What happens when the soil runs out

And the Genesis account well, yeah, saying two by two's entering an ark does sound kind of funny, as if you AREN'T BEING TOLD THE WHOLE STORY. Your spidey sense tells you so eh? Well, you're right. While the baby animals were being instinct driven to survive the BIG ANIMALS were being directed AWAY FROM NOAH'S ARK.

To animal graveyards where they plunged to their deaths to hide their bones so that MOVIE PRODUCERS would have to use FAKE DINOSAUR BONES in their fancy little money making [public fleecing of trillions] jaunts. The Bible does this little trick in MANY PLACES => it tells what happened here while not expanding on what happened over there.

The good-of-heart seek out the other deeper ~and unwritten~ answers. They "knock on the door" as Jesus said to do, and they are allowed in, and they are filled with the knowledge of salvation just how the next months and years are to go down, while the rest grab hold of fanciful made up stories.

Those who want the Truth of the Bible must walk a loading plank also. Hmm, it looks amazingly like the front sidewalk of a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Imagine that. Walk the plank, again.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, they sense the pulse of our life is weakening so, they each grab a magaphone (microphone) and shout at us EVERYTHING'S OKAY TROOPS HOLD THE LINE A COURSE CORRECTION IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN.

These men, probably each having a good heart motivating them onward, they are false prophets. Their "message" says we can continue to have cake while eating it up, in essence a cake that never runs out no matter how fast we chew.

Can any man stand on the riverbank shouting at the salmon to stop beating themselves on the rocks to reach their spawning areas? Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are trying to do just that. Twon't work. We are in a cauldron over a fire and all the radio talk show CHEERLEADERS doesn't change that.

Death is crushing us to death.

High IQ PEOPLE like them can rationalize this reality under a rug but the majority of people (voters, citizens, taxpayers) are generally not in the 180 IQ range. Many are around 130-140. They are closer to the animal brain and man alive, they sense Death is involved and coming at them like a maniac wielding a Meat Cleaver already wet with blood having killed off so many living things => oceans, polar bears, thousands of un-named species, our rivers and now our soil.

This meat cleaver is a very successful meat cleaver. Death rides a mean horse and the bell tolls for thee. Can radio talkshow hosts aka => False Prophets of Never-Ending American and Human Glory stop the death from coming? No. All they are is cheerleaders, and their chants are false, for what they're saying is we can hold the line BY CONTINUING TO BE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO GOT US INTO THIS INESCAPABLE CORNER.

That is asinine, a grasping after flimsy ~& quite stupid~ straws.

Think of this. Every County in America yesterday and last week and last month and last year and last decade, some husband killed his wife, a wife pressed against the mat no money killed her children, or like just last week a young boy got mad at his Mom and shot her point blank in the face dead.

But, the News Media keeps reporting how the US population keeps INCREASING. This is more false prophets at work attempting to buoy up the reality we live in, and in THIS REALITY we are all killing each other and mostly, killing other family members.

Unlike the sea creatures or the birds, we aren't all plowing into the ground in flock formation, or a group mass suicide ala Jim Jones into a sandy beach, but the numbers of humans blowing themselves away are awesome.

In 1989 I was in a real bad, multiple-successive death blows from a 1,000 pound bale that fell 8 feet and bounced on me 3 times, threw me forward and then whipped my chest into the asphalt at the speed of riding the end of a whip tip like old Pecos Bill Swayze of movies past. That accident was not without purpose. The blows hitting me sent a continuous energy through me.

Whereas I had been a bipolar and very physically ill NOBODY all my life except for perhaps being a very gifted donut baker that got me NOWHERE, a few months after this God-sent accident took me through this personal Armageddon I began becoming a very mind-energized inventor. Even though doctors had me drugged double strength on morphine PLUS my own body was generating its own (endorphins, stronger than morphine actually).

I had taken some electronic circuit board classes in 1987 because I knew I was headed for a bad accident due to my ailments and shortcomings. My sense of judgement was missing. I was making mistakes that brought my life into serious danger. I sensed death coming.

Suddenly I was understanding how to get all the world's electricity needs supplied by LIGHTNING using a capacitance system. I tapped into this planet's own energy cycle. Somebody did not want me to succeed. Later I had ideas for other engines, natural engines, zero pollution => LIVING ENGINES THAT HONOR THE GOD WHO MADE THEM POSSIBLE.

I was trying to surround us with living engines based on and using living energy cycles.Someone evil thwarted my every effort. My every effort failed but, many people saw my work and knew I was showing the face of God through such miracle-level systems. Had I succeeded everything we see happening would've been averted?

