News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Turnbull adviser cautions against biochar 

Turnbull adviser cautions against biochar

26 Mar, 2009 01:26 PM
A senior economist advising Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull on the federal government's emissions trading scheme has warned that a key component of the coalition's climate policy has yet to be scientifically proven.

The Australian Financial Review reports that Centre for International Economics executive director David Pearce has said biochar, which involves storing carbon in soil, requires more scientific analysis and would work only if Australia adopts a carbon price.

But Mr Pearce condemned the government's handling of the ETS debate, claiming it had failed to provide any analysis on the short-term costs of the reform or whether other mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or a hybrid scheme, could cut greenhouse emissions more cheaply.

Mr Turnbull has claimed the coalition's climate policy could deliver deeper emission cuts at less cost to industry by placing greater emphasis on measures such as energy efficiency, soil carbon sequestration and biochar.

But Mr Pearce told the committee that although biochar had potential, it was not yet ready.

"I'm not sure that all the science is in," he said. "In order for [biochar] to be economic, you would need to have a carbon price in place."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Perhaps Mr Pearce should look up "Terra Preta" to gain a better understanding of the proven potential of biochar.

There is scientific evidence dating back from more than 1,000 years that demonstrates the soil-building ability of biochar.

Look at the research papers produced by modern scientists on Terra Preta, in Brazil. If he can't do that, he doesn't deserve to be an advisor to any politician.

Posted by Trugger, 26/03/2009 7:52:30 PM
The science is getting very close and it is important to put resources behind the project, speeding it up and linking it with the economic reality to value carbon sequestration, in all forms, but especially in grazing systems for soil carbon storage.

This area has the benefit of improving production through increased biodiversity and water holding capacity in our soils

Posted by concerned, 27/03/2009 7:35:13 AM
You must remember that the whole carbon industry hasn't been proven scientifically. It is based on a type of religious green dogma.

The emotions generated indicate it is more faith-based rather than scientific.

Posted by Len, 27/03/2009 9:42:49 AM
Reminds me of the adage about economists...and never getting a decision. Most science is based on a strong probability, not absoluteness.

I agree with previous commentators...the science is quite strong, and getting stronger, regarding biochar/agrichar and its importance in soil carbon development on a long term basis.

While not everyone is an innovator, we need to try to move past that phase into the phase where many are interested in using or evaluating, and we must start somewhere. Why not now? Why not provide much more support?

This also applies to wider use of the entire range of recycled organics products. Even biomedical interventions, for example vaccinations, are not absolutely 100pc effective.

Posted by R See 1, 27/03/2009 9:50:07 AM
The Australia and New Zealand Biochar Researchers Network is hosting a conference in May on the Gold Coast. This meeting will give the oppurtunity to policy makers to be informed of the progress in biochar science and how Australian researchers are making a significant contribution to it.
Posted by Adriana, 27/03/2009 10:59:30 AM
Here, here Trugger. "Terra Preta" worked way back then and it is still working. What more scientific proof do you need?
Posted by ggwagga, 27/03/2009 5:39:18 PM
It starts to become apparent why economics is called the dismal science. Not everything has to be researched to the Nth degree and published in a peer reviewed journal before it works. What is so hard to understand here? Trees and plants grow and take carbon out of the air. If you burn those trees and plants to charcoal some of the carbon is released back into the air but a lot is left behind in the charcoal. If that charcoal is then buried in the ground, then the air has less carbon in it than when you started. Then you do it all again on the same ground. If you want to measure the amount of carbon you just weigh it. It's not difficult and the "Scientific Community" should not attempt to make it so.
Posted by ozfirst, 30/03/2009 10:52:09 AM
www.outbackbiochar.com
Posted by greenfarmer, 4/04/2009 2:53:47 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
24 March, 2009
25 March, 2009
26 March, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe rural property prices will continue to rise despite the economic downturn?

Yes
(38.6%)

No
(54.9%)

Undecided
(6.5%)

Total Votes: 603
Poll Date: 22 March, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...