Global Climate Solutions

By Peter Read

Peter Read is a member of the Advisory Board of the International Biochar Initiative and an Hon Research Fellow with Massey University’s Centre for Energy Research. 

The International Biochar Initiative met this week in Newcastle (on Tyne) to advance the scientific understanding and policy role of this new boy on the block. And it’s under attack, even though it has a key role to play in addressing the threat of abrupt climatic change, such as a sudden, possibly several meter, rise in sea levels sometime this century.

But first, what’s biochar? It’s finely divided pyrolyzed biomass prepared for soil improvement – any sort of biomass such as wood chips, lawn mowings, sewage sludge, kitchen waste, animal husbandry effluents, corn stover and other crop wastes, etc. – that is heated with little or no oxygen (pyrolyzed) till volatile components are driven off (and available for processing to sustainable biofuels) with the remaining porous and carbon-rich material subsequently loaded with nutrients e.g. through exposure to compost or nutrient-rich boiler flue gases.

It is to be distinguished from charcoal, which is coarsely divided pyrolyzed wood, prepared for barbeque or other cooking fuel or for artist’s material (though otherwise useless charcoal dust from the charcoal making can be processed to biochar like any other finely divided pyrolyzed biomass).

So what’s it got to do with abrupt climate change? Distinguished Australian climate scientist Will Steffan, speaking to the Wellington Climate Conference last year said “One thing that really does worry a lot of us is the idea of a single aggregate tipping point for the earth as a whole – a shift to a state that may be much less amenable for human life”. Since then both theoretical climate modeling and climatic observation suggest that a tipping point may be near, with a point of no return, beyond which there is nothing we can do to get tipped back again, possibly following not long after.

The possibility of such a disaster is evident from studies of climate change over the last half million years which show many sudden temperature increases of several degrees within a few decades, linked to sea level changes of several meters. This link is thought to be due to the collapse of large land-based ice masses, such as, on a relatively small scale, the loss of the Larsen Ice Shelf a few years back, creating a vast ice island in the Southern Ocean.

So what are the policy implications of that? Like Noah, when he learned on high authority of a possible flood, we could get to be prepared, we could build an Ark. With the warning from Will Steffan, what form should our Ark take? An expert workshop I convened in Paris a few years back concluded that we need to be prepared to do better than reduce emissions, as is aimed for by the Kyoto Protocol. We need to be ready to actively take carbon out of the atmosphere and then put it somewhere safer.

Taking it out of the atmosphere means grow a lot of stuff, say trees – every ton of tree results from taking nearly two tons of carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Putting it somewhere safer means using the biomass of trees in ways that both keeps fossil fuel in the ground (Kyoto-fashion emissions reductions) and also prevents the Carbon that had been taken from the atmosphere getting back there – what can be called carbon removals.

Biochar does just that, providing it is based on sustainable commercial plantations, where harvested trees are replaced with new plantings that grow to maturity over the following years, or on biomass wastes co-produced with commercial food crops, resulting in synergy with food production, not competition. Done globally, and on a sufficiently large scale, carbon removals could restore carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels by mid-century – far ahead of anything possible from Kyoto-style emissions reductions.

Interest in biochar sprang from archaeological studies of pre-Columbian civilizations in the Amazon basin. There it was found that large populations had been able to thrive, supporting themselves on the infertile yellow clay jungle soils by creating black earth (what is nowadays called terra preta in Brazil) through the accumulation of biochar residues from cooking fires.

Soil scientists involved in the Newcastle conference are investigating this fertility. It has been found that, with some soils and crops, productivity can be increased eight-fold. For the atmosphere that’s a treble whammy – fossil fuel left in the ground, stable biochar carbon in the soil, plus increased labile carbon bound up in the life-cycle of the greater weight of crops and their in-soil roots.