That's a question we can never answer, altho probably not. But in showing those engine systems I showed God as having TOTALLY PROVIDED FOR HIS HUMAN FAMILY FROM THE TIME OF CREATION'S VERY BEGINNING... the Laws of Physics that had to be put in place FIRST before creating anything living or non.

Now you take my car engine. "People in power" have refused it but, in 2008 I had an inspired idea how to put the air+steam powerhouse process to work in an engine designed LIKE AN ARTIFICIAL HEART. Such an engine is wonderful just to know about it. But, instead people have been prevented from having it, bringing them to the point of despair where they have begun killing their own families.

It's going to get much worse.

A wild guess here but Man isn't the whole problem. Our insisting on combusting either Solid, Liquid or Gas Matter into being our engine fuels is adding pollutants into #1 the water cycle => into #2 the food cycle => into #3 the soil cycles.

Can you patch-repair this world without losing combustion engines? That's debatable. Once enough babies are aborted and baby boomers die off the resulting population reduction might make it appear as if you succeeded in "having your cake and eating it too".

That appears to be the brass ring everyone is chasing. You're doing it way the hard way. Quicksand, I always heard the more ya struggle the tighter it pulls you down.

btw, getting away from car engines for a minute... You can POWER EVERY HOME ON THIS PLANET WITH GRAVITY you know. All energy can be harnessed.

Anyone think I resemble Neo in the Matrix stopping the bullets?

You're the other guys.
You're the other guys.
You're the other guys. And you all look alike, Mr. Smith.

~ When you look at the inner workings of electrical things, you see wires. Until the current passes through them, there will be no light. That wire is you and me. The current is God. We have the power to let the current pass through us, use us, to produce the light of the world, Jesus, in us. Or we can refuse to be used and allow darkness to spread. ~
share this Electricity saying Mother Teresa

Too late! The light & power passed through me without needing a Mother Teresa. Also she wasn't in THE MOVIE. hahaha

You guys! You;re killing me here! You keep trying so, so hard to trick me into allowing you to subjugate and explain me away by throwing a female into the mixer. No female was required => only God, His Christ and His flaming holy spirit you can't quite conceive of in your mind as really being VIABLE.

Well, it is. And it fills ya just like it says in the Bible. Just like it filled Samson. Just like it filled Paul. Just like it filled John when he wrote down inspired revelations.

No womens required. Men were put in motion by a power beyond anything you can quantify.

That being said, I'm not meaning to put anybody down. Jehovah does not fill all believers with the level he poured into me. You do not have to be me. You don't have to be tortured like Satan tortured me either so it isn't a bad deal. Satan was put on me. You all don't have to walk in my moccasins, and be GLAD FOR IT.

Job in the Bible, all his skin boils and afflictions were VISIBLE. Satan punched me INSIDE so that no one could see the damage. Job got it a few years. I took a pummeling for 50+ years. I had stuff made wrong with me upon conception that no human should survive. My friends left, my family suffered my failure of a presence, even those who should've seen I needed some help they walked away. I have been even a hated and despised man in the congregation called lazy when I was internally damaged goods.

You don't EVER want to live my life, but thank God you won't have to. We have come to the end of the tests. It's about over.

If it were only that simple I'd stop worrying.

http://www.sustainablelivingmagazine.org/planet-watch/environment/rich-earth/45-...

It is estimated that nearly 2 billion ha [hectares] of soil resources in the world have been degraded, that's approximately 22% of the total cropland, pasture, forest, and woodland. Globally, soil erosion, chemical deterioration and physical degradation are the important parts amongst various types of soil degradation.
As a natural process, soil degradation can be increased or dampened by a variety of human activities such as inappropriate agricultural management, overgrazing, deforestation, etc. Degraded soil means less food. As a result of soil degradation, it is estimated that about 11.9–13.4% of the global agricultural supply has been lost in the past five decades. Besides, soil degradation is also associated with off-site problems of sedimentation, climate change, watershed functions, and changes in natural habitats leading to loss of genetic stock and biodiversity.
Over 99% of the world's food comes from the soil, yet experts estimate that each year more than 10 million hectares (25 million acres) of crop land are degraded or lost to water and wind erosion of topsoil. This is an area big enough to feed all of Europe. According to UN figures, 300m hectares, or about 10 times the size of the United Kingdom - has been so severely degraded it cannot produce food. In many places, soil is being lost far faster than it can be naturally regenerated. Attempts to irrigate arid lands have produced soils so salty that nothing will grow. This example is salinity induced by irrigation in the Euphrates basin in Syria.

