Barney, this is so good.

More please - much more.

I never thought I would need to quote Herman Goring but, "whenever I hear the word sustainability I reach for my revolver". It is the most abused term in the dictionary and a favoured tool of the word molesters who use it to flog an endless procession of quasi-leftist cliches masquerading as "new economics". And this piece is no exception.

At its core is a fundamental intellectual incapacity to distinguish between a problem and an opportunity. A good example is the Author's reference to Nitrogen and Carbon as core elements that we must limit our use of. And on the face of it this seems sensible enough but 80% of our atmosphere is nitrogen and, when added to crops, it has proven very useful for keeping stomachs full. We get the usual list of adverse effects of excesses of nitrogen like soil acidity, etc but we don't get any consideration of the role of carbon in fixing the problem.

Carbon is only 0.04% of our atmosphere and we are told that this is excessive but nothing fixes acidic soil like Calcium Carbonate. We can get it from limestone, marble and coral but we can also get it from carbon emissions from fossil fuels etc. We just haven't got around to working out how to turn what is currently a waste product into a valuable resource.

And the simple economic and social facts of life are that these innovations are only developed by investing surpluses. And those surpluses are only produced in either expanding economies or through exploitation, usually a bit of both. And the more we have of the former the less we have of the latter.

Yes, Barney, as an old cockie, who has had much to do with WA wheatbelt soils, the worst an acidity wodgil which we found was a bit improved by bringing up just a bit of the yellowish subsoil. Then, when the wind blew a light covering from a patch next door from a less acidic pinky topsoil, it was Bob's your uncle.

Nothing about scientific reasoning here. Only thing needed was the cash to fix hundreds and thousands of acres. But it did prove one thing, that nature and possibly a generous God, has given us all the elements, but not as yet in the right proportion.

Further, so though the proof is there, God or nature has given us the wonderful gift of scientific thought and the universities thereof to complete the job.

Very powerful article Barney... and fact that Australia was robbed in the world cup now takes on extra global significance.

Seriously though, laying out the challenge like this is the first step in to rising to it.

All good Mr Foran, our humungous challenge put in simple terms, and with no wimping out on unpopular issues. So how do we get there? A significant and increasing chunk of the community seems willing to learn, and segments of Business are even starting to come out of their coma, but we still have many intractable denial-ists (economic & other religious fundamentalists) in government, media, and business. What to do about those incapable of thinking outside of their tiny mental boxes?

How about a General Strike for Sustainability? Or at least a ‘science strike’, by professional scientists & technicians who agree with e.g. “current Govt & Opposition policy worsens our future prospects”.

Might be useful to demonstrate to all that the ‘sustainable growth’ claims of economic fundamentalists have no credible basis. (apologies if this political suggestion brings Howards budget hatchet men your way, but lets face it, RightThink has got it in for public science anyway)

Please look at this low cost alternative CO2 Sequestration system.

The integrated energy strategy offered by Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

I feel we should push for this Terra Preta Soils CO2 sequestration strategy as not only a global warming remedy for the first world, but to solve fertilization and transport issues for the third world.
These are processes where you can have your Bio-fuels,Corbon Sequestration and fertility too.

Nature article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442624a.html

Here's the Cornell page for an over view:
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehm...r_home.htm

This Earth Science Forum thread on these soil contains further links ( I post everything I find on Amazon Dark Soils, ADS here):
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html

There is an ecology going on in these soils that is not completely understood, and if replicated and applied at scale would have multiple benefits for farmers and environmentalist.

Terra Preta creates a terrestrial carbon reef at a microscopic level. These nanoscale structures provide safe haven to the microbes and fungus that facilitate fertile soil creation, while sequestering carbon for many hundred if not thousands of years. The combination of these two forms of sequestration would also increase the growth rate and natural sequestration effort of growing plants.

If pre Columbian Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 20% of the Amazon basin it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.

Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of EROEI for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.

We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.


I feel Terra Preta soil technology is the greatest of Ironies ,
That is: an invention of pre-Columbian American culture, destroyed by western disease, may well be the savior of industrial western society.

Erich J. Knight

Good point Eric, the irony is that IPCC rules are inflexible in relation to all sorts of carbon in the biosphere. A very large portion of the soil carbon in Australian soils is charcoal built up from 40,000 years of firestick farming. And as you know, in this form it is very stable but has a very favourable impact on soil biota and fertility. But under Kyoto accounting rules the stock of soil carbon is assumed to fully break down and be emitted as carbon dioxide over the 20 years after a clearing event.

And this non-existent release of CO2 is being fed into the climate models as fact. And in some cases, like the entire clearing based emissions for South Australia a few years back, the clearing of regrowth on land that was previously cleared only ten years earlier, was classed as 'old growth' clearing which produced a double count in the emissions from soil carbon.

On my property I have 85 year old tree stumps, fence posts and buildings that still have all their carbon intact but the climate models have assumed that this carbon was released in 1922 and has been busy warming up the planet.

And of course, if you are in the business of feeding non-existent emissions into a climate model then it is highly probable that the model will conclude that there has been a non-existent global warming.

And even if Australian farmers did introduce new techniques that maximise soil carbon, the IPCC would not give them any credit for their efforts because they already deem the carbon to be emitted the moment the tree that produces the charcoal is cut.

A great forum article.

Can Barney give an update regarding his current views on their work (Foran & Mardon) back in 1999 for “Beyond 2025: Transitions to a Biomass-Alcohol Economy Using Ethanol and Methanol” . How relevant is that lot today considering the severe drought and possible long term climate change for Australia

As I understand it Taz, from my limited information, the work undertaken and nearing completion by Barney's team on remediation of degraded landscapes, with associated production of carbon-neutral fuels for transport, did not fit within the guidelines of the current CSIRO's adherence to political direction. Consequently the team was disbanded.
Perhaps the work will be completed and be available for public viewing courtesy of some other organisation.

This might be interesting on the persistance of carbon:-

Resilient Form of Plant Carbon Gives New Meaning to Term ‘Older than Dirt’

A particularly resilient type of carbon from the first plants to regrow after the last ice age – and that same type of carbon from all the plants since – appears to have been accumulating for 11,000 years in the forests of British Columbia, Canada. It’s as if the carbon, which comes from the waxy material plants generate to protect their foliage from sun and weather, has been going into a bank account where only deposits are being made and virtually no withdrawals.

Modelers of the Earth’s carbon cycle, who’ve worked on the assumption that this type of carbon remains in the soils only 1,000 to 10,000 years before microorganisms return it to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, will need to revise their thinking if findings reported in the Nov. 24 issue of Science are typical of other northern forests.

“Our results about the resilience of this particular kind of carbon suggest that the turnover time of this carbon pool may be 10,000 to 100,000 years,” says Rienk Smittenberg, a research associate with the University of Washington School of Oceanography and lead author of the paper. He did the work while at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research.
http://www.physorg.com/news83516285.html
See also the discussion here http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta-22.html?highlight=Terra+preta

The International Agrichar Initiative 2007 Conference... This is basically a conference for those interested in scaling up terra preta technology...

http://iaiconference.org/home.html

From the site:

April 29 - May 2, 2007
Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia

Join the International Agrichar Initiative for a conference on Agrichar Science, Production and Utilization, being held in coastal New South Wales, Australia. The International Agrichar Initiative is a new consortium of research and development interests devoted to the sustainability of the world’s soils, and to sustainable bioenergy production.

What is the International Agrichar Initiative?

The International Agrichar Initiative is an informal, newly-formed coalition of research, commercial and policy-oriented people and organizations devoted to the sustainability of the world’s soils, and to sustainable bio-energy production. Agrichar production and utilization can renew the world’s soils through the addition of organic carbon, which can help solve the pressing problem of global climate change. The Agrichar production process also converts agricultural waste into valuable bio-fuels.

History of the Agrichar Initiative

During the 18th World Congress of Soil Science (WCSS) in July 2006 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a group of scientists, business interests, policy experts and others met to discuss the research priorities and challenges of this important area. The result is the International Agrichar Initiative

What is the ‘Agrichar process’?

Agricultural feedstocks such as animal manure, rice hulls, peanut shells, corn stover or forest waste are pyrolized at low temperatures to produce a char product (“Agrichar” or “biochar”) and separate bio-energy streams, in the form of oils and/or gases. The biochar captures about 50% of the carbon in the feedstock, and can be used as a soil amendment to improve soil fertility, stability, and productivity, and to store carbon in the soils, as a means of mitigating global warming. The use of Agrichar in soils mimics the Terra Preta (“dark earth”) soils of the Amazon Basin, which have sequestered high quantities of carbon for thousands of years, and have dramatically improved soil fertility and sustainability without chemical inputs. The bio-energy produced, which accounts for the other 50% of feedstock carbon, can be used to fuel a variety of energy needs

Time to Master the Carbon Cycle


Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's virgin forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon.

Energy, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas management
http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Energy%20Paper%2006_05.htm


On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons.

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.

Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel co2 emissions as charcoal.

As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/l...ochar_home.htm

Terra Preta Soils Technology: Carbon Negative Bio fuels and 3X Fertility Too

A new Terra preta site
http://info.bioenergylists.org/?q=about