Wichita, Kansas funds $100 acre for grass plantings in watershed

The City of Wichita, Kansas is now paying farmers in one of its watershed areas $100 an acre to put in grass. This is an incentive handled by the Cheney Lake Watershed to improve water quality for the city by working with watershed landowners.

This is yet another example of local policy leadership on water cycling, and an example of ecosystem services payments where cost and benefit are nearby. The article quoted below is by Lisa French.

http://www.cheneylakewatershed.org/newsletter/2009-Summer.pdf

"Like most farmers, David Friesen has a few acres of cropland that are always difficult to farm. In David’s case, his field near the Ninnescah River has a tendency to stay wet. Getting a crop planted and harvesting the crop are both a challenge. With a new program offered by the Cheney Lake Watershed, David is going to be paid $100/acre to seed a little more than 5 acres to Eastern gamagrass for hay or grazing. As David says, “It looks like it’s a no-brainer.”

"The Cheney Lake Watershed is now offering one-time incentive payments of $100/acre, funded by the City of Wichita, for crop acres seeded to permanent vegetation. The species used depend on the producer’s goals, soil types, and site condition. Eligible land must have five years of cropping history and must be located within the watershed east of Highway 14. Land in this area is more likely to contribute sediment to Cheney Reservoir than other areas of the watershed.

Performance criteria missing from US climate bill

Tim LaSalle at Rodale posted a nice piece in Treehugger pointing out the lack of performance criteria or monitoring in the US climate bill, and the high importance of monitoring.

"The best way to tell if a farmer’s fields are sequestering carbon is to measure annual changes in soil carbon."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/waxman-markey-climate-bill-arent...

Natural lawn mowers can benefit the carbon cycle

Vote for grasslands at the Manchester Guardian, to raise awareness

Tony Lovell and Bruce Ward from Australia made a presentation about grassland carbon to the Manchester Report, a project of the Guardian newspaper in the UK. They report that it was enthusiastically received, and was new information to many.

The Manchester report is running a poll for the top 10 solutions to climate change. You can vote here before July 23, and no registration is necessary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/poll/2009/jul/08/manchester-report...

Podcast with agroinnovations.com

Frank Aragona of Agroinnovations.com interviewed me for a podcast earlier this month about policy and soil carbon. Thanks Frank for helping get the word out!

Dung beetles for pasture improvement and carbon accrual

Allan Savory on climate change

Last year Allan Savory wrote the paper attached below, A Global Strategy for Addressing Global Climate Change, which clarifies the importance of biosphere processes to our situation, and to any improvement. To download, right click and select Save Target As, or Ctrl-click on a Mac.

"Only through uniting and diverting all the resources required to deal with climate change and land degradation can we avert unimaginable tragedy. We have all the money we need. All we cannot buy is time."

Can policy build soil carbon? Part 2 of 2

(Part 1 of this post)

To summarize: the lack of organic matter in our soils isn't a problem, to be fixed with a solution. It's an opportunity, with divergent solutions. Yet our policy systems tend to select for convergent and standardized solutions, which are difficult to implement because of power struggles and escalating fears, or are too compromised by a "best practices" format to be most effective in a variety of situations. And if they do get implemented, they depend on large appropriations that may not always materialize.

Approved, implementable, and effective strategies and actions get scarcer and scarcer as the need for them gets more and more urgent. In the face of grave threats, the sense of freedom and possibility shrinks to a point. Is this what we want? It is a situation we have contributed to.

Challenging these dynamics, important as it is, won't be enough. Giving the "right" answers to the wrong questions is a steady job, but boring. A different selection system, with different selective forces, is needed. One that asks not what to do about global warming pollution, for example, but asks how the carbon cycle functions in this or that place, and what are the possibilities for enhancing it. For example, what are the possibilities, in a variety of situations, for turning atmospheric carbon into soil organic matter?

Prize competitions are a proven strategy for exploring, pushing the boundaries, and telling the story of what is possible. They can help change the questions, which can help shift leadership from top-level experts to successful local practitioners.

Can policy build soil carbon? Part 1 of 2

The problem with carbon is that it's not a problem. It's a cycle, encompassing the fields and pastures where your breakfast came from, your every breath and thought. It’s a network, linking together the metabolisms, life histories, and deaths of all the biosphere’s organisms--which are autonomous, mostly single-celled, and made largely of carbon.

There is too much carbon in the atmosphere, and humans are responsible. The cues are all there to see this as a problem, and an environmental problem at that. Such a recognition can be unconscious and instantaneous. The self-evident solution is to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

Within its frame of reference, the diagnosis is true--fossil fuel burning is bad, it's pollution, and ought to be slowed or stopped. But the diagnosis is useless. It will keep the problem unsolved.

It sets up a power struggle over who owns the issue, who frames it. There is widespread and stubborn resistance to the environmental framing and its embedded solution. This resistance is not about peer-reviewed science or data. It's about fear--of scarcity, of loss of choices, of being controlled by liberal do-gooders and dysfunctional international agreements.

Ridiculing, belittling, or ignoring such fears doesn't make them disappear. It nourishes them. Likewise, the fears of climate change--sea level rise, drought, famine, booms and busts of plants and animals, economic collapse, refugees--will gain urgency and strength under denial or lack of action.

These are not the dynamics of change. They are the dynamics of a pendulum, where motion in one direction guarantees motion in the other, and which can only be stable when it is hanging straight down, after all energy is dissipated.

Soils need living carbon as humus

by Vandana Shiva

From the Chandigarh Tribune http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090410/science.htm NOTE: This opinion piece does not necessarily represent the views of the Soil Carbon Coalition. It may be an example of how difficult it is to distinguish between ideas or management tools, and their implementation. It also typifies the reactive debate over solutions to climate change.

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.

Pages

Subscribe to Soil Carbon Coalition RSS