We have plenty of solutions at hand beyond technology 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 5:57 pm
   28 Oct 2007

   YesExactly, we need to focus less on "BioFuels"
   And more on instituting farming practices use less fossil fuel inputs to grow, and don't leak carbon out of the soil, and don't decrease soil fertility.
   This is basically the exact opposite of what the biofuels approach seems to be about.
   Likely to go hand-in-hand with this approach would be to focus more on organic foods.
   _
   Providing local, low carbon, organic food.
   THAT is exactly what the farm bill should ideally be about.

   Permalink

2. 

   Billhook Posted 7:54 pm
   28 Oct 2007

   Integration of farming & forestryIncreasing soil carbon in farmland is undoubtedly a very great option for atmospheric carbon recovery, but there are some closely related aspects worth noting.
   First, whether cerials are best drilled into sward or whether Terra Preta (from sustainable forestry) offers both better C sequestration and better soil moisture retention and better food-yields per acre,
   
   has yet to be clearly demonstrated (as far as I know) by stringent comparative trials.
   Second, very large areas of forestry have been destroyed not, I'd emphasize, by foresters, but finally by stock being allowed to browse off the regrowth of harvested areas, and even under mature trees, thus ending their massive C banking.
   This process has to be reversed by rapid widespread sustainable reforestation if we are to recover atmospheric C in the volumes required to avoid 2.1dC of GW.
   Land area for that reforestation must perforce be mostly the less productive steep and/or north-facing ground, but there is also the highly benign potential of shelter-belts to utilize on both pasture and arable land.
   Both the yields of charcoal for Terra Preta and the option of village-scale methanol production offer very positive incentives for that widespread reforestation, in addition to which there is forestry's much-maligned real potential for carbon banking in its own right.
   Third, I'd observe that the practice of rotational grazing that the author praises is actually one I use here in Wales as a normal part of good traditional pasture management.
   
   Locally it is thought to raise yields by over 40% compared with the lazy non-management system called ranching.
   
   Surely rotational grazing hasn't been forgotten at least in the Eastern states of the US ?
   Part of that benign tradition in Wales is of mixed farming producing both livestock & plants & fodder and also the forestry products needed for a sustainable living.
   To my mind ntegrating farming & forestry is perhaps the core challenge we now face to provide the foundation for a sustainable society.
   Regards,
   Billhook

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 11:27 pm
   28 Oct 2007

   DocumentationPrairie grasses store 1.8 tons of CO2 per acre per year in natural prairie soil.  That soil was 20+ feet thick when the sod was busted.  Impelling a wheat boom, and a quick bust once soil fertility was used up.  
   Then chemical fertilizer burned the rest of that organic matter, converting it into atmospheric cO2.  millenia of stored carbon, released since the age of industrial chemical agribizz started up.
   How much CO2 does organic farming store?  If it is even half, then GHG can be removed from the atmosphere by conservation and a mass conversion to organic farming.
   Making organic fertilizer from the waste stream also prevents the release of a lot of methane, a far more potent GHG than CO2 (23 times more potent).  Run off from agribizz farming, of manure and chemical fertilizer releases huge amounts of methane from wetlands through anerobic digestion.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

4. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 12:39 am
   29 Oct 2007

   Serotinous or notFor thousands of years, way before we discovered fossil fuels, people have been burning and oxidizing carbon compounds that were formed by photosynthesis.
   And for millions of years, the earth has been host to natural and large scale burning activities such as forest fires and CO2/SO2 spewing events such as vulcanism.
   Example: in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, there are two types of pines, serotinous and non-serotinous (sero, meaning "waxy") refering to their pine cones.   The waxy pine cones are designed to withstand the periodic fires that burn the forests.
   So, obviously, since way before man, there is "burning" of carbon based fuel that contributes to CO2.   In fact, with man's management of forests (or simply by clear cutting them), you might say that although burning oil and whatnot contributes 3%, we may have reduced natural contributions by even more.
   
   
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   Sutext:

   Permalink

5. 

