Biofuelwatch update on biochar #sustainability #biofuelwatch
|
Trevor Richards
https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/biochar-briefing-2020.pdf
Should this be ignored or discussed? ... does it need some expert rebuttal? (thanks Frank, for high-lighting)
|
|
|
|
Gordon West
I think the article makes a number of valid observations, such as the lack of solid long-term, experimental data for biochar use over a wide range of soil types and applications (we all know that and wish it otherwise), and a not yet well-developed use for the energy potential (many of us are making good progress in that regard). However, those issues are being addressed at an increasing pace and depth.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The troubling part is that there appears to be a distinct prejudice against biochar production and use, intimating that it may be dangerous until proven otherwise by rigorous scientific experiments. It also goes far into a number of “what ifs” that are not in the plans of anyone I know of. For instance, albedo effects from biochar on the surface of the ground - is anyone seriously planning to do extensive top dressings of biochar? I don’t think a rebuttal in kind, that is an opposing article in the media, is a good idea - it would just give their arguments more airtime and further raise suspicions among uneducated readers. But it might be worthwhile to get these folks in a face to face discussion/debate situation, so that there would be an exchange of concerns and facts to cure the prejudice. My opinion, Gordon West The Trollworks 503 N. “E” Street Silver City, NM 88061 575-537-3689 An entrepreneur sees problems as the seeds of opportunity.
|
|
|
|
ROBERT W GILLETT
My guess is that Biofuels Watch has a much smaller following than the collective biochar movement. Responding directly or openly would be falling for the bait. If challenged by any of these aspersions in a strategic forum, answers should be always ready at hand, but we should not add to Biofuels Watch's press exposure by an immediate head-on debate.
My 2 cents, Robert Gillett
|
|
|
|
Rick Wilson
Someone could respond to Rachel Smokler directly, she has a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, so she is a smart lady, and can be contacted through Linkedin. I would suggest that if there is a response it should be one voice only, IBI, or a well-known researcher. Her points: Widenening Scope - true, outside of soils, which she does not mention Finding something useful - true, challenge is cost (feedstock), lack of institutional money to build production due to to open source information Priming - positive priming comments true, she forgets to describe negative priming that kicks in later Vast areas for feedstock needed - come to California, 50 million tons being pulled out of landfills to mitigate GHG Biproduct of energy production, not carbon negative. If Energy - power, gasification established. If Energy = fuels, there is not enough energy in biomass to produce high energy density transportation fuels (her claim is true for fuels). Climate Mitigation, lack of long term studies. Recent 4-year study by David Laird et.al, shows biochar catalyzes carbon sequestion, and I am sure there are many others that could be referenced. Rick
On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 12:10:38 PM PST, ROBERT W GILLETT <themarvalus.wabio@...> wrote:
My guess is that Biofuels Watch has a much smaller following than the collective biochar movement. Responding directly or openly would be falling for the bait. If challenged by any of these aspersions in a strategic forum, answers should be always ready at hand, but we should not add to Biofuels Watch's press exposure by an immediate head-on debate. My 2 cents, Robert Gillett
|
|
|
|
Laurent Chabanne
Robert,
I agree with you. Those arguments should considered and addressed, with answers ready at hand, but not addressed directly. Laurent
|
|
|
|
Kathleen Draper
Hello all -
I saw the latest Biofuelswatch article on twitter last week and left the message below. No response of course. I encourage others to dig deeper into who they really are if they have the means, as this gets to their credibility and true agenda. Also, though Rachel may have a PhD, I think it is in zoology (I could be wrong?), so not really sure how that makes her an expert on things like climate change or biochar. Would love to know how much of her time is spent on solutions versus anti-everything. I have also heard BFW is funded by the fossil fuel industry. This is in line with how they have sowed seeds of doubt about climate change for decades so it would not surprise me. I agree with the comment that addressing their article directly adds fuel to the fire where as addressing certain inaccuracies without giving the articles more views is a smarter strategy. I don't think IBI will be responding directly to this article. We've had this discussion in the past and the consensus seems to be that playing defense to those that have an 'anti' agenda is not worthwhile. Cheers Kathleen Replying to
Always interested in who funds Biofuelswatch. Would you be willing to be transparent about your funding sources?
