There is hope that this is the year that rainforest countries might finally (and deservingly) receive some economic rewards for avoiding or reducing deforestation. There is also hope that carbon credits may be offered for long-term soil amendments that promise to save rainforests, feed people and reduce global warming. The new definitions could produce a new kind of tipping point.

Technology and economy have always driven the relationship between humans and nature. But now, with so many people, the relationship between technology and economy also holds the future of the human race and the planet. There can be much much good — what we view as progress. And there can be problems — terrible ones. Much depends on the positive feedback loops. Global warming means there will be more food grown in Canada and it’s thawing permafrost will release even more greenhouse gases.

The question is not really about having technology or profits or progress (or not), but whether a particular techno-economic approach gives us new and larger problems or new and larger solutions? A positive feedback loop for solutions? Hmmmm, I hope that got your attention. Is such a thing possible? I believe the answer is YES and it takes the form of an ancient-future soil technology called Terra Preta do Indio (Portuguese for Indian Black Earth).

Recent research emerging from the Amazon basin is locating large deposits of an extremely fertile and resilent soil called terra preta. It appears to be human-made, ancient indians adding charcoal to the soil to produce the result — carbon dating says much of it is 2500 to 4000 years old. Terra preta soil is so productive — up to 800% increased plant growth — that it could have easily supported an agriculture capable of feeding millions of people living in great cities in the central Amazon basin. Hmmmm (again). This is the legend of El Dorado.

But do we have to embrace a mythic vision, a conquistador’s dream of gold? Is there some solid science involved? Might there actually be a modern soil technolgy whereby faster growing plants would draw more CO2 out of the atmosphere and the unused plant waste turned into charcoal to be returned to the soil — resulting in increased crop yields, more carbon capture and long term sequestration, more food and fuel for increasing populations, and a new era of abundance. In other words, might there be a positive feedback loop for healing ourselves and the earth? A technologically and economically supported relationship for bringing human beings and nature into a mutually supportive marriage? A sustainable relationship of abundance?

The data are not in but the soil research is being conducted and the hopes are great. But we will need more than new agricultural technology. Right now the overwhelming economic opportunities are located in creating fuel. What can incentivize devoting a portion of the charcoal that can be produced from agricultural waste to amendments for renewing the soil?

THE CARBON EXCHANGE CAN PRODUCE THE NEEDED ECONOMIC TIPPING POINT.

Those who have no choice about polluting ways can fund those who have a choice but incur lost opportunities for short-term profits if they do the right thing. We can leave the blame-game and help each other. What a concept!

Please check out the following links to discover more about this exciting possibility.

The ABC 11 minute video about the the modern version of terra preta called “Agrichar”. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm

Kelpie Wilson’s lay person’s introduction to terra preta. http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Joyful_Liiving_Terra_Preta_Sept-Oct_0207.pdf

Research confirms that char added to soil boosts crop productivity. http://biopact.com/2007/06/research-confirms-biochar-in-soils.html

The BBC documentary, “The Secret of El Dorado”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldorado.shtml

Ken Salazar has introduced a bill in the US Senate that would fund research on agrichar. http://biopact.com/2007/10/towards-carbon-negative-bioenergy-us.html

I report the story unfolding from Brazil here. http://lougold.blogspot.com/

Lou Gold
An American in Brazil

1) The IPCC did a major special report on CCS in 2005 with a lot of positive assesments. If you’re interested, you can download it at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/special-reports.htm

I’m sure you’re familiar with Socolow & Pacala’s wedge approach. If not, see: Robert H. Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala. “A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check,” Scientific American, September 2006.

The IEA has some of the world’s top energy experts, and their major 2006 report “Energy Technology Perspectives” is seen as one of the most authoritative studies on energy tech: International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives, 2006.

The IEA has also been doing an annual study of CCS. The 2007 report can be found at http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1979. To quote:

“Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is a critical technology to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. In a global CO2 emissions stabilisation scenario, CCS in power generation, industry and fuel transformation could account for 20% of CO2 savings (6.5 Gt of CO2 captured and stored annually in 2050).2 Accelerating investment in R&D and demonstration projects will be needed if CCS is to make a significant contribution. CCS along with other mitigation measures could significantly reduce the costs of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations and increase the flexibility to achieve that goal.”

Jae Edmonds is also big:

Edmonds, JA, Wise, MA, Dooley, JJ, Kim, SH, Smith, SJ Runci, PJ, Clarke, LE Malone, EL, Stokes, GM. “Global Energy Technology Strategy: Addressing Climate Change,” Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, May 2007.

2) You’re absolute right, we should have prioritized that research and development and widely deployed those options. And we should do it today with a $300-500 billion public investment into clean energy. The only way the developing world will be able to massively deploy renewables is if they’re as cheap as coal. And the quickest way to bring down the real price of clean energy is with a massive and strategic investment & innovation project.

Unfortunately, we didn’t prioritize those investments, and solar is still at least 5 times as expensive as coal (per kWh). Whether we like it or not, China is going to build those coal plants (and already is at a rate of 1 per week), and they’re going to exist for the next half century. We all recognize the problems with coal extraction, and CCS is no permanent solution. But it’s a tool we’re going to need — vitally — if we’re going to get anywhere near 80% emissions reductions.

This example shows that a cheap, easy to install, technology can be quickly brought on line. The issue is that there is no readily available cheap source of carbon free power (energy storage is expensive too). It is not a conspiracy of the coal companies, but a result of our current level of mastery of chemistry and physics. If a cheap superconductor, or a new way to do fusion, etc. were to be found tomorrow, it would greatly help. Otherwise, we face the tough choices (i.e., sequester CO2, more nuclear, cut back standards of living, etc.) as we already have over 6.5 billion people on our planet.

And the reason why renewables and energy storage options are limited is because the fossil fuel industry is making sure that the billions of research dollars available are going towards fantasies like “clean coal” – rather than making clean energy take hold. 20 years ago – we had mainframe computers than occupied an entire room and costs millions to build. Now we have more powerful machines that fit in our pocket and are “economically disposable” to many people. Why? Because we prioritized that research and development and widely deployed those options. We could have started that process 20 years ago with solar – let’s not make that same mistake today.

Teryn – can you find me reputable sources (environmental experts or a concerned citizen – not energy companies or politicians) that think we can solve the climate challenge, have clean water, clear air, healthy communities, and a just economy with coal?

Here’s the REALITIES of Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

-It doesn’t yet exist on a commercial scale. Optimistic estimates from the industry themselves (who aren’t exactly objective, honest, and certainly overly-optimistic) hope to begin commercial scale deployment of CCS for coal by “2020 or 2025″ (CEO of Arch Coal). That doesn’t mean widespread deployment on every single power plant – it means the hopeful start of deployment. Meanwhile – we are way past tipping points for our climate. We can’t wait until 2020 or 2025. Or ignore the destruction of coal extraction.

-The biggest study to date of CCS is from MIT. They forecast that if with widespread CCS deployment of coal power plants – that in 2050 global carbon dioxide emissions from all energy sources would be only slightly higher than today. Slightly higher? What about 80% reductions by 2050?

-It isn’t economically feasible. The pipeline needs for CCS from every coal plant in the country to appropriate sequestration sites is mind-boggling. Costs are very hard to predict, but estimates for carbon capture and storage would raise costs of coal-fired generation by up to $.06-$10/kWh (USD), without even figuring in transportation, liability or permanent storage. This makes the cost of coal higher than current clean options – and clean options will decrease in price with widespread deployment.

-Why risk it? We’re still sitting on lots of nuclear waste that we can’t safely dispose of. Why do the same thing with C02? Why create such massive waste streams in the first place? And we’re talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of tons of C02 – the US alone produces about 2 billion tons a year at coal power plants. In a freak accident in Cameroon – a small 1.6 million ton C02 leak instantly killed 1700 people. Do the math – and realize WHY the industry will take no responsibility for the safety of CCS. Because it isn’t safe.

Why let another 20 years go by crossing our fingers for another “technological” breakthrough to fix everything for us. We’ve been doing that, and largely ignoring the solutions we know work. Meanwhile – our climate is at it’s limit. How many warnings are we going to get before we start reducing our emissions NOW?

Matt, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the most important technologies we can be investing in. Can you find reputable sources (energy experts, not RAN) who say we can solve the climate challenge w/out CCS?