Devoted researchers are working in developing countries to realize these benefits for indigenous communities, passing the treble whammy on to farmers on the ground – providing the policy settings post 2012 deliver a value stream for the carbon benefit, one of the concerns at the IBI meeting. That can then be added to the value stream from the bio-oil by-product of the pyrolysis process, and the value stream from increased crop production. But not always: in some soils there’s no gain in crop productivity and in some there is even a reduction. So there is urgent need for research to find out where is best, which is what the IBI meeting is also about.

So why is this multi-win approach to the imminent threat to the survival of planet earth as we know it under attack?

Published by “eGov” it proclaims “International Biochar Conference uses False Claims to Promote Dangerous Technology”, not waiting for the meeting to take place or to proclaim anything. ‘Campaigners’ warn the IBI will be misleading governments with claims that biochar can curb climate change and improve soil fertility. This from one lady who is world renowned for swimming with dolphins off Northwest Australia and another deeply involved with the Pacific Indigenous People’s Environment Coalition – a group that will doubtless thank her sincerely if her actions see their homelands sink below the ocean waves.

Neither seems particularly well versed in soil science or knowledgeable about the carbon cycle. Almuth Ernsting adds that the IBI board members are well aware that science does not back their claims, citing Professor Lehmann’s confirmation that there are no long term experiments to support them. Now Lehmann is a good and honest scientist and would not shrink from the reality that interest in this new boy on the block is, unsurprisingly, recent. So it is to be expected that no long term human experimentation has yet yielded results regarding long term carbon sequestration. But Mr Ernsting cleverly twists his words by implying there is no evidence of improved fertility – in fact there is plenty, as he well knows and would report if he were honest. And there is more than one way to scientific knowledge – observing natures’ experiment with biochar left in the soil by pre-historic civilizations provides plenty of evidence that biochar yields very long term sequestration indeed.

Whatever can possess these presumably well meaning people? It seems they are driven by hard cases, and it is well known that hard cases make bad law. There is much to be learned from bad experience with early biofuel projects – early biochar projects don’t exist, since biochar work is all recent. This can ensure that land usurpation and tropical forest destruction have no place in the future pattern of land use improvements, based on investing in and caring for the soil so that it can deliver the food fibre and fuel that will be needed by 9 billion people a very few decades ahead. These people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, bad law indeed when this baby can not only deliver the needed food fibre and fuel, but also grow up big, to save us from climatic catastrophe.

By Ryan Hottle

Biochar may be the single greatest solution humanity has to mitigate and adapt to the threat of global climate change.  Through the process of creating biochar (called pyrolysis) it is possible to simultaneously produce clean energy, vastly improve soils, and capture significant quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The source of the material used for making biochar can be a wide variety of feedstocks including waste agricultural products (e.g. nut shells and rice hulls), urban lawn waste (e.g. leaves and tree trimmings), poultry manure, fast growing trees (e.g. poplars and willows), sewage sludge, saw dust, and grass-based biomass (e.g. switchgrass.)

Biochar is also widely recognized as providing a means of reducing deforestation by offering alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture. Many proponents of biochar hope it will increase economic well-being and sustainability of local indigenous communities. The appropriate use of the technology could benefit third-world countries as a highly efficient method of cooking and using local biomass resources.

An example of how pyrolysis applications could be used to benefit third-world communities using appropriate scale for home cooking and heating. Image of Robert Flanagan's biochar cookstove.

Community-scale biochar power generation facilities could work in tandem with solar and wind based renewable energy systems to produce energy while the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems for biochar production may be among the most sustainable methods by which we can heat and power our homes in the future.

Clearly the potential benefits of biochar are significant.

A somewhat strange attack-piece circulated by a few small organizations, however, would make you think otherwise. An article entitled “International Biochar Conference Uses False Claims to Promote Dangerous Technology in the name of Climate Change Mitigation,” has recently begun circulating the internet in response to the International Biochar Initiative’s second annual meeting in Newcastle, United Kingdom.