If you posted on this topic from an place of being informed, I would bet you would have a different opinion.

It's amazing how so many take what is truly important for granted. I can't tell you how many people I have seen covering over their yards in concrete as well as letting their yards go. I think they may regret that some day.

"Letting their yards go" is actually better than other activities which will harm/poison the soil and pollute the environment. Nothing makes me happier to drive by a pod of god's-little-2.5-acre-ranchettes and see the majority of it taken over by Coyote Bush. In California, Baccharis is the alpha and the omega of reverting a weed-choked pasture (created by human intervention) back into fertile woodland.

The problem with covering large portions of a residential lot with hardscape is it disrupts normal flow patterns of water (nature- and human-applied), which can cause soil erosion and other soil-destructive actions.

It also stops the percolation of rain and other water into the soil, reducing the amount of rainfall that percolates down into the local aquifer. If you follow an area's underlying aquifer over time, you can see the decrease in the % of water from a rain event ending up in the aquifer corresponding to the increasing residential growth of the area.

It can cause stormwater pollution because any water that leaves a property into gutters has the potential to end up in streams-rivers-oceans. Water leaving a property will carry contaminents, chemicals and other pollutants with it.

P.S. Anyone working in landscaping in California---if you encounter a landscape with sterile, white, subsoil as your matrix for establishing plant material, I've found Carex praegracilis (I use it as a turf substitute) establishes itself ridiculously quickly. It leaves the other plant material behind in the dust (literally). Turf-substitute groundcovers, such as thyme, take for-freaking-ever to get going.

Yes, people who destroy the environment are terrible. But what did you do? You re-enriched it. Destroying topsoil being a problem? Maybe. But do we have to worry about it disappearing? Hardly. When you're talking about all the problems and intricacies of climate change, soil is one of the easiest things to fix.

O you are SO wrong!
Once a single forest is cut down millions of tons of topsoil are carried out to sea, silting rivers and lakes along the way.
Especially in a tropical rainforest the trees can not grow back.
Where will the trillions of tons of new top soil come from?
Walmart?

And, yes, I would agree that destroying forests is terrible. Yes, I agree that we should stop it. But no, the topsoil on this planet will probably not disappear. And yes, if it became a problem a concentrated, global effort would be a snap to organize, so walmart is not needed. I do believe, however, that you can pick up some more strawmen there.

Not quite. It takes a very long time to create soil. Putting compost into sterile subsoil is not creating topsoil. It is forcing sterile subsoil to be hospitable to growing plant material.

Everything has its natural course and destiny, even soil and sterile subsoil. When you interrupt that process, especially in processes that take a very long time to complete, you are forcing changes on our environmental that are outside of its natural history.

When the topsoil is scraped away en masse, it displaces an entire microecosystem, specifically designed for its location of origin.

Humans are quite arrogant and like to think we can make these changes because we want to, and assume that, because it doesn't explode into flames in front of our eyes, that it will not have unfortunate consequences down the road.

There are legions of man-made environmental catastrophes created by the same human arrogance and assumption cycle. We cannot assume that, because the human change was small, it will not have greatly magnified results in the future.

But neither can we assume that it will have a large effect, either. Everything you've said so far is true, I'm not really arguing with you on the points you have made. Believe me, I'm a country kid, born and raised, and I hate seeing construction in my parks and forests. I am completely on your side in that. It's the notion that in 60 years all the topsoil will be gone, and the notion that it will be impossible or exceedingly difficult to replace. Neither of those things is true in the context of global pollution. I'm far more concerned about the ozone, the air, the water, and our crops. It's important to approach things rationally if we really want to solve our problems - and I don't believe this article is rational.

Please, don't patronize me by giving me links to the wikipedia dust bowl article. We are nowhere near dust bowl conditions. Perhaps certain places in africa, but that is a persistent problem that has little to do with global warming.

------" Jan's post raises concerns about repeating the mistakes that brought about one of the great ecological, economic and social disasters of all time. Poor agricultural practice in the Great Plains created a situation where, weather, bad agricultural management and economic conditions all collided simultaneously each magnifying the effects of the other. "-----

I don't see any mention of global warming anywhere in there.

"Climate change has added a new dimension to research into soil carbon, which is central to soil health and productivity as a possible way to lock up global carbon emissions."

"The federal government is establishing a carbon trading framework that will reward good agricultural practice. Its climate adviser, Ross Garnaut, will explore the issue in an update to his 2008 climate change paper for the federal government."

