Environmentalists who seek a solution to the excessive production of Co2 — that is one of the leading causes of global warming — tend to seek solutions in two arenas: reduced energy consumption and alternate energy sources that do not produce carbon dioxide. A recent NewYorker article looked at just such a scenario, with an ‘It can be done’ attitude, in The Island in the Wind.
That article describes a conservative Danish farming community, and tells how they went from the typical energy usage model to becoming an energy-producing entity, in just ten years. Given the particular location, wind energy was the solution to much of the production-side of the equation, and various smaller scale technologies contribute to the consumption side of the balance.
The second half of the article looks at a Swiss program to promote a 2,000 Watt lifestyle (i.e. 2000 watts of energy, or 2 Kilowatts/hr, or 48 Kw per day — 17,520 Kw per year). If this were just electric usage it would be relatively easy, but this is total energy consumption — electric, gas, natural gas, oil, etc., including the energy needed to produce the consumer items people buy. The average American uses six times this much energy.
While the Danish example is encouraging, and the Swiss analysis is enlightening, the real world will not adapt these technologies fast enough to slow, let alone stop, global warming. These are laudable goals that should be pursued, but it is unreasonable (or idealistic) to expect them to take hold within the time frame needed to stop the devastating effects of our warming Earth and acidifying oceans. We need something that will work faster and be so economically attractive that it will be easy to convince people to adopt it.
That something, of course, is biochar. With biochar, it is simply a matter of education, then self-interest will ensure it’s adoption on a massive scale. Infertile soils will show the most immediate benefit from biochar, so those communities with marginal agricultural capacity should be targeted first. Among richer environments the benefit is more long-term — less fertilizer and irrigation is required — but they will come along when they see those marginal soils suddenly competing with them on equal footing. Finally, currently non-productive soils can be turned to agriculture or forestry by biochar amendment, (with some fertilization and irrigation) once the method has been fully proven.
Large scale usage of biochar will offset current fossil-fuel abuse for a while, giving us time to bring that under control. With bichar, about 30% of the biomass is consumed (burned) to carbonize the other 60% — but biomass, by its nature, tends to release its carbon back into the atmosphere — if not by burning, then by rotting. So the 30% that goes into the atmosphere probably would have done so anyway, along with the 60% more that is now available for sequestration.
With fossil fuels — oil and coal — that is carbon the Earth has naturally sequestered already — if we don’t dig it (or pump it) up and use it, it remains sequestered. Adding biochar to the soil will sequester most of that carbon (not all, under some circumstances bacteria can break-down even charcoal). Luckily for us, the byproducts of this sequestration are increased plant productivity, reduced run-off pollution and producing soil that is better in texture and pH.
So we need to pursue the technological means of carbon use reduction, but that alone will clearly be too little too late. In concert with reduced consumption, we need to introduce carbon-negative biochar production and usage, to offset inevitable Co2 production, while so enriching soils that they not only sequester Co2 long-term through biochar, but increased productivity — providing short-term sequestration through increased biomass production.