   Tom Philpott Posted 1:19 am
   29 Oct 2007

   Well doneI love how this essay takes agriculture from the margins of the climate debate and places it where it belongs: at the center. We can't drive our way out the climate crisis in a Prius or some flex-fuel vehicle, but we can farm our way out. And eat a lot better as well.
   
   Victual Reality

   Permalink

6. 

   siahtam Posted 4:44 am
   29 Oct 2007

   Could you use a better figure?It looks like something that would come out of a climate skeptic think tank. Where's the science behind that?
   Also, if you're going to put in bold type "The Farm Bill is likely the biggest energy policy we have", at least provide us with some numbers to back up the claim.

   Permalink

7. 

   solar greg Posted 6:02 am
   29 Oct 2007

   Very goodWe still have a few things to learn from Mother Nature. Our problems began when we started thinking we didn't need Nature and we could control it.
   
   Before we start messing up more of earth's surface to produce more fuel, we have to start using methods like the ones mentioned for the important use of land, FOOD.
   
   Energy wise we should first stop wasting so much, and the energy we do use should come directly from the source that makes this planet liveable, the Sun.
   
   Again, very good article!

   Permalink

8. 

   trock Posted 8:03 am
   29 Oct 2007

   crops and biofuelsTo the above post about 3% contribution of human machine made carbon dioxide; what the author said was yearly, not total.   It's not 3% human machines, 97% natural/already in the atmosphere carbon dioxide.   It's a 3% addition from human machines every year.
   The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at which humans have enjoyed their present prosperity was at 280 ppm (parts per million).   Human machines have added to the carbon dioxide level to now 380 ppm which is an increase of 36%.   It's a level of 450 ppm to 500 ppm that the large scale positive feedbacks are to occur which may mean runaway carbon dioxide additions from the earths biomasses.
   I rent farmland to farmers and the land rents have jumped quite a bit in the last few years.  Biofuels have knocked out a reasonable economics to using carbon capture and sequestration from plants and soil.
   But if I was in charge.
   I'd put in a multiuse grove/forest very close to every town of about 500 acres.   Put in walking, bike and hiking paths, maybe some cabins to rent out.  Harvest the trees sustainably for lumber and firewood for the town.  people could exercise daily if they wanted with a walk in the forest and they wouldn't have to travel far to get a forest/vacation fix.  (I walk 4 times a week in my cities treed parks)
   Plant trees in what is called alley cropping where the trees are in rows with farming going on in between.  Distances between tree rows would be some multiple of 60 feet (like 60 feet, 120 feet,  180 feet, 240 feet, etc. )  so farmer's machiery can plant row crops without wasted land space.
   Alley cropping trees creates a micro climate for the crop plants and has yield increases of 6 % for soybeans up to 20 % percent for hay (even taking into account the land taken out for the trees.)  It allows for more saved moisture, reduced wind stress and wind erosion, and other benefits to the crop.  So flat farm fields could have 3-5 % of the land in trees and still increase total grain and hay harvested
   Then my crop rotation would be.
   
   1st year.  Corn
   
   2nd year.  Corn
   
   3rd year.   Alfalfa/hay   Baled
   
   4th year.   Alfalfa/hay   Baled
   
   5th year.   Alfalfa/hay   pastured.
   
   6th year.   Alfalfa/hay   pastured.
   Then repeat that cycle.  1/6 of the field would be in each different year of the cycle.  Those that know agriculture would understand the cycle.
   
   First year Alfalfa/hay is the best (plant vigor.)  The pasture years would get he soil ready for the corn.
   I realize the vegetarians would be saying, you can put it all in trees if we eat that way which is true.   But without that argument, that's my cycle.
   But I couldn't make as much with that because of the biofuels that are being sold now.  I would lose to much money from what I'm making now renting out.  so it's corn,corn and corn.

   Permalink

9. 

   Billhook Posted 8:26 am
   29 Oct 2007

   Empire of the Sun ?Greg - I feel I should take issue with your prescription -
   
   ". . . the energy we do use should come directly from the source that makes this planet liveable, the Sun."
   
   .
   
   Why on earth should we so constrict ourselves ?
   
   .
   