Really? Nothing about global warming there? Oh, but we're calling it climate change, now.

http://www.survive2thrive.net/2010/02/05/topsoil-disappearing/
http://www.ehow.com/about_6456321_topsoil-considered-non_renewable-resource_.html

However, I must retract my previous statements. Apparently this article references a new study recently concluded and submitted at a recent environmental convention in Sydney. Because the article made no mention of this except in a brief, passing sentence, and because a quick google search revealed only the same man being quoted over and over again I wrongly assumed the man quoted was just some random doomsayer. A more thorough examination demonstrates that I was, indeed, wrong. However, what I found and still find disturbing is that the only solution suggested is the carbon tax.

"'Most farmers[...] don't have the luxury of saying 'I need to turn some of the profit back into soil' because it can take some years to improve your return on that investment and it is just too far down the line,' Lal says. Lal thinks a carbon price of between $20 to $25 a tonne for soil carbon is realistic."

"Our research has been framed in the context of an emissions trading scheme, where the addition of soil carbon would be seen as an offset."

What alarms me is that not only does this issue not really have anything to do with climate change except in the most general terms, but that the carbon tax is not, in my opinion, anywhere close to a solution to anything. If that is the best fix they can come up with, I fear it truly will become a problem.

Well, sorry Jeremy, I still don't get any connection to anything I've said and any carbon tax.

We've had the need for soil conservation for a LONG time before global warming, climate change or carbon taxes were even heard of.

Today---we still need to conserve the soil. And corporate industrial farming and petrochemical use is taking a toll----we need soil conservation more than ever now.

I think we need soil conservation and set asides for various usages of the land, not just farming but wetlands restoration, forest management, parks and preserves. We need to rein in urban sprawl and preserve natural habitats. And I think we need to do those things regardless of climate change----or, if anything, even more urgently because of climate change.

Oh, I apologize. A misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that YOU said anything about global warming. I was referencing the posted article. I was attempting to emphasize that I didn't disagree with you, rather I disagreed with the article. Apparently I did not do a good job. While I accept the general premise of the article, it was written within the context of climate change with aspects of carbon taxing as the proposed solution, which I view as preposterous. You can be sure that, at this point, we fully agree with each other.

Jeremy-----no problem. I think that the way that most soil conservation programs that I am familiar with at the moment are paid for by fees on hunting and fishing(licenses), use fees(for instance park fees), sales tax set asides(for instance, 1/2% out of whatever the total is, say 4%, whatever)-----and sometimes just as part of an office budget, usually agriculture or natural resources. Sometimes, it falls under several different departments.

However we fund it---I think soil conservation, and the conservation and effective use of all of our natural resources is vitally important work to all of us. I think we should have funding sources that reflects that importance.

If you do not support a "carbon tax"(I do not support that either)-----what do you think would be a better way to fund soil conservation and resource management and protection?

Funding is a difficult question for any issue at this time. The easiest answer is that our funding is completely out of proportion as it is, and a simple restructuring of our priorities could clear up the necessary funds. I know, for example, that billions of dollars each year are given out to private contractors in Iraq, and that most of the time the work never gets done and the money disappears. That alone would clear up plenty of money for many, many things, and that is only one example of wasted money. I could also see certain tax incentives not just for farmers, but also for companies with large amounts of capital who could help spearhead such programs, as long as those tax incentives are not attached to a carbon tax law.

The problem is much larger than funding, however. If farmland has gotten to the point where it is unusable or close to, simple crop rotation is not enough. The land would have to lay fallow in addition to other enrichment measures - and probably for at least a couple growing seasons. This comes during a global food crisis. We've already seen 2.8 million people starve to death in 2008 alone. This means that at the same time that we must cut back on production in order to restore the land, we will also have to increase production to keep up with demand - something we are already unable to do. In addition, in order not to further exacerbate the problem of soil loss through deforestation we will have to find a way to create viable farmland without destroying more natural landscape.

I've read recently that environmental scientists have found a way to create localized rain without relying on techniques such as cloud seeding, which requires both clouds and moisture to work. If we can couple that with our ability to fertilize the ground we can create man-made oases in places such as Africa and our various deserts, in which we can grow. We could also possibly create floating farms on our oceans, though both of those solutions have their problems, and I am always leery of such drastic modifications to the environment. Chinese scientists have also recently found a method of growing soil-less crops that contain the same amount of nutrients as crops grown in the usual methods, though there are questions of productivity and expense there.

