| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Small Increase in Soil Carbon Sufficient

Page history last edited by PBworks 17 years, 3 months ago

The Soil Carbon Solution

 

An interesting thread from the Holistic Management people estimates that a 1.6% increase in the soil carbon levels to a depth of one foot over agricultural and ranching lands would restore the atmospheric carbon to its pre-industrial level.

 

I love the references to carbon tax! Spread the idea!

 

Malcolm


 

My bet and investment of heartbeats is in the soil sequestering carbon also. Since the invention of the plow we've been adding carbon to the atmosphere mined from the soil, not to mention the loss of topsoil from erosion. Civilizations have fallen as a result. With current technology we've just become more efficient in the process for mining the carbon from much deeper sources in the earth's crust. Indeed, I can see some reasons for optimism from understanding ways to change the direction of our resource distribution to a sustainable dynamic that increases the biodiversity, human quality of life, and generally sustainable dynamics. To disavow our role in creating the problem is another way to deny that the Emperor wears no clothes. The Titanic could have missed the iceberg if it turned in time, and we have a few decades to do likewise. For me, I have a choice of continuing the party or steering our ship. Indeed, I like to think of steering the ship while dancing through life, using the decision process of Holistic Management!

 

Holistic Management has a major role to play if we use it well. When Allan, Pat and me were in Nova Scotia June of '05 at an international conference, Redefining Progress, we talked with some interesting people who also think this way, and Allan gave super recommendations and insights about achieving "Gross National Happiness," metaphorically viewed as a table, with four legs -- Economics, Environment, Governance, and Culture. His perception on Governance was particularly enlightening for us, and I hope he writes more about this in the near future. Among other things, he has deep insights on the way bureaucrats "rise" to the level of their incompetence (or more), how desires and benefits of the governed are buried or deflected, and how economies are destroyed. If he were running for King of the World today, I'd support the wisdom he demonstrated (but, of course, he'd refuse it because this form of governance also doesn't work, as he described with a characteristic wry smile).

 

We're wasting valuable time to not address the climate change as a "wakeup call" full of opportunities for everyone!

 

Dick

 

At 01:10 PM 12/19/2006, Pat Spurlock wrote:

 

Allan Yeomans has done some interesting math. An increase of 1.6%

>in soil organic matter to a depth of 1 foot on the worlds ag/ranching

>lands would restore atmospheric concentrations of C02 to pre-industrial

levels.

>As graziers, our ability to build topsoil is probably the single most

>valuable gift anyone on earth has to offer.

>

This came from abe & Dick & Fred (below)

-----Original Message-----

From: Center for Sustainable Resources

[ sustainableresources@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:54 AM

To: famfarm@sover.net; general@lists.holisticmanagement.org;

d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu

Subject: RE: HM carbon

 

Abe,Just one point about some of your numbers. The recent big special I

believe from Discovery had scientist with ice samples from before the last

ice age around 600 ppm.

You have to suspect that these things happen at different levels in

different geographic areas just as weather patterns greatly differ. Moving

north might not help you. Three out of five models including central

Appalchia from 8 years ago have us as cooling down and becoming wetter.

The recent little ice age most likley caused by massive volcanic action

would not have the same impact on us as it did then.

If it happens we don't have time to fix what is already broken if we could.

We can't even fix a tiny area of the middle east. How do you think you can

get China , Mexico, and Brazil just to name a few that are worse than us to

change their ways.

Adapting to changing species and changing seasons to suit your production

needs is what we have to work with. I still have used no hay this winter and

might get by with just feeding in Feruary even though my herd doubled this

year. The cattle have taken too most invasive weeds that the state wants to

get rid of. Fred Hays

 

 

 

>From: "famfarm"

>To: , "Dick Richardson"

>

>Subject: HM carbon

>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:48:28 -0500

>

>Good conversation on methane,

> Folks have probably heard about the permafrost in old swamps

>melting in Siberia and other arctic regions. Yet one more source, in

>addition to the frozen hydrates on the ocean floor, for major climate

>changes to happen quickly.

> About five years back I put a lot of time into researching and

>building model scale anaerobic digesters to make methane for fuel.

> It was an interesting project, intellectually rewarding and so on.

>The gas is a good heating source.

> Today, in most of the 'climate change mitigation' work going on at

>the state/fed level, methane capture and combustion for power from

>liquid manure systems is given very high priority....much higher than

>building up stable soil carbon.

> The reason I finally quit my late night research into power from

>methane from manure was the realization that the only production method

>that lends itself to significant power generation is confinement.

