|
I've heard about biochar on and off. For example, check out this headline: "Can 'biochar' save the planet?" I'm not an ecologist or a biologist or a farmer or even a gardener. So I've been rather quiet on the issue as a non-expert, waiting for "the experts" to convince me one way or another. And they have.
The basics of biochar are that you take some biomass (wood chips, corn husks, peanut shells, or even manure according to the article linked above), cook it up at a very high heat (sometimes above 1000F), and then use the resulting "biochar" as fertilizer. I don't doubt that it works as great fertilizer and perhaps sequesters some carbon. But it's not the only way to do either of those things. Given that, our question isn't "does it work?" but "is it the best way to accomplish carbon sequestration and improving soil?" The first person I heard answer that with a resounding "No" was Timothy LaSalle of the Rodale Institute. And I trust him.
Well, now Organic Consumers Association has posted an article called "Biochar: Another False Solution to Climate Change" It focuses on Africa but the principles can be expanded to the rest of the world.
Having read that and heard other viewpoints, here's my thought: If the idea behind biochar is that we grow trees, burn them, and bury the resulting biochar in the ground to sequester carbon - then why bother with steps 2 and 3? Trees themselves sequester carbon. And when it comes to other materials that we can use as composts or mulches, I think I'd rather see them used as compost and mulch. After all, the role they play is not just the carbon sequestration but also the cultivation of the many beneficial soil microbes that our plants need to thrive.
What are your thoughts?
|