Whatever we do it will have to be drastic. We have certainly backed ourselves into a corner.

We are spending nearly 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year to import a raw material to make a product that we are only going to burn. This trade deficit is killing the US economy and causing the US dollar to lose value daily.

The same product that we are spending nearly a trillion dollars a year to fight two wars to secure and transport. Not to mention the loss of American life and limb.

Does it not make sense that we should tax the import of this raw material to encourage the use of alternatives that can do all the same things this product does equally well and better? Shouldn't we be using alternatives that come from right here, provides jobs right here, that we do not have to fight wars to secure and transport from half way around the world?

Shouldn't we place an import tariff on crude oil and oil products that reflect the true cost to the US of the use of oil?

If people do not want to pay the cost of a tax on the import of oil---then they should use one of the alternatives to oil, and not pay the import tariff on oil.

Tariffs can help solve many problems when applied properly, and indeed may help in this case. I had not thought of that. But wouldn't doing that and nothing more risk another destabilization of our economy by driving up the price of a necessary product without really offering alternatives? Sure we have some options available to us now, but they are generally difficult to find, or expensive. The average middle class worker is unable at this moment to, say, buy a new Prius. On top of increased gas prices and all the other things crude oil is used to make, your only real alternative would be to shell out roughly $10k-$20k for a new electric car or $6k-$15k for a kit to build your own, which is no alternative at all. Biofuel cars aren't very widely available, I don't think, though I'm not sure of the pricing on them. Biking is not an option for people who make major commutes to work.

To implement a tariff, I would think the first step would be to make alternatives more readily available. On the topic of freeing up funds for soil conservation and other green projects I would think that it would be counter productive, at least initially. Not that the economics of tariffs is exactly my bailiwick, heh.

And Jeremy----an import duty does not need to be implemented all at once. It can be started off at a low level, and increased periodically----giving the economy and people time to adjust.

Wasn't there some mandate issued that new manufactured cars be electric by 2018 or something? If not then it would be helpful. Just take away the only-petroleum option all together. And I know you already can get tax incentives for buying a electric. Let's not forget that autos aren't the only problem. We also have power and manufacturing plants that spew pollution - in the case of power plants 24/7 - sometimes into our air, sometimes into our water. Monsanto drowing our food in pesticides, which is not only unhealthy but also doesn't exactly help that soil enrichment. Airplanes put so much pollution into our skies that on the days after 9/11, when all flights were grounded, the temperature rose in uniformity across the nation almost 5 degrees.

We also have the general zeitgeist to battle. The lines are split between those who believe in global warming and want reforms, and those who don't. Regardless of which side of the line you are on, people need to realize that there are more reasons than just global warming to invest in a greener future.

There are a lot of problems with aquaculture, and to recommend it in a published article would require some disclaimers, which makes writing a cohesive, easily read article a little difficult.

The "farms" located on natural bodies of water are extremely dangerous to many aspects of the environment.

However, there is a local retail plant grower, with his nursery on very dense, smectitic clay, who has a small trout farm, inland.

The trout farm is part of his desire to do what we all know we need to do in sustainable agriculture: use water at least three times before you release it to the environment.

He uses water (from his ag wells) this way:

1. In the trout runs.
2. When he changes out the trout-run water, he pumps it to a pond with biofilters (hyacinths, etc.).
3. He uses the water in the pond to irrigate his ornamental retail potted-plant production.
4. He de-bulks the hyacinths, when necessary, by discarding them in his compost pile.
5. He then uses the composted material for his potted-plant production.

The smectitic clay ensures that the nutrients and contaminants, like residual antibiotics, are tied up/converted by the soil by the time the water reaches past the soil profile. In this particular soil, the antibiotics act somewhat as a flocculant, actually improving the structure of this dense, shrink-and-swell clay.

He sells the fish to California stocked "fishing farms."

He has the best set-up I've ever seen or heard of. He uses passive/boundary means to avoid endangering protected California raptors and other wildlife, such as coyotes, bobcats and cougars.

His wells consistently test without violations for drinking water.

Right on! I'm all about aquaponics and currently rage strawberries and several types of peppers on a vertical manifold, supported by goldfish. Aquaponics and permaculture are our answers to the food crisis.

get iT!!

cool story, but i dont understand the disclaimer part--open discussion ja? and im not all familiar w/any that use a natural body as a source for water. i was under the impression no outside contaminants was the key, and 90% less water needed was a good thing.

