So here we have it. The austerity versus Keynsian spending debate is about as useful as arguing whether the earth is flat or sitting on the back of a pile of turtles. Neither will provide sustainable interventions to our converging crises while the debt-based money system remains the only significant game in town. By Graham Barnes.
Thanks James - Sequestration & carbon sumps are bees in my bonnet. I'll try to keep my bees under control - they are confrontational in that they oppose some central first principles of the IPCC, Zero Carbon Britain 2030 and most university departments! A little geezer becomes passionate in proportion to the mass of his opposition.
Patrick. Thanks for your response and the attached article, which I found interesting because you obviously know so much more about nature’s mechanisms than I do. When the use of biochar is driven by neoliberal economics (as with all aspects of life) it has dangers, as pointed out by BiofuelWatch.
I personally have been using biochar for my own needs in home gardens and orchards for several years. I am quite happy with the results and find the above comment to lack real world flexibility. If biochar (or any true fix) is to make a deep impact on ...
James, of course charcoal may have the benefits which you outline, but benefits for a few, since the charring process reduces complex proteins to much less than the original bio mass. The total mass of bio is reduced in exchange for heat. Moreover that bio mass is imported from soils, which must thereby lose fertility.
James Bruges provides a useful overview of biochar - charcoal produced for agricultural purposes - based on research from India, the UK and Mozambique. One hope for biochar is for increased global food production while permanently enhancing soil. The other hope is that it could help the struggle against climate change.