>Whether dairy or swine, confinement farming is the only practical way

>to feed plug-flow digesters the daily shot of liquid manure they need.

>The 'environmental benefits' of methane capture disapear pretty quickly

>when the production model is fossil farming.

> An interesting side note is the effect that liquid slurry from

>liquid manure has on the soil. Around here, in Vermont, where liquid

>manure pits are the unfortunate norm, the spreading of liquid manure is

pretty tragic.

>First is the N2O and CH4 and ammonia emissions from the liquid pits. (I

>live 150 feet from a neigbor's pit.) Second is the soil compaction

>from the tanker trucks. Third, seeing the worms rush to the surface

>and die by the millions after the liquid hits the soil....

> Jerry Brunetti calls the application of liquid manure to soil a

>"collision of ecologies." Anaerobic meets aerobic.

> Methane capture from existing landfills seems worthwhile, but

>proposals to keep on shipping large amounts of organic matter to

>landfills in order to capture the methane miss the point that diverting

>the organic stream prior and composting would give us a more realistic

>cycling of minerals, esp. carbon, to soils.

> On the homestead scale, anaerobic digesters have been used pretty

>successfully. Jean Pain invented a batch digester imbedded in a

>compost pile with plastic pipe for a heat exchanger. The compost pile

>heated his house, and the digester fueled his cooking stove and powered

>a small generator for all of his electricity.

> Concerning tipping points. James Lovelock's speculates in his new

>book, The Revenge of Gaia, that we've already crossed the rubicon.

>His advice is to adopt nuclear power so we can keep the lights on while

>our cities sink, and prepare for the small group of human survivors to

>move North, where a few breeding pairs will provide the genetic base

>for the future of humanity. Other scientists talk about a 10 year

>window to get things under control. In a hundred years, even optimistic me

has trouble

>imagining any sort of stability with C02 at 750 or a thousand ppm. I'm of

 

>the opinion that we had better get busy eliminating emissions (from

>combustion and from the destruction of soil fertility) and capturing

>the excess atmospheric carbon in soils right now, just to be prudent.

> Lovelock points out that the last time there was this much carbon

>in the atmosphere was the Eocene, 55 million years ago. I am a big fan

>of Gaia theory, and of Lovelock's thinking in general. The thing that

>he seems to miss almost entirely is that there is a carbon sink on

>earth that can buy us a few decades to get this combustion habit of

>ours under control....the soil. And it needs carbon.

>The point bears repeating that current C02 levels are at almost 380 ppm.

>If we include other GHG that are looking higher than 'historically'

>normal, than the C02 equivalent might be in the neighborhood of 420

>ppm. Pre industrial ice-core samples levels fall into the 270-280 ppm

range.

> Almost all discussion about climate change 'solutions' today fall

>into the trap of problem solving and technological fixes. It's amazing

>to me how rarely the two words "carbon" and "cycle" appear together in

>climate change discussions. Ecological literacy is low.

> Allan Yeomans has done some interesting math. An increase of 1.6%

>in soil organic matter to a depth of 1 foot on the worlds ag/ranching

>lands would restore atmospheric concentrations of C02 to pre-industrial

levels.

>As graziers, our ability to build topsoil is probably the single most

>valuable gift anyone on earth has to offer.

> Over the years I've run carbon taxing through the HM policy

>formation process a few times. It bears out, and could probably use

>some real concentrated creativity by thinking people. A carbon tax, in

>which emissions of carbon compounds would be heavily taxed, would have

>the interesting effect of welding the human economy to the carbon

>cycle....or cycle of life. Taxation based on effective mineral cycling

>is a good idea in my book. To be effective, the carbon tax would

>supplant almost all other taxes....property, income, sales and so on.

>All govt. revenue would be generated from the taxation of fossil fuels,

>and resource management practices that resulted in net releases of C.

> Carbon taxes are being mentioned more and more frequently in the

>US these days, even by some Repub. politicians. There are a number of

>European countries allready doing this to a limited extent, Sweden for one.

> If we are serious about stabilizing the climate, in a necessarily

>holistic way, I think that we would do well to put some serious thought

>into C tax, and then some serious pressure on our politicians. Anyone

>up for some online policy analysis/formation?

>Best,

>Abe

>

>

>

 

_____________________________________________________________

Get free, personalized online radio with MSN Radio powered by Pandora

http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001

 

Dick Richardson

Professor

The University of Texas at Austin Phone 512-471-4128

Integrative Biology FAX 512-232-3402

Biology Labs, 114A

1 University Station, MS A6700

205 W. 24th Street

Austin, Texas 78712-0253

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.