Yes!!! Will is awesome, he's changing the world with every day. His plans for beginning aquaculture in Africa are truly inspirational. He's the man

He sure is. Giving competition to the Bill Gates/Cargill/Monsanto GMO push.

You just told how to
make a Topsoil-Making Machine (#5). Jan might be looking for you.

http://current.com/tags/85538011_monsanto/

Roundup is killing essential soil bacterias and in the process changing the biology of the soil. It should be banned but of course the govt. is in Monsanto's pocket. If you ever want to look over other posts on Monsanto feel free to go to the tag above.

ahhh, the donald.... mr. "laughing stock" is a joke.

Good catch on those pictures. Quite remarkable.

In the arid Central California area, where oak trees are now scare, especially the majestic old beauties, the worth of a piece of property in the 2.5- to 5-acre range increases by $50,000 (minimum) for each healthy oak on it. If it is a large, old dandy, the price can go to $200,000.

By removing those trees, Trump has changed the local ecosystem. If anything, he has put the river bank at greater risk for erosion, as the tree roots rot away and the newly-laid-bare-to-the-elements understory dies and rots away.

Well, I guess it will improve the view.

You'll be able to get a real good view of the river washing away the river banks with no tree roots to anchor and hold the soil.

When I lived in Mendocino, California in an estuary at the mouth of the Ten Mile River I was able to stop the loss of 30 acres from erosion on our sheep ranch.
Every year the owner would spend thousands of dollars to fill the source of erosion with concrete which all washed away over the winter and spring.
Observing that willows thrived along the river bank and that cut logs would sprout I proposed cutting thousands of willow branches in four foot lengths and sledge-hammering them into the ground, tied together with steel cable.
We did it in 1986 and ever since the erosion has been completely stopped by the "Willow Wall."
It's amazing what nature can do if one just applies simple reasoning.

It has been found in Yellowstone and other places where wolves have been re-introduced into the environment, that erosion and range forage degradation by over grazing large herbivores has been halted or reversed. The predator pressure has kept the herds of foraging animals on the move(deer, moose, elk, bison, antelope etc.) This has allowed riparian and range plants to rebound and recover from overgrazing conditions. (stream and riverside willows and cottonwoods would be the plants primarily reemerging in the riparian ecology)

The loss of a species can have profound and unexpected consequences. This was a totally unexpected result of the re-introduction of wolves to an environment that they had long been gone from.

Exactly!

Well then we have to realize there are more of us than them and tell them we don't give a damn if they don't care, WE DO and we aren't about to allow them to get away with what they are doing. They can try to roll back any damn thing they want, but this is the time for satyagraha on our part regarding what is the moral thing to do to preserve this planet for our children. I know that sounds all idealistic and romantic, but it is now necessary under the circumstances.

Well, if our waste consisted of half-burned logs and broken clay pottery, this might work. But now our waste consists of plastic water bottles, tires, and old electronics. Not exactly rich compost.

The biochar being talked about today is not terra preta. Matter of fact, it is said to suppress nutrients the soil needs if used too much.The terra preta used back then by indigenous people was pure and natural, not coal ash as is being discussed today. I am not for that and it should be obvious as to why. Cover crops work much more effectively, and farmers should have control over it not huge corporations that would then seize the "biochar" market to make farmers buy it at a higher price ( in order to get carbon credits which they won't get by doing it on their own) when they have something comprable right on their farms.

"The conversion of agricultural waste into char at one stroke changes the natural release of 99.9 percent of the carbon of the waste as carbon dioxide and methane into a release of only 10 to 30 percent, a vast improvement on its direct use as a source of biofuel.
If the bulk of agricultural waste were turned into char on farms it could be buried in the soil and that way the crop plants photosynthesizing solar energy would have taken the carbon dioxide from the air for us...
It is not commonly known that char is almost completely inert. Neither atmospheric oxidation nor the action of microorganisms returns it to the air as carbon dioxide.This makes it safe to bury in the soil or in the ocean. So far it is the only realistic proposal by which we have even a chance of restoring the Earth to the state it was before we started using fossil fuel. It even has a bonus in that the act of making charcoal provides a benign form of biofuel as a byproduct."
~James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, 2009

http://www.biochar.org

Dr. Vandana Shiva on biochar:

Soils need living carbon as humus
Vandana Shiva

Burning trees and biomass has ironically emerged as a “solution” to climate change.

