Firstly, take a look at the results from a 10-year study of a Swedish (if I remember correctly) forest where charcoal was added to the soil. The nett result was a loss of soil humus carbon to the atmosphere that negated the effect of storing carbon in the charcoal.

The study declined to explain the result, but I would put my money on increased bacterial metabolism as a result of increased oxygenation of the soil and improved availability of nutrients supplied by exchange sites on the charcoal surfaces.

Secondly, improved fertility and oxygenation boosts to bacterial metabolism in general also means boosting the metabolism of specialist bacterial in the nitrogen cycle. A consequence of this is increased loss of nitrate nitrogen to the atmosphere. Some of this loss is in the form of the greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

This gas has a 300 to 1 infra-red absorption compared to CO2. In other words, for every 1kg, per square unit area, of extra nitrous oxide produced by the addition of the charcoal, you must store enough charcoal to equate to 300kg of carbon dioxide, (about 100kg of carbon when you take off the oxygen atoms).

And that is just to get a nil nett effect on the atmosphere and before allowing for CO2 releases from soil humus oxidation.

Charcoal in the soil may be good for growing things, but looking to it as remediation of fossil fuel use is probably a mirage.

While also at a loss for individuals slamming biochar, geothermal, hydro…

‘many of us will have to agree to disagree if we want to solve this in our short lifetime.

A disagreement in principals and application should not be a dismissal of ideas…
James & George are gentlemen who promote great ideas and appear to be fighting the good fight. It makes their ideas easy targets. But they need to remember we are together in this.

I have certainly had flawed ideas and plans and will have many more, it is called learning. The gravest mistake is not having either.

I would also assert that George Monbiot – has got it half right.

He is correct on a major level when media promotes a good idea as a ‘miracle cure’ and can lead to disappointment or disaster,world markets jump on a singular idea as the silver bullet and sometime destroy the beneficial future of the original idea along with all good intentions.

It is NOT the fault of the ideas but the form they are presented (i.e. steak served in ashtray).

Pushing a idea ‘over the top and making its broad application sound simply silly’

For years thousands oppose and protest ‘tangible solutions’ to ‘high risk problems’ and it has pushed us from a hole into the abyss.

Simply ’stating idealist principals ‘ is not a ‘realistic solution’… just ‘intangible arguments’ to sell more books about ‘future dreams and wishes’.

Focus is key to ending the debate – plantations devoted to non food projects should be last priority. but, ‘processing some existing crop wastes and using them for carbon sequestration is an entirely sensible idea’- with many benefits.

Also James stating there is a ‘only tool’ to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels… is a kinda singular thought. CO2 is NOT the cause of the millions dying of current air, water and soil pollution… but the effect of the same problems.

EVERY tangible solution has flaws when broadly applied.

There is no PERFECT plan or universal answer for everyone in every area.

A perfect plan for communities in Wisconsin WILL fail horribly in Arid regions and vise versa.

Scale, population and regional resources change everything.

George should stick to ’slamming’ the idea that promoting silver bullet and miracle cures ‘is the problem’ and not simply dismiss a solid and proven idea because it is not that…. and maybe James should brace there is no ‘only tool’.

But, Hey I’m not pushing a books, press articles or singular idealistic principals.

“I’m just a simple man, trying to make his way in the universe” – Jango Fett

on a reasonable scale the gasification and energy use of spare biomass is valid. Full use of agricultural and farming offal obeys basic natural principles. It is only when man concentrates and generates too much of one element that the trouble begins. Can’t milk a dead cow!

Diversification of materials would insure that no single source is abused.Pyrolysing of by-products of the forestry industry and farming residue would provide energy and enrich soils. China has obtained methane on village wide models for centuries, why do we need to finance unsustainable models of simple technologies?

Large scale agronomy has been responsible for soil depletion/erosion. Charcoal would control pests, add phosphorus and necessary minerals to localized agriculture. 25% of manures and other nitrogen sources should be reserved and re-introduced in soils in order to procure bio-active thermogenic factors.

Time to downscale and de-centralise innovative use of every carbonic compound. No need to grow another huge economic tower on the back of another ecologic disaster.