• Home
  • About Us
  • Take Action
  • Donate
  • News
  • Links
  • Contact
  • Legal

Campaigns:

Participate in our protest actions:

  • US Bill would use trees from National Parks to test dangerous unproven technology (09.03.10)
  • Multinationals enter Chiapa's Rainforest - Indigenous Communities Violently Evicted (09.03.10)
  • Say No to Shell’s Brazilian sugar cane biofuel plans (25.02.10)
  • Peru: Palm oil companies destroy the Peruvian Amazon rainforest (24.02.10)
  • Sierra Leone: European ethanol project to cause more hunger in Sierra Leone (17.02.10)
  • When will IKEA see the light? No palm oil for candles and tea lights (09.02.10)
  • Stop the EU Commission from forcing biodiesel from palm oil on EU countries. (05.02.10)
  • Bangladesh: Help the Jumma peoples regain control over their forests, lands, and destiny (26.01.10)
  • Ecuador’s President threatens to allow Yasuni rainforest to be destroyed by oil companies (21.01.10)
  • Protest French Company Shipping Madagascar’s Illegally Logged Rosewood Timbers to China (20.12.09)
  • Action: Multi-million UN carbon credits for agrofuels threaten climate, forests and people (11.12.09)
  • Do something serious for the climate and stop monoculture tree plantations! (03.12.09)
  • Dutch government finances (ir)responsible soya (06.10.09)
  • Planned cellulose factory puts Tasmanian Devil at risk of extinction (30.09.09)
  • BP Destroys savannah and Threatens Rainforests in Brazil (12.09.09)
Share |

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.

Pinyon-juniper in Arizona – Potential biochar feedstock Pinyon-juniper in Arizona – Potential biochar feedstock

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.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am very concerned about the proposed WECHAR Act of 2009 and hope that you will advise and vote against it. I am concerned both about support for an unproven technology and about the impacts
of vegetation clearance, including salt cedar removal, on biodiversity and soils.

The WECHAR bill would mandate federal loan guarantees for biochar research, development and commercialisation. While soil science research in general should be supported, it is wrong to require scientists to establish the ‘environmental benefits’ of a technology which is so far unproven. A review of the literature indicates that there are numerous concerns that could lead to environmental harms rather than benefits. For this reason, the UNEP has cautioned: “Research is still at a preliminary stage and large-scale biochar deployment is inadvisable until these uncertainties are resolved “ (tinyurl.com/nvak7e). Although there are examples of indigenous farmers’ successful use of charcoal, mixed with highly biodiverse organic residues under specific circumstances, there is no evidence that large-scale charcoal application by itself makes soils more fertile in the long-term or helps to mitigate climate change. If small charcoal particles become airborne, they can have the same significant warming impact as black soot. Furthermore, it is not known how much charcoal carbon remains in soils for how long and there is evidence that charcoal could cause existing soil carbon to be emitted as CO2. Impacts on soil fertility are variable, possibly short-lived and there are no field studies to back up the claims made by lobbyists. Large-scale vegetation removal, including from National Parks cannot be considered carbon negative.

The WECHAR Bill is based on the assumption that large-scale removal of salt cedars from the Mojave Desert, pinyon pine and juniper trees from the Great Basin and ‘excess biomass’, including beetle-infested wood, from the Intermountain West will help restore natural water flows and reduce fire risks. None of those claims is supported by evidence. Several studies have shown that salt cedars do not require more water than native trees and that they survive along river banks where natural water flow has been disrupted by hydro dams or water diversion. Their removal commonly results in river banks without any tree cover, with less diversity and in more soil erosion. Many bird species, amongst them the endangered Southern Willow Flycatcher, depend on salt cedars in many areas. Removal of pinyon pines, juniper and other trees without active ecological restoration can diminish biodiversity, with over 70 bird species depending on pinyon-juniper ecosystems. Finally, logging of beetle-infested forests has been shown to delay and stunt forest regrowth and it has been shown to reduce fire risks (tinyurl.com/y8nuegy). Even if in some cases vegetation removal could be justified, turning a significant proportion of biomass into a product with no proven value and potential risks – i.e. biochar – makes no sense.

I therefore hope that you will reject this bill.

Yours faithfully,

St No

Save data on this computer


Please enter your contact details here. The mail will then be sent to the adresses mentioned in the text above. Please fill in all blanks.
Your data will be saved for campaigns by Rainforest Rescue only.