Following the false solution of industrial bio fuels we now have the waste left from production of bio fuels as the next magic bullet. The process used is pyrolysis – incineration that chemically decomposes organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. Through pyrolysis organic matter is transformed into gases and small quantities of liquid, used as bio fuels. The waste is a solid residue containing carbon and ash. This waste has now been given the elegant name “biochar”. It is being wrongly treated as the same as “Terra Preta de Indio” — the black soils created by the indigenous people of the Amazon by burying charcoal over hundreds of years. Charcoal in every soil and every ecosystem can prove to be an ecological disaster.

“Biochar” is basically the next new trick of global investors to make money on the global market of carbon trading. As the biochar website www.biochar.org clearly states “A prerequisite for the above mentioned management practices is access to the global carbon trade.” The global carbon market which has a potential to grow to $ 1 trillion by 2020, and this is what is driving “biochar” — not love for the soil, nor the wisdom of indigenous people.

The collapse of Wall Street in 2008 should be enough reason for governments and people to be cautious about the charcoal solution. We cannot afford to have an economics of greed and fraud drive false solutions to climate change.

But there are many other reasons for not falling into the biochar trap. It is based on a scientific fraud.

The central argument for promoting the burning of biomass to make charcoal to put into soil is based on totally false assumptions such as only “2% of carbon from plant biomass enter the soil as carbon through humus” and “30% of soil carbon from humus escapes in the first year and 80-90% in the second year in organic practices which return soil carbon through recycling of biomass.”

These assumptions go against all scientific evidence that shows that organic farming increases soil carbon, and the carbon stays in the soil.

Data from the Rodale Institute and from Navdanya indicate that regenerative and organic practices can increase soil carbon, dramatically and stable carbon compounds remain in the soil for years.

The Rodale long term farm trial research shows a 30% increase in soil carbon over 27 years in organically farmed soils. Chemically formed soils did not increase soil carbon; in fact in certain cases they loose it.

Navdanya’s research carried out across arid, semi arid, sub humid and humid ecosystems shows that compared to chemical farming organic practices increase soil carbon up to 102% and increase soil microbial activity up to 63%.

It is this microbial activity which stabilises soil carbon.

Sir Albert Howard had recognised that humus is at the heart of soil fertility. According to Howard, “Humus is an essential material for the soil if the first phase of the life cycle is to function.

There is another reason why humus is important. Its presence in the soil is an essential condition for the proper functioning of the second contact between plant and soil — the mycorrhizal relationship.”

In total ignorance of the living soil and its complex ecological processes, the “biochar” proponents are proposing a solution based on killing and burning trees and turning living carbon into dead carbon.

On the basis of their blindness and false assumptions they state that “The drawback of carbon enrichment with conventional (referring to organic) methods is that carbon levels drop rapidly again as soon as a required careful management is not sustained.”

This is a ridiculous argument. Good organic farming is a way of life, not a one time fad.
____
So essentially what I am saying is that there is a corporate push for charcoal and coal ash biochar to be markered through a mechanism that will not really be biochar in the strictest sense and which could actually wind up hurting the soil. Biochar in its purest form as terra preta is one thing, but that isn't what we will get should this be allowed to be taken over by corporate interests. This is something we need to be very vigilant about.

I know well and read his book as I read all of his books, and understand what he said on it. Again, I am not disagreeing with the premise of using biochar in its PURE form and with other methods like cover crops in moderation, but again, that isn't what we will get if controlling its use is passed onto corporate entities and their brand of coal ash biochar with mercury is not something I support. Corporations mass producing this will not care about soil, they will only care about making money. I doubt Mr. Gore would approve of that either.

Matter of fact, I reviewed his book and made mention of this very point.

http://progressivesforgore.blogspot.com/2009/12/our-choice-primer-for-survival-o...

From what I understand farmers will provide all the biochar from agricultural waste which is normally burned (adding a huge amount of CO2 to the atmosphere every year).
I'll read your review of Gore's book to understand the corporate coal ash biochar with mercury.
Thanks!

According to James Lovelock and Al Gore the biochar will all come from agricultural waste that is currently burned every year adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Both great men believe biochar is among the easiest, safest and smartest ways to sequester carbon and enrich the soil.

Native Californians, before the European Californians arrived, were quite active "groomers" of the land. They would copice willows to create the vigorous, straight growth needed for baskets. They pruned fruit-bearing trees to produce better and more abundant fruit. When the woodland encroached into the central valley hunting zones, they chopped or burned it back.

Before Europeans came, the Central Valley in the spring was nearly blinding with wildflowers. Anthropologists believe that the release of teh wildflower pollen in such massive abundance, stimulated mating in the Native humans. In fact, the Chumash had a saying which translates basically into "Beware of your maiden daughters going off with young men into the wildflowers of spring," and it is interpreted as being a kind of Planned Parenthood advertisement.

