To turn 
biomass into charcoal would reduce the food I can provide to the soil 
organisms.  

The last 100 years have seen an unprecedented destruction of biomass.  Many 
of our environmental, health and other problems can be directly or indirectly 
traced back to this destruction of biomass.  Not aware of the importance of 
biomass for maintaining humus and soil fertility, the public is likely to 
favor any plan to destroy even more biomass - considered a waste by most – 
that, like biochar or biofuel, promises a quick fix to our environmental 
problems and allows us to continue the wasteful lifestyle made possible by 
industrial methods.

On a global scale it doesn’t matter if someone wants to try out charcoal in 
his backyard.  However, to have the effect on global warming that is claimed 
by biochar advocates, we need to turn biomass into charcoal on a large scale. 
 Added to the destruction of biomass that is already ongoing and the 
devastation caused by biofuel production, this will greatly reduce the future 
prospects for organic farming, which relies on feeding the soil with biomass. 
 

Dieter