US Bill would use trees from National Parks to test dangerous unproven technology

Since 09.03.10 469 people have participated in this protest action.

Fine-grained charcoal used in soils, called ‘biochar’, is being promoted as a way of mitigating global warming and making soils more fertile, despite scarce and contradictory evidence. The main lobby group, the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) is made up of biochar companies and scientists, some of whom are known to have relevant business links. Their main aim is to make biochar eligible for carbon credits, both internationally and in the US. By ramping up financial supports for biochar, a large new demand for biomass will contribute to pressures to convert natural forests to industrial plantations and to harvest from already declining and sensitive ecosystems. Towards this end, the IBI supports the world’s first dedicated biochar bill, the US WECHAR (Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration) bill. This would set up federal government guarantees for private loans for biochar research, development and commercialisation. In order to produce the charcoal, salt cedars (tamarisks) from the Mojave Desert, pinyon pine and juniper trees and other so-called ‘excess biomass’, including beetle-infested wood are to be removed for charcoal production, particularly from National Parks. Such vegetation clearance could be disastrous for ecosystems and biodiversity. The IBI frequently claims that they want to use only “wastes and residues” for biochar. but these terms are ill defined, and financial incentives to harvest are dangerous. Salt cedars and other trees and shrubs are clearly not residues.

Salt cedars are blamed for using “too much” water, even though many studies have refuted this claim. They survive along rivers where native trees can no longer grow because the water flow has been disrupted by hydro dams or river diversion. Many bird species depend on them. Where salt cedars have been removed, river banks are commonly left without trees and more susceptible to erosion. Pinyon pines and junipers are native to the south-western US – destroying them without any active ecosystem restoration can have serious consequences for biodiversity, including the over 70 bird species that depend on them. Logging beetle infested trees can delay and diminish forest recovery, while not reducing fire risks to people and houses. Furthermore, the proposals encourage logging and could potentially require road building (for transport of woods) in remote and roadless forests. Very often, large areas are clearcut even though a significant percentage of healthy trees remain. Plans for increased logging and vegetation clearance inside and outside National Parks are not the only concern. The WECHAR Bill is an attempt to commit the US government to support an unproven technology. There are uncertainties over the climate and soil fertility impacts of biochar. Charcoal itself is wrongly called carbon neutral – cutting down large areas of salt cedars, pinyon pines or other trees creates disturbances that result in emissions from soils and vegetation. When burned, a portion of the C contained in the wood is released. The remaining C, retained in the charcoal is then to be applied to soils, where, in theory it will be sequestered safely away from the atmosphere. However, it is not known how much will remain for how long and there is also evidence that charcoal can cause pre-existing soil carbon to be emitted as carbon dioxide. In a recent preliminary study in Canada, no additional carbon was found in soils less than two years after biochar was applied (tinyurl.com/yfg4zlz). Furthermore, there is a significant risk that small biochar particles could become airborne in which case they would absorb heat, contribute to global warming and present a health risk when inhaled. For more information about the WECHAR Bill, see www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/wechar_factsheet.pdf . An international declaration urging caution on biochar can be found at www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/news.php?id=1226 .

Please write to the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee for Environment and Public Works below. The letter and all the signatures will be hand-delivered or sent to members of the House Agriculture Committee, the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.