Native Americans set fire to the grasslands and forests every year according to eye-witnesses and archaeologists. This helped fertilize and control parasites and diseases.
There is even good evidence that they actually created the Great Plains by burning.
Growing up on a farm my dad accidently set fire to 150 acres. A few months later it was lush with magnificent wildflowers and healthy grasses.
That is where I lost my virginity.....
;~D

When it all comes down to it we are merely fertilizer for trees.....

Exactly. I gave up eating beef years ago. If we didn't eat so high on the food chain, we could feed many more people and our topsoil and water supply wouldn't be so depleted. We would also be healthier.

Such an obvious fact. Yet getting people to stop consuming is like turning back the tides.

Yes and we are now doing it in South America and Africa at an alarming rate in clearing land and forests to grow BT corn and soy for biofuel and animal feed.

Absolutely. Great response.

i know some that do already just nothing you could live off of.

My friend visited an aeroponics place in Hawaii that can grow food and rice grows in water in Asia.

I think losing soil would be tragic. My wife and I have a small organic farm. I just hope that the mankind will find a way to survive.

Hey I'm wanting to grow organic garden myself is it hard to get USDA certified Organic? I have plans on a couple of green houses to grow in but that may change if I can get My tractor fixed

Getting certification is a huge pain in the a. The biggest problem we have with it is what they consider organic.

We can grow tomatoes, peppers, lettuce, and watercress effectively with hydroponics. Producing volumes of wheat, corn and potatoes would be more difficult.

Aeroponics is actually favored over hydroponics because hydroponics consumes large volumes of water and is prone to producing certain molds which is why only certain plants can be grown that way whereas in aeroponics virtually anything can be grown. I personally do wonder as to the nutritional value of plants grown this way however and the viability of it regards to feeding large populations. There is absolutely no substitute for soil and it would indeed be a human tragedy to see predictions based on current events come to pass.

Bailey I believe to be certified organic your soil would have to have been free of synthetic chemicals amd fertilizers for a certain number of years (I think it's three,) free of any kind of GMOs, irradiation, sewage sludge, etc.You also have to keep an audit trail of sales records and what you produce and keep your products physically separated from any non certified products. You also have to undergo on site inspections. Unfortunately, separating your product from GMO contamination and other threats is getting much harder in this Monsanto/industrial agriculture world.

you wrote: "We will start to grow hydroponically."
as soil is going by way of population, so is water
in the counterculture revolution of the 60's
ZPG (zero population growth) was one of the chants
i did my part
what is it now, 50 years later?

(do i read just a little pissed off?)
.

you wrote: "I just hope that mankind will find a way to survive."
sorry to inform you buddy
ppm of carbon has reached the level to begin releasing methane hydrates

someone has to say it out loud...
.

.
i'm sorry for being such a downer samthesixth.
how do i comment about the industrial revolution and over-population
being the perfect storm?

Give your District Conservationist at the USDA/NRCS Ag Service Center in your area a call. He or she can help you.

Thanks I will do just that.

Sounds like a real job but if I can get started I can handle the work.

Your breadth of knowledge astounds me Jan but you suffer one malady alongside everybody else => you can't see THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.

You guys slay me. It's PATHETIC the human condition how we continue struggling to patch the hell out of stuff instead of going to the root and chopping it off there.

You write at length about CO2 and rain forests being destroyed and yet where is all that wood going PRAY TELL ME THAT hmm? The paper is going into printing books, and WE NO LONGER NEED BOOKS.

Drop the hammer on books Jan and you fix this planet. But no, instead you do just like that bunch over there at GreenPeace where they => no longer want the planet fixed because they are accruing an insane amount of donation monies TO FIX THE PLANET.

Who in their right mind would turn off such a spigot? Not GreenPeace I guarantee toll ya. It's the hypocrites like them, not you Jan. You're merely a commentator here who can't accomplish any more than I can. But I guarantee you THIS ONE THING ON MY LIFE KILL ME DEAD TOMORROW if I'm wrong because I'll win that bet, that if somebody suggested to GreenPeace and every other "player" in this BOONDOGGLE-STUPID HUMAN RACE tomorrow to halt the sheer paper waste we humans do every day you would not see any of them move an inch towards doing it.

Ain't gonna happen Jan. Nothin' ever happens. We are nuthin' We deserve to be nuthin' next week too. Hypocrites every one, and our children are replacement hypocrites.