In the article they claim that Biochar is a “scheme for profiteering off of the crisis of climate change,” and that “vast areas of land would have to be turned over to monoculture plantations to produce enough biomass.” They claim that biochar production “will accelerate global warming,” and that “the IBI board members are well aware that science does not back their claims.”

Unfortunately, this belligerent attack on the International Biochar Initiative and on biochar, in general, is unfortunate, unhelpful, and extremely dishonest.

Myth 1: Biochar requires that we plant monoculture plantations

As described at the beginning of this article, biochar can be derived from a large variety of feedstocks and need not require monoculture plantations. Indeed, biochar’s powerful soil improvement characteristics may be a critical component to reforestation efforts as well as a significant element of sustainable agricultural practices, particularly in the tropics.

Myth 2: Biochar will accelerate global climate change

Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has recently pointed to biochar (and the work of Dr. Johannes Lehmann) as being potentially the most critical component to carbon sequestration and climate mitigation in his most recent paper “Where Should Humanity Aim?”

Myth 3: There is no scientific basis for biochar

A significant amount of research has been conducted on biochar by universities, institutions, and private companies across the world and on practically every continent. More research remains to be done, as biochar is a novel suggestion in light of the unprecedented threats of global climate change and energy scarcity. The data suggest a clear link between biochar and improved soil fertility, clean energy production, and significant carbon sequestration.

I think it unfortunate that this campaign has been launched by a group of “environmental organizations.” While their concerns over continued deforestation and indigenous communities are legitimate, their unsubstantiated hack job is not.

Many of the people working behind the scenes to promote biochar as a sustainable solution to climate change are concerned about the very same issues. I invite those who are responsible for writing and circulating the article to open a dialog with the biochar community instead of releasing dubious press releases. A good place to start would be on the Biochar Listserve available at: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org.

By Ryan Hottle

The world is in desperate need for a greenhouse gas accounting and reduction system that will prevent us from crossing important threshold levels of atmospheric carbon. Actually, we’ve probably already crossed this level, and therefore will need powerful carbon sequestration and storage methods too.

If we think creatively about the solution, we may actual be able to accomplish both of these goals—emissions reductions and carbon sequestration—simultaneously.

One model for reducing global carbon emissions. (From Global Commons Institute www.GCI.org)

The most critical thing that we get right is putting a price on carbon that reflects its current and future costs for human society. Presently there is no incentive for an emitter of carbon dioxide, whether it be a family, commercial facility, coal fire power plant, or industrial plant, to conserve energy and lower emissions.

But how exactly do we do this? The two most popular methods being proposed are Cap-and-Trade and a Carbon Tax. Many contrasts have been drawn between the two approaches, but, in many respects, the systems are not altogether dissimilar (and they can in theory used in tandem).

Cap-and-Trade—the approach most popular among politicians—would put a quantitative limit on annual carbon emissions by auctioning permits that power plants and other industries would have to purchase in order to burn fossil fuels, whereas, a Carbon Tax—the approach most popular among economists—would discourage emissions reductions by increasing the cost of doing so.

Both effectively put a price on carbon emissions. Both require monitoring and administrative infrastructure. Both are open to political-corporate manipulation. The most often cited benefits and drawbacks of each system can be surmised as follows:

BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF CARBON TAX

-A Carbon Tax will provide greater efficiency and transparency than a Cap-and-Trade system. It will be easier to set up and easier manage because it utilizes the existing tax structure.

-A Carbon Tax will offer greater predictability in prices which is beneficial to businesses and industries investing in low-carbon options such as energy conservation and efficiency measures and replacement of fossil fuel derived energy with renewables.

-Like the Cap-and-Trade system, a Carbon Tax can be structured such that 100 percent of the money is returned directly to the people who are taxed.

-A Carbon Tax discourages carbon emissions but cannot limit them to quantifiable annual levels.

-A Carbon Tax is based almost exclusively around the nation-state level. It is not scalable (e.g. it cannot be easily adopted by a local municipality which then influences a state toward adoption) and it appears that it will be difficult to encourage universal adoption even if an influential country such as the United States were to implement it, due to the inherent differences of individual country’s taxation systems.