|
|
|
|
Frank Strie
Thanks Kathleen, |
|
|
|
Paul S Anderson
Kathleen,
1. Many of us (certainly my case) have PhD degrees that are not related to biochar topics.
2. Can we obtain solid information about the disruptive efforts being financed by the fossil fuel companies? Easier said than done, but exposing them would be helpful.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434 Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org to support woodgas (TLUD) projects incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts. Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org) with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Kathleen Draper via Groups.Io
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 3:11 AM To: main@Biochar.groups.io Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biofuelwatch update on biochar #sustainability
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] Hello all - Replying to Always interested in who funds Biofuelswatch. Would you be willing to be transparent about your funding sources? 10:37 PM · Jan 22, 2020·Twitter for Android
|
|
|
|
Never had any dealings with Biofuelwatch. The tone of their publications Does seem a tad shrill. Long on anger and short on solutions. In the past two years, our work has been supported by grants from Ceres Trust, CS Fund/Wash-Mott Legacy, Heinrich-Boell Foundation, JMG Foundation, Network for Social Change, Packard Foundation, Partnership for Policy Integrity, Patagonia Foundation, and Threshold Foundation
|
|
|
|
Norm Baker
Everyone; This publication from biofuels watch is one of those issues where populism seems to give credit to what they say. If people who are skeptical about biofuels and biochar are flapping their lips, the naïve but interested people in the community start to wonder. That is the goal of this publication. Stephen Joseph hit the nail on the head. Cherry picked publications and totally inadequate literature review of even the most common scientific text. I have been active in soils for many years. Just since this publication appeared, I have addressed, a serious rebuttal to at least five soils groups or gardener groups or climate change groups about this very publication. Personally, I think someone of a stature like Stephen Joseph or Johannes Lehmann should write a rebuttal that quotes the article succinctly enough to have it come up in a Google search every time someone reads that article. In this day and age of Internet access to information, it's almost like this publication is becoming viral when people who know what really is going on no it's entirely not credible. Norm
|
|
|
|
Nando Breiter
I have a "BFW" directory on my computer from more than a decade ago - information I was collecting back then to rebut their claims. I've attached a Word document from 2009 ... haven't taken the time to reread it, but I just wanted to highlight how long their stance has persisted. Bottom line, BFW's financing comes with an agenda, and unless we raise enough money to outbid their current backers and pay Rachel Smolker & co. to say something different, they won't.
-- Nando Breiter http://biochar.info CarbonZero Sagl Astano, Switzerland
|
|
|
|
Nando Breiter
I can't believe these people are still opposing biochar. They were doing this ... 12 years ago. It is a complete waste of time to interact with them. Many people have tried over the years.
Nando
|
|
|
|
Geoff Thomas
Dear Nando, Thank you so much for all your careful work, i feel humbled by the time and thought and care you have taken.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe it would be very benefical of all of us on the Biochar list to read your work here, particularly regarding it as an "innoculation” against the specious and false arguments being promulgated by the Oil and Coal industry’s funded ‘think tanks’ that likely include the BFW. I also enjoyed seeing ‘Vandana’ quoted by the BFW as she was part of the “Beware the Biochar initiative" article that infiltrated the Permaculture movement, and included many of the BFW assertions, - fortunately I believe the Permaculture movement has since significantly discredited that article. I would like to take the opportunity to repeat something I have said in the past, ie that the fossil fuel industry made a very serious mistake when they dismissed the possibility of Wind to displace their assets, (Hypnotised by their own rhetoric?) but by the time they realised their mistake there were a hundred or so wind turbine manufacturers all over the globe, - the genie was out of the bottle and they have determined that no more genies will live, so leading to funding of many organisations such as BFW, to squash any incipient alternatives whatever to them, or even any exploration of alternatives. It is pleasing to see that in America the Coal industry has been almost completely displaced by Wind, (and Solar) 14% of electricity produced by coal last year, 5 to 11% this year, and most coal fired power stations down to 54% of their capability, and now mainly used for load following, - how the mighty King Coal has fallen, but still has many vengeful supporters, some of which will no doubt promote claptrap such as promulgated by the BFW. Thanks again Nando. Geoff Thomas, Australia.
