Biofuels Watch: [biofuelwatch] Re: Fw: BFW Report on biochar

A must read for Biofuel searcher.. New Release of Biofuel Secrets ..A must read for for every US voter and concerned citizen.. challenges the reader to explore new possibilities and new mindsets that will ultimately be required if the world is truly ready to make a change.. amazon.com US only

Instead of putting a technical response to critics on our website, we
have updated parts of our report - mostly section 4, where we give
some more detailed information from peer-reviewed science, but also
the section "Speeding up the carbon cycle" in section 5 where we had
indeed used the wrong figures, as Ron pointed out (though our
conclusion remains the same).

We have also added some more detailed information about biochar
lobbying to section 4 and about the 'marginal lands' concept in
section 5.

Below are some comments on what Ron has written, inserted into his
post in capital letters.

Almuth and Deepak

Ron Larson's post with our comments added:

The recent "Biochar" report, announced by Almuth two days ago on this
list, is the only negative biochar report with extensive biochar
references I have yet seen.

YES, VERY LITTLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT BIOCHAR BY OR AT THE
INITIATIVE OF ANYBODY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BIOCHAR
INITIATIVE OR OTHERWISE WITH BIOCHAR LOBBYING (EXCEPT FOR SOME
CRITICAL DISCUSSION IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, SUCH AS THE ARTICLE BY
DAVID WARDLE ET AL IN SCIENCE). THIS LACK OF A CRITICAL DEBATE IS OF
GREAT CONCERN.

I've been studying this for a week, other biochar references for at
least five years. Because I feel the world must seriously consider
every possible technology that can remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, I below provide beginning rebuttal comments on this
report. On the positive side, I can appreciate and applaud the BFW
strong emphasis on preserving forests and biodiversity. However,
after a pretty careful search, I found nothing to substantiate your
dismissing biochar – nothing except that you believe biochar is
a "biofuel". I disagree with this classification.

WE DON'T CLASS IT AS SUCH. THE STANDARD DEFINITION FOR BIOFUELS IS
LIQUID FUEL FROM BIOMASS - SO IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE BIOCHAR. HOWEVER,
BIOCHAR IS A BYPRODUCT OF BIO-OIL AND SYNGAS PRODUCTION AND BIO-OIL
IS LIQUID SO IT'S A BIOFUEL, ALBEIT ONE WHICH, UNLESS REFINED
FURTHER, IS MOST SUITABLE FOR HEAT AND POWER.

No other biomass-related approach is capable of either (much less
both) reducing atmospheric CO2 economically or improving soil
productivity. Fortunately biochar also has a carbon-neutral energy
aspect – but that is not enough to lump it with all other biofuel
approaches.

WHEN LOOKING AT PROPOSALS FOR A MAJOR UPSCALING OF BIOMASS/BIOENERGY
PRODUCTION, IT WOULD SEEM FOOLISH NOT TO DRAW LESSONS FROM THE
EXPERIENCE WITH FIRST GENERATION AGROFUELS.

Your strong belief that biochar is going to be harmful to the
environment would have been bolstered by at least one or two
citations to other technical negative literature. Your fifty-some
references to frog, toads and amphibeans is not germane – these
unfortunate reptiles have zero connection to biochar.

12 REFERENCES OUT OF A TOTAL OF 205 ARE ABOUT AMPHIBIANS AND
REPTILES. WE BELIEVE THAT A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ROLE OF
BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE REGULATION IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL WHEN ONE IS
LOOKING AT PROPOSALS TO GREATLY INCREASE HUMAN APPROPRIATION/REMOVAL
OF BIOMASS IN THE NAME OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION.

If there were some connection, I expect the connection to be
positive – not negative. If there were such a negative, one of the
most well-known biologists (20 books, 130 articles), Prof. Tim
Flannery would not have strongly endorsed biochar (see
http://www.biochar-international.org/timflannery.html). Prof.
Flannery was at the second IBI conference – only hours away from
London - a few months ago.

It is unfortunate that you chose to not attend this conference,

INDEED, IT SEEMS UNFORTUNATE TO US THAT THE IBI CHARGED A CONFERENCE
FEE OF $495.-, A SUM OF MONEY WHICH MAKE ATTENDANCE PROHIBITIVE TO
MANY NGOS AND CAMPAIGNERS.

nor cite any of the 70 plus posters - a majority of which are also
available at the IBI site, along with many others from the 2007 IBI
Conference. Similarly, it is unfortunate you did not apparently read
either of the two large volumes covering the highly positive
Amazonian history (both entitled "Amazonian Dark Earth"). Of course
you can't read everything, but your list of biochar citations is
amazingly short.

OKAY, SECTION 4 IS SLIGHTLY LONGER NOW. ACTUALLY, THE LIST OF PEER-
REVIEWED STUDIES ON BIOCHAR WHICH HAVE BEEN STUDIED (AS OPPOSED TO
ANCIENT SOILS WITH HIGH CHARCOAL CONCENTS) APPEARS REMARKABLY SHORT.
THERE'S HARDLY ANYTHING REGARDING FIELD TRIALS - APART FROM ONE FIELD
TRIAL NEAR MANAUS WHICH WE NOW DISCUSS IN DETAIL. RE POSTERS: MOST
OF THEM AREN'T AVAILABLE ON THE WEB. SOME ARE, BUT, WHILE WE HAVE
LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF THEM, WE HAVE CHOSEN TO LARGELY EXCLUDE NON-
PEER REVIEWED 'EVIDENCE' FROM OUR REPORT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE
METHODOLOGY OF EXPERIMENTS ISN'T EVEN EXPLAINED.

Even then, you quote from authors who are almost uniformly positive
about biochar. If you were not inserting your own negative views,
almost everything you quote would prove biochar has a very bright
future. In your reference 58, you have cited one paper as being
deficient in details, but you have failed to note that there were
about 30 such biochar papers this year at this major soils
conference - that the year before had none.

IF YOU SEND US DETAILS OF ANY PEER-REVIEWED FIELD TRIAL STUDIES
INVOLVING MODERN BIOCHAR WHICH WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND SO FAR,
WE'LL BE HAPPY TO UPDATE OUR REPORT AGAIN. AT THE MOMENT, MOST OF
THE SCIENCE IS BASED ON LABORATORY AND MODELLING STUDIES AND
INFERENCE FROM INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTIES OF CHARCOAL. THIS IS
INTERESTING, BUT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE REAL EFFECTS OF BIOCHAR ON SOIL,
I.E. ON COMPLEX AND VARIED ECOSYSTEMS, CAN ONLY BE GAINED FROM FIELD
EXPERIMENTS.

I guess it all depends on whether you view the glass as half full or
half empty. Biochar is a very new field with close to zero public
consciousness – and the fantastic excitement about biochar of both
climate and soils scientists does not come through in your review.

The roughly 25% of your report devoted to biochar in Section 4 is an
inappropriately small proportion, especially when you make serious
negative allegations.

OUR REPORT FOCUSSES ON PROPOSALS TO USE SO-CALLED 'CARBON NEGATIVE'
BIOENERGY ON A VERY LARGE SCALE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION.
SECTION 5 IS ENTIRELY DEVOTED TO THE MACRO-PICTURE.

As near as I can tell, none (repeat – none) of the even smaller
percentage of references in Section 4 (28 out of a report total of
189) support any of your concerns.

WHAT WE POINT OUT IS THE LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY ABOUT LONG-TERM
SOIL FERTILITY AND LONG-TERM SOIL CARBON STORAGE LINKED TO MODERN
BIOCHAR. READERS MIGHT WELL LIKE TO STUDY THE ORIGINAL REFERENCES
AND COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

The most authoritative negative article you have cited was by Dr.
Wardle (your reference # 60). But Dr. Wardle was only urging caution –
and furthermore you only provided half the story. The other half (a
response by Prof. Lehmann and a rejoinder by Dr. Wardle should/could
have been provided (all three are at: http://www.biochar-
international.org/aboutbiochar/articlesonchar.html. ).

GOOD POINT ABOUT THE PARAGRAPH NOT HAVING BEEN COMPLETE - WE'VE
EXPANDED IT NOW.

Assuming that the authors (Almuth and Deepak) will disagree with my
analysis of this report, I ask that they list the top few references
that have led to, or support, this so-negative opinion on biochar. I
especially ask that they exclude references that are only critical of
biofuels. I grant that the biofuels topic deserves criticism – but
the traditional biofuels areas have neither of the climate and soils
improvement attributes of biochar which prompt this note to this blog.

To those who have not yet read this report, I especially ask that
you look carefully at how this BFW report dismisses Dr. Jim Hansen's
recent endorsement of biochar. To me, the authors dismiss Hansen's
endorsement solely because he can (reluctantly) live with biochar
from plantation forestry. If BFW has a different reason for
dismissing Hansen's views on biochar, they have not made it clear.

DR HANSEN, A WORLD EXPERT IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, ACTUALLY HAS NO
SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND WITH REGARDS TO BIOENERGY. IT IS CLEAR
FROM WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN THAT HE LARGELY RELIED ON REPORTS BY
JOHANNES LEHMANN AND DAVID TILMAN AND WE DISCUSS THOSE IN DETAILS.