Distribution of tax on different economic levels, demonstrating that the rich will pay more since they general use more energy and, therefore, emit more CO2. Is this enough, however, to protect the poor? (From the Carbon Tax Center.)

-Despite claims that the wealthy will invariably pay a greater portion of the Carbon Tax, there is no real safety net to protect low-income and working class people from rising energy prices unless some portion of the money were to be allocated specifically for low-income assistance programs such as the HUD’s Weatherization Programs.

-Many people (especially those in the U.S.) are adverse to anything resembling, associated with, or connected to a tax. The very name and identity of the approach could also be its largest obstacle for implementation.

BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF CAP-AND-TRADE

-Emissions can be directly controlled by placing a restriction on the amount of annual carbon emissions. If all emissions are accounted for, this allows us to use the best scientific research possible in order to establish what annual emissions should be.

-Like a carbon tax, the Cap-and-Trade can be structured to redistribute the collected funds equally to the general public.

-The Cap-and-Trade has been at least partly proven in concept through the successful cap-and-trade system utilized in the Clean Air Act of 1990.

-A Cap-and-Trade system is more subject to political and corporate manipulation, could require a much larger administration to manage it.

-Cap-and-Trade could take significantly longer to design, get legislative approval and to implement.

-A Cap-and-Trade system may lead to price volatility on energy markets which would create difficulties for companies investing in renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions.

Again, it is important to emphasize that the two systems are more similar than the contrasts suggest.

Cap-and-Share (www.capandshare.org) is proposing a unique model of distributing permits directly to the citizenry that may get rid of much of the complexity and bureaucracy of former Cap-and-Trade based systems. They also claim their model is flexible, scalable, and not prone to corruption. If this is indeed the case, they would have gotten rid of many of the purported drawbacks of a Cap-based system.

Diagram of the Cap-and-Share Model. (From www.CapandShare.org)

Meanwhile, The Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontaxcenter.org) has also put forth some very convincing arguments as to why a carbon tax may be the best approach and how it could be made to work in an extremely economical and equitable manner.

Recently, there has been widespread excitement over the proposal to return the generated funds from either the Cap or the Tax directly back to the people. James Hansen has suggested this in his paper “Carbon Tax and 100 Percent Dividend,” as has Peter Barnes in his newly released book “Climate Solutions.”

Directly depositing money into the bank accounts of each individual citizen on a monthly basis, as Hansen has suggested, would surely be a fairly convincing way to convince voters that the system is transparent, fair, and non-regressive.

The most critical thing is not which system we ultimately choose to go with, but that we make the system as transparent, robust, and equitable as possible. And, of course, that we put it into place as soon as possible—we simply do not have much time left to start initiating these reductions in emissions.

In future postings, I hope to explore some unique methods by which we can accomplish several other important measures simultaneously, including: 1) encourage global adoption of a carbon accounting system, 2) promote population stabilization, 3) establish a global fund to assist in climate mitigation and adaptation (particularly for the poorest people in the world), and 4) research, design, and demonstration of CCS technologies as well as Carbon Negative Energy technologies from pyrolysis.

We have but one beautiful planet to protect and but precious little time to do it in. What we choose to do–or not to do–in the next five to ten years will make all the difference.  We must be prepared to work hard and work together–that’s the only way we’re going to win!

By Ryan Hottle

Feedback cycles in Earth’s climatic system are one of the most critical and uncertain factors influencing global climate change. Recent research suggests these feedbacks are overwhelmingly positive. That is to say, as the world’s atmosphere increases in temperature due to emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and CFCs) the likelihood is for an amplification of the warming effect.

And this is what has many climatologists worried about irreversible “run-away” warming effects that, once they’re started, can’t be stopped.

