A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Save the Earth (step 1 of 1)

orca | 25.01.2009 14:34 | Climate Chaos | Energy Crisis

James Lovelock is revered by greens for his Gaia theory and getting CFCs banned globally, and then dismissed by them for advocating nuclear power for the UK. He was just interviewed in New Scientist, saying he can see only one way to avert climate change - burying charcoal.

Low Tech, Low Pollution

"Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.

So are we doomed?
There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?
Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it."

WHY BURY CHARCOAL?

Burying charged charcoal in soil stores carbon for potentially thousands of years and increases crop yield. Charcoal can be produced from any agricultural waste burned at low-temperatures. Charge it with nutrients for a month, such as soaking it in urine or plant tea, dry it and crunch it up, and bury it 20 to 50 cm deep in acidic soil for home-made Terra Preta. Terra Preta is named after the dark earth found in long inhabited Amazonian sites, a dark, nutrient-rich soil that increases agricultural yield. It is about 9% black carbon which keeps more nutrients in the soil longer by encouraging microbacterial growth while also storing carbon for hundreds or thousands of years.

Benefits:
1) Atmospheric Carbon Sequestration
2) Soil fertilisation/mineralisation without oil based fertilisers
3) Energy with a negative carbon footprint

It will have more effect on CO2 levels than ending all flights and banning all cars, so why aren't we all already doing it already? Lovelock is envisioning a global scheme but the technology is low-tech and we can all benefit from using it in our soil.

GASIFIERS

This is a separate but related issue.

Wood gasifier stoves and engines that are fuelled by the gases given off by wood combustion can drive vehicles, generate electricity, cook and heat homes. The temperature of this process is regulated by oxygen intake to vary the amount of biogas to charcoal produced. If the charcoal is used in the soil instead of a subsequent fuel then it will improve the soil and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere while producing energy.

The same equipment also has the advantage of a 'clean-burn', with the resultant gases being combusted and particulate emissions drastically reduced. In terms of personal transportation, Wikipedia states that "1000 kg of wood combustible matter has been found to substitute 365 litres of petrol during real transportation in similar driving conditions and with the same otherwise unmodified vehicle ...Against general belief, exhaust gas emission level of internal combustion engine is significantly lower on wood gas than on petrol."

The World Health Organisation estimates that 1.8 million people die each year in developing countries from the effects of indoor air pollution - many of them from lung diseases caused by persistent smoke inhalation. "Half the world's population is exposed to indoor air pollution, mainly the result of burning solid fuels for cooking and heating. Globally, it is estimated to cause 36% of all lower respiratory infections and 22% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."
An open wood fire spews seven times more particulates into the air than a car does. More than cars or industry domestic open wood fires and commerical slash and burn fires are the biggest contributors to the 'pollution layer', the vast cloud of smog that hangs over all of Asia for most of the year. By encouraging the use of gasifiers rather than open fires, and slash'n'char rather than slash'n'burn, not only will millions of developing world lives be saved each year, but the equipment and knowledge necessary to produce charcoal will be popularised.

SAVING THE EARTH?

It may seem crazy to be burying good fuel, charcoal, while other people are still digging up coal and oil, but of course it would be crazier not to try to mitigate or offset the effects they cause.
One effect of clearing air pollution is to increase light by up to 25% which could increase global warming. Global dimming due to pollution reflecting sunlight is estimated to be ten times greater than global warming although there is new evidence that smoke pollution also traps heat.
Sequesting carbon in charcoal is a stop-gap method to buy at least a few hundred years for humanity but because it could more than offset all other human contributions then there is a risk that companies and states will ignore the underlying man-made contributions to global warming.
Reducing the number of fatalities from smoke inhalation increases population strains.
This won't save the earth as the earth doesn't need saving. The planet will survive whatever humanity throws at it so reducing the effects of climate change will not save the earth, the issue is about saving as many lives and species as possible.

One last chance to save mankind