   As an American, you share the wealth that has been sucked out of the rest of the world by the US' imperial arrangements, and so can maybe afford to invest in solar energy systems taking 15 to 20 years to pay back their cost.
   
   And of course, you could then join the growing chorus  and criticize the relatively impoverished ROW (rest of world) for its use of "dirtier,"  "less efficient" technologies.
   
   .
   
   Then again, maybe you could observe that you are being sold a pup of gratuitously high tech energy systems ?
   
   .
   
   Try, for instance, considering the advantages of forest energies -
   
   being, Firewood, Charcoal, Woodgas, Syngas, Methanol & Derivatives, and Steam & Electricity.
   
   .
   
   Not only does the feedstock production unit (aka forest) offer huge & uniquely vital ecological & social benefits,
   
   and occur naturally from S Chile to N Sweden,
   
   the feedstock (aka firewood) also matures naturally for several years after extraction,
   
   and provides Energy On Demand in any of the above forms,
   
   and does so at any scale from a campfire to a 50MW power plant,
   
   with peoples around the world being very well practiced in its uses.
   
   .
   
   What is lacking is the recognition in wealthy industrialised cultures that they are wholly screwed if they now fail to advance the energy technologies that are
   
   1/. appropriate for global replication,
   
   2/. that offer strong local legitimacy, and
   
   3/. that provide at least a tangible benefit to the natural ecology.
   
   .
   
   Without the take-up that such appropriate energy technologies could achieve,
   
   solar tech on the houses of the wealthy nations will serve only to free up more fossil energy supply for poor nations to burn, to all parties' detriment.
   
   .
   
   But then that is the bind that the bandits running your country have landed you in.
   
   .
   
   My commiserations, and also my encouragement to you to stop pushing solar as THE energy tech - it ain't, and, in failing to serve the criteria above,
   
   it ain't going to be.
   
   .
   
   Regards,
   Bill

   Permalink

10. 

    solar greg Posted 10:30 am
    29 Oct 2007

    solar is appropiate technologySorry to contradict you Bill. First of all the empovireshed nations as you call them, are the ones that can bennefit most from the use of appropiate technology. Solar is most appropriate where there is more sun. Coincidence has it that most poorer nations have plenty of sun. As for your calculations of 15 to 20 years to pay back, that may be true for PV, not for water heating or for rustic solar ovens. You probably are not familiar with the health hazards of living in a smoke filled hut. Many people donate through NGO's PV panels for very low income people so they can have a couple of light bulbs instead of candles.
    <Why on earth should we so constrict ourselves ?>
    Where did you get the notion that using solar energy directly (as opposed to stored in wood)will constrict you? If there is a technology that can free people from energy dependance is solar energy. Soon you will be seeing thermal solar panels producing electricity in homes.
    I love trees, I cut my own beams and every once in a while I light up my fireplace (the most inneficient way to heat a home with wood). Solar heating can replace conventional systems for space heating. Very simple, you run water through solar collectors (dont need to be expensive, you could even use bare plastic pool panels) on your roof during hot summer months, and store the heat underground. Then you circulate this in winter through high volume exchangers or even a heat pump.
    As for trees occuring naturaly, you haven't seen satellite pictures of what is left of forests. I do believe that trees must be planted urgently all over the place. Some as wood supply for building materials and most of them just to fix what we ruined.
    You say,
    
    <<Without the take-up that such appropriate energy technologies could achieve,<br>
    solar tech on the houses of the wealthy nations will serve only to free up more fossil energy supply for poor nations to burn, to all parties' detriment.>>
    That means we shoud gobble it up faster so they can't? Or should we be developing and manufacturing the replacements for others to bennefit too?

    Permalink

11. 

    GreyFlcn Posted 11:04 am
    29 Oct 2007

    Yes sun. But no sunYes we should get our energy from the sun.
    
    http://greyfalcon.net/energy.png
    No we shouldn't get our energy from biofuels.
    
    http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
    
    http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
    We should primarily be focused on:
    
    
    
    Passive solar building heating and cooling
    
    Solar water heating
    
    Solar Thermal Arrays
    
    Solar Thinfilm Panels
    
    

    Permalink