On 1 Feb 2020, at 3:16 am, nando@carbonzero.ch wrote:
|
|
|
|
Geoff Thomas
Dear Nando, Thank you so much for all your careful work, i feel humbled by the time and thought and care you have taken.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe it would be very benefical of all of us on the Biochar list to read your work here, particularly regarding it as an "innoculation” against the specious and false arguments being promulgated by the Oil and Coal industry’s funded ‘think tanks’ that likely include the BFW. I also enjoyed seeing ‘Vandana’ quoted by the BFW as she was part of the “Beware the Biochar initiative" article that infiltrated the Permaculture movement, and included many of the BFW assertions, - fortunately I believe the Permaculture movement has since significantly discredited that article. I would like to take the opportunity to repeat something I have said in the past, ie that the fossil fuel industry made a very serious mistake when they dismissed the possibility of Wind to displace their assets, (Hypnotised by their own rhetoric?) but by the time they realised their mistake there were a hundred or so wind turbine manufacturers all over the globe, - the genie was out of the bottle and they have determined that no more genies will live, so leading to funding of many organisations such as BFW, to squash any incipient alternatives whatever to them, or even any exploration of alternatives. It is pleasing to see that in America the Coal industry has been almost completely displaced by Wind, (and Solar) 14% of electricity produced by coal last year, 5 to 11% this year, and most coal fired power stations down to 54% of their capability, and now mainly used for load following, - how the mighty King Coal has fallen, but still has many vengeful supporters, some of which will no doubt promote claptrap such as promulgated by the BFW. Thanks again Nando. Geoff Thomas, Australia.
On 1 Feb 2020, at 3:16 am, nando@carbonzero.ch wrote:
|
|
|
|
Geoff Thomas
Dear Nando, Thank you so much for all your careful work, i feel humbled by the time and thought and care you have taken.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe it would be very benefical of all of us on the Biochar list to read your work here, particularly regarding it as an "innoculation” against the specious and false arguments being promulgated by the Oil and Coal industry’s funded ‘think tanks’ that likely include the BFW. I also enjoyed seeing ‘Vandana’ quoted by the BFW as she was part of the “Beware the Biochar initiative" article that infiltrated the Permaculture movement, and included many of the BFW assertions, - fortunately I believe the Permaculture movement has since significantly discredited that article. I would like to take the opportunity to repeat something I have said in the past, ie that the fossil fuel industry made a very serious mistake when they dismissed the possibility of Wind to displace their assets, (Hypnotised by their own rhetoric?) but by the time they realised their mistake there were a hundred or so wind turbine manufacturers all over the globe, - the genie was out of the bottle and they have determined that no more genies will live, so leading to funding of many organisations such as BFW, to squash any incipient alternatives whatever to them, or even any exploration of alternatives. It is pleasing to see that in America the Coal industry has been almost completely displaced by Wind, (and Solar) 14% of electricity produced by coal last year, 5 to 11% this year, and most coal fired power stations down to 54% of their capability, and now mainly used for load following, - how the mighty King Coal has fallen, but still has many vengeful supporters, some of which will no doubt promote claptrap such as promulgated by the BFW. Thanks again Nando. Geoff Thomas, Australia.
On 1 Feb 2020, at 3:16 am, nando@carbonzero.ch wrote:
|
|
|
|
Geoff Thomas
Apologies for multiple copies, - those that got them, - not sure why..
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 3 Feb 2020, at 10:04 am, Geoff Thomas <wind@iig.com.au> wrote:
|
|
|