Peter Donovan’s Posts

• Unscrambling eggs

  Thinking beyond technology to mitigate climate change 13

  Posted 1 year, 6 months ago

  If we quit adding carbon to the atmosphere, it won't stop global warming any time soon. That's why people are hoping there are ways to get the extra carbon out of the atmosphere, and that we can put billions of tons of it somewhere safe.

  Breaking apart carbon dioxide -- or extracting carbon dioxide from the air -- takes work. Work means energy. It's the reverse of combustion. There's a triple problem here: the technology itself, the disposal, and the energy to do the work.

  It's a common saying that you can't unscramble an egg. Once scrambled, the egg proteins… Read More

• Cheap technology or cheap biology?

  Two solutions to global warming 11

  Posted 1 year, 8 months ago

  Will reducing or stopping carbon dioxide emissions stop global warming? Not according to the IPCC. The Fourth Assessment FAQ, section 10.3, notes that "complete elimination of CO2 emissions is estimated to lead to a slow decrease in atmospheric CO2 of about 40 ppm over the 21st century." By going cold turkey on fossil fuels, we only get down to about 1985 levels in 92 years. The oceans will continue to heat up.

  In other words, we might as well try to drive a big wood screw into hard oak with a hammer. Yet the belief that reducing carbon dioxide emissions… Read More

• The future of the farm bill

  Moving toward responsible agriculture 2

  Posted 2 years ago

  North Dakota senator Kent Conrad calls the farm bill a "legislative battleship that you cannot turn around quickly." As of mid-November 2007, this year's $286 billion farm bill appears to be having engine trouble. It is stalled in the Senate, and there is talk of a presidential veto.

  

  Should farmers be able to receive more than $250,000 in subsidy payments? What should the funding be for biofuels, for school lunches? Most of these arguments are about the speed… Read More

• The other side of global warming

  We have plenty of solutions at hand beyond technology 11

  Posted 2 years ago

  Today the dominant view of global warming is that it's a technical problem. The burning of fossil fuels -- often regarded as the lifeblood of modern economies -- puts greenhouse gases into the air, mainly carbon dioxide, trapping more solar energy, which heats the planet and alters weather patterns. Methane and nitrous oxide also contribute. The solution is defined as reducing greenhouse gas emissions (pollution). The political, social, and moral campaign is directed at technological change, and at using our technology less.

  But if everyone stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, global warming will continue for decades. We don't have an… Read More

All Posts

Peter Donovan’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Soil is somewhat renewable

  Good points Tom. As Rattan Lal has pointed out recently, there is little use in spending millions developing seeds and varieties where there is no soil left to grow them. Few of our major philanthropic organizations, and no big economic sectors, are interested in soil.

  However, "Peak soil" is not a very good analogy to peak oil. The rate of oil formation is quite slow. In some cases, soil can be built rapidly, particularly the organic matter component. At Twitchell Island in California, the USGS has built two feet that you can stand on in 10 years, in a managed wetland. This is mainly carbon captured from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.

  Also, good soils capture and store water, zillions of acre feet of it. There's about as much water on the planet now as ever. It's not leaking off into space or into the center of the earth. The problem with water is typically a problem of soil, which when degraded cannot capture and hold water very well. It's not levees that protect against floods, it's the infiltration rate and runoff rate of the soil surface. We typically blame falling water tables on excess pumping, instead of the excess evaporation and lack of recharge provided by degraded soils.

  Over the last 50 years some strands of alternative agriculture have demonstrated how one can use atmospheric carbon and solar energy to build, rapidly, the water-holding soils that can feed people well.

  soilcarboncoalition.org

  On Is there anything that isn't peaking? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  carbon cycle

  Most of the thinking and writing on these issues deals with small slivers of the carbon cycle. Only about 3% of the annual global flux of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is from fossil fuel burning, for example. See http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carb ...

  Though ruminant livestock do emit methane, the methane concentration in the atmosphere has quit growing, in spite of livestock numbers increasing 17 million annually according to FAO. See
  http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospher ...

  Who killed the climate? Was it Colonel Mustard in the dining room with the hamburger? Or was it Dr. Fossil in the driveway with the exhaust pipe?

  None of the above. We need to understand the carbon cycle.

  According to the IPCC, complete reduction of "carbon dioxide emissions" (they mean the anthropogenic part) will not get us below 350 ppm for many generations. See
  http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-10.3.html

  And yet this is what many are advocating.

  In order to have a reasonable chance for climate security, we need to understand the carbon cycle. The 96% or so that is not considered anthropogenic by the IPCC (though much of it is) is the key to the opportunity. The biggest carbon sink over which we have control is the soil, bigger than atmosphere and vegetation combined, and holds carbon for much longer on average. The soil carbon pool can be rapidly enhanced with regenerative agricultural practices, which include managed grazing.

  Though no-till grain farming is less destructive to soil carbon than tillage, and can build some soil organic matter (which is 50-59% carbon), a continuous cover of perennial grasses will usually build more soil carbon.

  As Michael Pollan stresses in Omnivore's Dilemma, before we answer the question what should we eat, we need to answer the questions, what are we eating, and where does it come from? In terms of its impact on the carbon cycle, grassfed beef is a generally superior choice to rice. Instead of higher or lower on the food chain, consider the impact on soil organic matter.
  On Roni Neff explains how the media miss the story on food's connection to climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  edges

  Do your best mowing around the edges. That is what your neighbors will see the easiest. If it's neatly mowed around the edges, and sort of gradually builds up toward the middle, it still will look pretty good.

  The electric portable netting made by Premier Fence Co. and Kenlove will contain sheep and goats nicely, it's easy to move, and offers a pretty good defense against neighborhood dogs if you connect it to a good energizer.

  soilcarboncoalition.org

  On My yard, a source of shame posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  N cycle

  Good post Tom. N will increase as an issue because there is a short-term payoff in terms of reduced greenhouse warming to controlling N2O releases (unlike CO2 where the greenhouse payoff of controlling emissions is likely beyond generational or political timescales).

  soilcarboncoalition.org

  On 'Science': nitrogen as important as carbon in climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  cutting co2 emissions won't do it

  Maywa, some good points, but as the fourth assessment FAQ section 10.3 of IPCC states, even 100% reductions in co2 emissions in 2007 will only reduce atmospheric ppm by about 40 ppm by the year 2100. That means that 100% reductions will maintain what James Hansen calls dangerous levels not just for a few years, but for generations!

  Cutting emissions will help with energy independence, and that's a big deal. But expecting it to solve climate change by itself is a gallant cavalry charge into the barbed wire.

  Enhancing the biological carbon cycle will be more effective, and help with the food crisis as well. This will require a transformation of agriculture, but the models are already there.

  soilcarboncoalition.org

  On Growing your own food is fine, but governmental action is needed, and soon posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses