toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
This is a wonderful collection of posts, apparently chaotic as it is.
First, yes, there is reason for hope. I know that may seem hard to believe, but let us not forget that less than 50 years ago, no one used seat belts and damn near everyone smoked. Need a shorter time span? Twenty years ago, we feared that high fructose corn sweeteners would kill an entire generation. For the past few years, consumption has been falling dramatically.
Second, no, no one is going to pay for the environment. Either someone wants the benefit enough to pay for it, or the "solution," biochar or anything else, is going to stay on the shelf.
But here is where I would like to add a thought or two. I agree entirely when the issue is put as bluntly as "who wants to live next to a landfill?" My problem is that lots of people where I live either live near or on landfills. They do not of choice but of necessity. They would be happy customers for leachate cleaning biochar if they could afford it.
Here is where the entire business model argument runs into difficulty. Who is a customer? Is there really just a single market clearing price? If we all live in the same climate, to what extent might those of us who are rich have a self-interest in subsidizing the poor?
The problem really comes down to one of numbers. If the rich (defined as those living on $10/day or more) are just 20% of the global population and produce an average 13 tonnes of CO2 per year, while the other 80% produce just 1 tonne, then we have a real issue. Suppose we decide that a minimum quality of life requires 4 tonnes of CO2 per year, then lifting the poor to a minimum quality of life will require reducing the rich to 1 tonne a year - if we are to hold emissions level.
You see the problem. Who is the customer and what is the supply and demand pricing calculus that applies?
I would like to include some comments on this sort of two subjects, (3 or 5)? a link to an opinion measuring site, that claims now that the Majority of Americans, and almost of Republicans accept that Global warming/Climate change is happening and will affect them.
Also in Australia, the farmers, always the most conservative, have started to change their views, - over 54% now accept and are troubled, so that is still a potentially huge area of support fo Biochar, - that the majority of our populations know, accept, and are worried..
Climate change is by no means dead in the water and becoming more and more center stage.
Another element is that many are now aware that the richest people in the world, who own all the oil mines, coal mines etc, , manufacturing, transport, Media, politicians, the occasional nobel Laureate, etc. are mainly responsible and not willing to change and spend literally biilions to keep no change happening, - they risk a total revulsion and expunging by the people of the world so will in the near future try to make a new place in the world for themselves which will be helping repair the damage.
Biochar will fit that bill.
Secondly, in respect of my own history as one of the early pioneers in the renewable energy industry in Australia, Early days were hard yacka, all sorts of problems, which we gradually solved and we gradually carved out an industry that never before existed, we set down the foundations of what has become the Renewable industry of the world.
Very few of us made any money, but of course now lots of people are making money in renewables, and it is changing the world, faster and faster.
My feeling is that Biochar is not yet at that point, - it may be in a couple of years, but the foundations are still a bit shaky, we need to do more research, build more structures like the IBI, keep it open to newcomers, - not get carried away too much with rules and controlling, - that can come later when it is all straining at the seams, - at this point growing is much more important than structure, - that is how it feels to me anyway.
That said I acknowledge the good work of all on this site, unequivocally, and especially include Stephen Joseph who was not mentioned in that earlier list, - I suspect his discoveries will open many new horizons, particularly but by no means only with feeding cows biochar.
I don’t think it's worth trying to debate the issue with someone who’s beliefs are counter to yours. Changing minds is tough.. Argue the economics and health benefits of a renewable economy and you get the same place (addressing the debated sources of climate change)
Ask these questions and you can find common ground:
Do we really want to continue burning coal? People die mining. It puts mercury into the are that ends up in the ocean, people eat the fish, mercury poisoning?
Do we really want to use fossil fuels for transportation? Do you like breathing NOX and PM2.5, known to reduce lifespan?
Do we really like oil spills, ruining people’s livelihood, destroying property values?
Is it OK that farming emits NOX and PM2.5, shouldn’t we fix that problem, or is life too hard and you just want to die early?
Do we like electric bills that average about $700 per month (my So.Cal neighborhood). A solar loan to take you off the grid cost $120/month, why not?
Do we like having landfills in our backyard, or would we rather recycling green waste and reduce the size and number of landfills?
In the presentation by the Nobel Laureate, at minute 4:43, he presents that “From ~1880 to 2015 [global] temperature has increased from ~288 K to 288.8 K (0.3%), i.e., amazingly stable!” Implying and actually stating that global warming is not a valid concern for the world, as you also indicated.
This man is intelligent, and certainly knows that K stands for Kelvin which puts zero at absolute zero (virtually no molecular activity). So, 0.8 deg K is only 0.3% change from absolute zero. Smart thinking.
Well, the human body temperature is 98.6 F or 37 C, which is 310.15 K. And if you or I had an increase of 0.8 K our body temperatures would be 37.8 C or 100.04 F. And we would be sick in bed or going to the hospital. Small children can have brain damage if body temperatures are over 100 F for very long.
I can excuse an elderly Nobel Laureate for pontificating about why he does not believe in global warming or that 0.8 deg K is nothing to be concerned about. But those of us who still work with science can know better.
So, yes, I did find one significant error in the first 5 minutes of his presentation. I will not watch the remaining 25 minutes until I have recovered from this first shocker.
This might not be a biochar topic, but at least here we can be conversations from different points of view. I was interested in his reasoning, and in your support. I hope you and others are interested in mine.
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
The purpose of the Biochar List is to lead to the widespread use of biochar. This is best accomplished by increasing the understanding of how biochar can benefit the Customer. The work being done, and the approaches being taken by Rick Wilson and Hugh McLaughlin (and others, including David Yarrow, “Worm Guy”, etc…) are “the way to go.”. Their work is being directed at demonstrating actual applications for the right kind of biochar, to ensure that there is an investment “pay-off” to the Customer who actually makes, buys, or uses biochar.
As such, Farmers, Growers, and other potential biochar makers, users, and buyers will look to their work and say “I can sensibly use biochar, and will get a direct and acceptable return on my investment in it.”
Virtually NOBODY is going to make, buy, or use biochar, unless they can clearly see a return on their investment.
Who is going to spend time, money, and effort use biochar if all they have to go on are:
· Statements from Biochar Producers: “Buy our biochar, because it is good.”
· Statements from those concerned about Climate Change who say: “Use biochar to reduce Climate Change.”
I would suggest that “Climate Change” is basically “dead in the water” , and that it is chimerical to want to believe that carbon credit payments will ever lead to a situation where people will pay their own money to use biochar primarily for the its climate change benefits. They WILL use biochar, if they get a direct and sensible return from an investment in biochar. The “Climate Change Benefit” will simply be a “non-financial added bonus.”
Take a look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 , which is a video entitled “Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax“. I challenge you to find any significant errors or flaws in his presentation.
The problem with “biochar promotion” for the past 10+ years is that its focus has been on:
· “Producer Push”
· “Climate Change Amelioration”
(Can you imagine any potential biochar user saying “Even though I get no net cash return, I think I’ll buy $1,000 worth of biochar, because it is “good for the climate.” ???
Why not change the “Driving Strategy” to one of creating “Market Pull”, as is now being done by Rick, Hugh, David, and a few others? With more people like them creating “Market Pull”, I would suggest that biochar acceptance and usage could “take off” as we all want it to do.