Similarly, BFW is simply wrong about not being able to achieve
Hansen's (and IBI's) goals for atmospheric carbon reduction. Those
goals are large - but realistic and a small portion of annual biomass
production.

SEE SECTION 5.

Finally, here are three examples of improper analysis that I hope the
authors will also address in a rebuttal:
a. From p 9: "This, of course does not mean that the same proposals
are not also promoted by those who see them as an alternative to
reducing fossil fuel burning." (underlining of four negatives added
for emphasis)

It took me some time to figure out what this quadruple-negative
sentence was intended to convey.

YRES, IT WAS A CLUMSY SENTENCE. WE'VE RE-WRITTEN IT TO MAKE IT EASIER
TO READ AND MORE EXPLICIT.

I think they meant this (all-positive) statement: "These same
proposals are promoted by those wanting to retain fossil fuel
burning." While undoubtedly true about a few future biochar proposals
(however, I have met no biochar proponent ever saying this), carbon
credits can transfer considerable dollars from the fossil to biochar
(necessarily forest-preserving and fossil-fuel reducing). I know of
no better way to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. This whole topic
of carbon credits for biochar was mentioned only once (negatively) by
BFW, so a plus for biochar is turned into a negative with this double-
double-negative sentence.

WE BRIEFLY DISCUSS CARBON TRADING IN SECTON 7. FOR BACKGROUND ABOUT
THE REALITIES OF CARBON TRADING, INCLUDING THE CDM, WE'D RECOMMEND
THE VERY DETAILED RESEARCH BY LARRY LOHMANN, CORNER HOUSE
(http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=544225).

b. From p 51: "Currently, the terrestrial biosphere absorbs a net 300
million to 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon per year.117 ……. even taking
account of losses due to deforestation and fires etc."
The authors have misread Reference 117 (An IPCC technical
document – which I found at http://ipcc-
wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf). In the right-most
column of Table 7.1 their "net 300 million to 1.5 billion tonnes" is
shown as 0.9 +/- 0.6. This poorly defined number is itself the
subtraction of two equally poorly known even-larger numbers (for
deforestation and CO2-augmented growth). Thus Almuth and Deepak
have "thrown the baby out with the bath water". That is, land use
changes have been relegated to the unimportant - as they now have
thrown away the annual deforestation loss - that they so (correctly)
abhor. In other parts of this IPCC chapter (for instance Figure
7.3) , it is clear that the IPCC thinks the average annual increase
in atmospheric carbon content due to land use changes is about 1.6 Gt
C/yr. And it is here that biochar can have just as large a positive
impact – a correlation BFW disputes. (This Table shows "n.a" for the
most current period, whereas the changes MUST be much like the prior
5-year period also showing the 1.6 Gt C/yr mean value of Figure 7.3.)

TRUE, WE MADE AN ERROR REGARDING THE FIGURES. WE'VE CORRECTED THIS,
BUT OUR OVERALL CONCLUSION REMAINS THE SAME.

c. Lastly, also from the report's p 51, two paragraphs
later: "Additionally, even if it was possible to speed up the
terrestrial carbon cycle, in the first couple of decades the
emissions from biomass loss would far outweigh the gains from new
biomass."
Biochar makes the most sense when working with residues – mostly
agricultural.

REALLY, RON, DO YOU THINK YOU SEQUESTER 5.5-9.5 BILLION TONS OF
CARBON FROM AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESIDUES? PLEASE SEE FROM THE
DISCUSSIONS AT THIS YEAR'S IBI CONFERENCE, ABOUT THE NEED FOR ENERGY
CROPS TO GET SUFFICIENT BIOMASS FOR LARGE-SCALE BIOCHAR:
http://www.biochar-
international.org/images/IBI_2008_Conference_Parallel_Discussion_Sessi
on_D.pdf. WE DISCUSS LIMITS TO AND IMPACTS OF "RESIDUE" REMOVAL IN
SECTION 5.

The authors insist on equating biochar only with energy plantations
newly planted following the deforestation of old-growth natural
forests.

WE DON'T - SEE SECTION 5.

Nothing could be further from the truth. With a little boost from the
UN, and a modest amount of training, the biochar march could begin in
2009. Already, we hear of new biochar projects every month – soon
likely to be every week.
In sum, my perception is that the authors are so adamantly
opposed to biofuels that they have not been sufficiently diligent in
analyzing biochar. Biochar is a vastly different technology – one
that they, joining every other analyst I have seen/read, should be
wholeheartedly endorsing.
Ron Larson, Golden, Colorado, USA; 30 Nov. 2008