Among one of the most important and potentially devastating feedbacks is the release of carbon in the form of methane from Arctic soils. A recent study published in the British scientific journal Nature suggests that soil organic carbon (SOC) levels are much higher than previously estimated.

Dr. Chein-Lu Ping and his team have found that soils in the North American Arctic region contain around 34.8 kilograms of carbon per meter instead of the previously assumed levels of 20-29 kilograms of carbon per square meter. The previous studies did not take into account deeper soil layers and relied upon a very limited sampling. In their paper, “High stocks of soil organic carbon in the North American Arctic region,” Ping et al write:

“We estimate the North American Arctic SOC pool size to be 98.2 Gt [Gigatons]…The only other comparable published estimate found in the literature is considerably lower, at 43 Gt SOC for the Canadian treeless Arctic.”

This is important, very important.

The tundra is estimated to be a carbon sink of some 1,000 billion metric tons of carbon (though this estimate may change based on this research and other recent findings that carbon levels in the arctic are probably higher than previously assumed.) To put this into perspective, consider the fact that we are presently emitting on the order of 28 billion metric tons of CO2 per year.

Location of Permafrost in Northern Hemisphere. (From NSIDC.)

If just a small percentage of this carbon were to start entering the atmosphere in the form of methane (an extremely potent greenhouse gas —approximately 23 times the forcing effect of carbon dioxide—although shorter-lived CO2), the potential for catastrophic global climate change is only that much more likely.

Jamais Cascio (of www.worldchanging.com) has suggested a novel (albeit entirely theoretical) method for mitigating this threat. Essentially, we could genetically engineer a “methanotropic” bacteria that literally eats methane in order to potent greenhouse gases:

“It appears to me that what will be the most effective means of mitigating and remediating the gargantuan methane excursion from the Siberian permafrost melt would be using genetically-modified forms of methanotrophic bacteria, with greater oxidation capacity and the Archaea-derived resistance to extreme cold (these may well go hand-in-hand, as one way that deep sea methanotrophs survive the icy depths is through internal energy production from methane consumption). Given the size of the region, we’ll need lots of them, but that’s another advantage of biology over straight chemistry: the methanotrophs would be reproducing themselves.”

(See “Terraforming Earth 4: The Question of Methane.”)

I certainly don’t have the qualifications to speak on the likelihood of such a proposal to actually work. I will say that serious moral and ethical questions about the role and aptitude of humanity arise for me as we consider an approach that would unleash a genetically-modified organism to counter global climate change. Yet, I can also appreciate the concern and creativity to which Cascio addresses this important question. (I will be addressing the role of such “geo-engineering” projects in an upcoming blog.)

I think the overwhelming evidence suggests that we’re going to be in “a world of hurt” if we let the Earth’s systems get to the point of scrambling to sequester gigantic releases of methane from melting permafrost. Thus, our best option, is to (1) reduce emissions as fast as possible, and (2) sequester as much energy as possible from the atmosphere using Carbon Negative Energy technologies.

What I am advocating is that we reduce emissions 100 percent by 2025 and shoot for atmospheric carbon levels of 280 ppm by 2050 in order to be certain of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

If we take the philosophy that every problem is a solution in disguise, this study may open our eyes to the potential solution and I think it is this: There is a phenomenal opportunity—as carbon levels in arctic soils suggest—to store carbon in the soil.

In less than a couple days, the second annual conference on “Biochar” will be hosted by the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) in Newcastle, United Kingdom.

The conference will explore the extremely promising potential of capturing carbon from the atmosphere while producing clean, renewable energy from sustainably harvested biomass and creating a powerful soil amendment. Three incredibly important solutions in a single process—hard to ask for a more.

More information on the conference and on biochar can be found on the IBI’s website: www.biochar-international.org. The solutions are out there. How fast and effectively we implement them is the question of that remains to be answered.

We have but one beautiful planet to protect and but precious little time to do it in. What we choose to do—or not to do—in the next five to ten years will make all the difference. Be prepared to work hard and work together—that’s the only way we’re going to win!