Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 9 January 2008 | Nature 451, 113 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451113a
News
Could global gardening fix climate change?
Biomass proposal could hugely reduce carbon dioxide levels.
Using biomass fuel on a massive scale in combination with carbon sequestration could return atmospheric carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels within decades, according to a new analysis.
Peter Read calls his proposal global gardening.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
What would happen if the Saharan desert was reforested tapping underground reservoirs with wells for the initial water to start the process? Would blanketing the region with vegetation change regional precipitation patterns and atmospheric moisture content enough to allow the vegetation to be self-sustaining? Could it be a significant part of reducing the balance of Carbon entering the atmosphere?
error: ...returning...cropland to forest, not cropland to farmland
This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 2X Fertility Too. UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107 SCIAM Article May 15 07; http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40 After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies. Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology. S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007 A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884: Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative for the 2007 Farm Bill http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture and waste stream, all that farm & cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG should be returned to the Soil. If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined. Also Here is the Latest BIG Terra Preta Soil news; The Honolulu Advertiser: "The nation's leading manufacturer of charcoal has licensed a University of Hawai'i process for turning green waste into barbecue briquets." See: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/antalkingsford ConocoPhillips Establishes $22.5 Million Pyrolysis Program at Iowa State http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/news_releases/2007news/04-10-2007.htm Glomalin, the recently discovered soil protien, may be the secret to to TP soils productivity; http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2003/030205.htm .Nature article, Aug 06: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green: http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdf
I've recently been wondering about using biomass as a means of carbon sequestration. A friend of mine who works on carbon sequestration at a national lab once told me that we already have a fantastic way of sequestering carbon....and we call it coal. If you turn biomass into fuel, like biodiesel or ethanol, you invariably dump all that carbon you captured in the plant back into the atmosphere. What if we choose to bury the biomass instead, just like in the old days? All that oil and coal is just buried and "geologically-processed" biomass. We've been digging it up and burning it for years, so why not put it back in the ground? The tough part is doing it in an ecologically responsible way. For example, the biomass would strip nutrients from the soil, so that must be minimized. Also, clear-cutting forests to bury them would destroy ecosystems. Rather, we would need a robust plant that grows quickly, requires little water and nutrients, and stores vast amounts of cellulosic fiber. Perhaps some sort of weed, hemp, bamboo, flax, etc. It should also be able to thrive in desert (a la Phillip Riles) or some other sacrificial area. Then of course, the hole we fill might be as big as Saudi Arabia! Any thoughts?
Producing coal for carbon sequestration may be a good idea - once we have managed to stop burning down fossile carbon because it is replaced by renewable energy sources. In the meantime it is better to use new biomass rather than fossile.The largest and most effective biomass producer (and carbon dioxide remover)is the surface of the sea, we are still polluting it. On second place come rain forests, we are still cutting and burning them down rapidly. All good ideas for producing biomass by human intervention, such as global gardening, reforesting Sahara, etc. will have neglectable effect as long as we continue to destroy the natural biomass factories - and this is irreversible in case of rain forests! In the long term view it is of course the right concept to restore effective biomass production on suited areas, which are currently down because of natural or human degradation. Technically this may be building dams for retaining water, planting woods for the same purpose and for stopping soil degradation by wind and so on. But "Biofuel" production from corn or sugar cane, which is consuming more fossile energy than it gains in the conventional agricultural process, is definitely no way. Agriculture in general must return to a positive energy balance before one can consider consider to improve anything by "global gardening"
The "Global gardening" proposal of Peter Read is in contrast with the conclusions of recently published articles (i.e. Kleiner, Nature Climate Chance, January 2002, 2:9; Righelato and Spracklen, Science, 17 August 2007, 317:902. These articles concluded, in convincing way, that it would be more effective to promote reforestation, rather than biofuels production, on large areas. With such strategy the term "global gardening" would be also literally more appropriate. Enrico Ceotto
What about KELP? There's plenty of room on the ocean. Is there some marine plant that we could use for biofuel and carbon sequestration? That might take the edge off land use.
Phillip Riles and Enrico Ceotto both have good points, especially in light of the fact that the Sahara desert once had hippopotami in its rivers and sufficient vegetation to support farming communities. Since currently the Sahara is expanding due to burning the vegetation and planting crops, it is reasonable to think that the original desertification was also due to farming which drove the climate change. All across the US and Carribean, the water wheels that once turned mills stand still as the rivers that once drove them are now mere trickles. Why? When forests were cut down and crops planted, the sponge of vegetation and accumulated organic matter washed away, so that instead of holding rainwater and releasing it gradually to the streams, the water ran off quickly. Streams now alternate between flooded and empty. Considering that 20% of the world's population does not have enough clean water to drink and that the traditionally rainy US southeast witnessed fighting between Atlanta, GA and Florida over water resources this summer, Phillip's idea of revegetating the Sahara and Enrico's idea of reforestation are timely. At the very least, the enormous increase in cropland may well spell disaster as freshwater streams run dry.
Terry Bigioni asked for any idea about a robust plant that grows quickly, requires little nitrogen and water, and stores huge amounts of cellulosic biomass. Giant reed (Arundo donax L.) appear to be ideal plant. Owing to its virtues, such plant could be successfully used a pioneer, first step plant for the progressive reclamation of desert areas.
Is it too late for NeoCoal? The most massive high carbon coal measures antedate the evolution of flowering plants. Perhaps we need to study the evolutionary dynamics of the biogeochemicalcarbon cycle before committing to the biotremes at hand as the last , or first word in carbon sequestration. Giant GM tree ferns anyone?