Blog - Ets, Biochar And Carbon Security

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), biochar and resource security strategy In the following blog I hope to demonstrate why biochar could be used as a model to construct an initial framework for a carbon security strategy which considered carbon as an element flowing within a 'carbon cycle' within the biosphere i.e. carbon as an element that cycles through the biospheric system as both a system input and system output. This view could replace the dominant, reductionistic and possibly convenient view of carbon as predominantly being an unwanted system output (emission) – a negative view which is fundamentally rooted in the global emissions trading scheme (ETS) proposal. The ETS proposal, to be discussed in Copenhagen later this year, will be hotly debated between countries and corporations to decide what the 'cap and trade' targets will be for each country and what measures will be accounted for in the CO2e (carbon dioxide emission equivalents) inventory that will determine what each country will need to do in order to meet their targets. These measures will probably constitute a range of mainly profitable 'greentech' CO2e 'cutting' solutions eg. Clean coal and might include other more controversial measures such as biochar, and will have some climate 'cooling' measures too such as carbon sinks eg. forest preservation and CO2 sequestration eg. reforestation and ? biochar. The following thought experiment includes a few hypothetical scenarios for a future ETS: * If cutting CO2e measures are accounted for only, climate cooling measures probably won't be deployed on a large scale (where's the incentive beyond avoiding the 'Tragedy of the Commons'?) * If climate cooling measures are accounted for only, cutting CO2e measures probably won't be deployed on a large scale (incentives...?) *If both cooling and cutting are accounted for I would predict that the CO2e targets will be set at the same or similar levels to a hypothetical ETS conceived for just cutting or cooling accounting. So, in this scenario some cutting and some cooling will occur (but not a lot of either – and in the most wealthy industrialised countries, eg. G20, a lot less cutting of CO2e will occur i.e. Business and politics as usual, as this would be offset by relatively 'affordable' or 'convenient' cooling measures, eg. preserving native forests – a more 'affordable' option (and therefore an unfair competitive advantage) compared with less developed/industrialised countries that might depend more on forestry exports for GDP) BUT - assuming that a global ETS is an appropriate response to the generally accepted acceleration of climate change *If higher/tougher targets are created (and determined on a per capita basis) AND cooling and cutting measures/technologies are accounted for, an ETS will presumably be generally more equitable and effective – and the atmosphere will possibly avoid runaway climate change resulting from positive feedback loops that exist outside the 'safe climate zone' (proposed in Spratt and Sutton's “Climate Code Red”, 2008) – a zone that we no longer inhabit but need to return to for our own survival. Biochar is one such technology that has the potential to address both the cutting and cooling criteria (and therefore creating the possibility of higher/tougher ETS targets – as opposed to lower ones!) by : 1) CUTTING CO2e reduce CO2e (CO2, NH4) from fallow agricultural land/cleared landscapes 2) COOLING the atmosphere reduce CO2 in the atmosphere via rapid sequestration eg. Lantana crops, and their subsequent pyrolysis and soil storage In addition biochar can also address the rest of the carbon cycle with at least four more possibly useful

criteria: 3) CONSERVING carbon increase the bioavailability of carbon for new carbon-based lifeforms eg. Plants and animals (as opposed to aliens), upon which human survival depends 4) CARING for topsoil (humus) health increase topsoil structure and integrity increase topsoil fertility 5) rebuilding natural CAPITAL (viewed as a top priority by Holmgren, p.36 in PPP) increase real physical capital in the form of soil humus (as compared to imaginary financial capital which has been estimated to be 35-100 times the size of real physical capital – and still growing...collapse, anyone?) 6) CONCENTRATION of carbon concentrate C in a fire-resilient store (humus) compared with diffuse fire-prone stores eg. trees (which, although serving a diverse range of services including the vital 'capture and storage of energy' and protection of rangelands and river catchments, will become increasingly fire-prone in many areas around the world due to associated drying effects from positive feedback loops occurring due to climate change, such as those already occurring in the Amazon basin and possibly even in Victoria) I would suggest that the above criteria, or 'Six C's' could be used to construct an initial framework for a carbon security strategy. A carbon security strategy, in addition to other resource security strategies, eg. H2O, energy, food, natural gas et al. could be further integrated into a wholistic environmental security strategy. The likelihood of a 'peak civilisation' scenario proposed by Paul Taylor, an astrophysicist, should be considered at the core of any such strategy. Furthermore, any effective resource security strategy should be glocal, or glocalised, in scope i.e. Adopting wholistic systems principles applicable to a 'top-down (integrated) understanding' (Holmgren, 'PPP', pp. 80-82) of global environmental security while having the flexibility to cater for 'local' bioregional and community environmental security requirements by also adopting 'bottom-up (integrated) action' (Holmgren, 'PPP', pp. 80-82). In conclusion there may be better alternative schemes to an ETS such as carbon rationing (see George Monbiot's “Heat”, 2006; “http://www.carbonequity.com”), the ALP's “carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS)” (with higher targets?), carbon taxation (currently preferred by Malcolm Turnbull) and so on. I would however suggest that compared to any of the schemes currently on the tables more integrated and wholistic approaches to sustainability would be most preferable such as permaculture, 'integral sustainability' and low-energy (descent) cultures in general, supported by and integrated with equitable, wholistic and 'glocal' environmental security strategies that are also inclusive of carbon security strategies. ;)