Social Justice In Massive Biochar Deployment?

[Eclipse Now]

Hi all,

many are starting to complain about the IBI's reports which recommend the massive deployment of biochar compatible crops in 'marginal lands'. Unfortunately, most of the world's 'marginal lands' in poorer countries is where many peasants live. There are many social justice concerns about this. Does anyone from the IBI say anything about this matter? Even to achieve the 'wedge' level of carbon sequestration (which I understand is about 1/7th of annual Co2 emissions) requires these 'marginal lands'.

 

Are there social justice policies recommended by the IBI to help mitigate these concerns?

[Essay]

Hi all,

many are starting to complain about the IBI's reports which recommend the massive deployment of biochar compatible crops in 'marginal lands'. Unfortunately, most of the world's 'marginal lands' in poorer countries is where many peasants live. There are many social justice concerns about this. Does anyone from the IBI say anything about this matter? Even to achieve the 'wedge' level of carbon sequestration (which I understand is about 1/7th of annual Co2 emissions) requires these 'marginal lands'.

 

Are there social justice policies recommended by the IBI to help mitigate these concerns?

I'm not speaking for IBI, but....

 

The simple, backyard type of biochar production, which uses local detritus and wastes, is suited to integrate into and improve rural life where open fires are still used for cooking.

 

This improves their lands and garden yields, and reduces water usage and fertilizer costs, as well as reducing smoke-related health problems that kill more people than malaria.

===

 

The complex, industrial-scale type of biochar production, which uses extensive agricultural/forestry and industrial/urban wastes, is suited to integrate with and improve an already developed economy. This process can also co-produce bio-oil and/or heat (or electricity).

 

Additionally, the more complex process can be combined with the dedication of large tracts of land for growing process feedstock.

Critically, this should never displace food production or a peoples' heritage.

===

 

Ideally, any lands dedicated to extensive biochar-feedstock production should be already degraded or marginal lands that may be restored to a better value through management. This could be done at a plantation scale on historically or traditionally unpopulated lands. For populated lands, incorporating some [simple] biochar processes may benefit local families or villages, but these needs to be organized and assessed on an individualized, local basis.

===

 

I've read stories about large projects to grow palm oil, which buy land from third-world governments to set up plantations, that then ultimately displace traditional local farmers and herders. This is bad, I think; and if these plantation projects also incorporate biochar production as a part of their process, biochar shouldn't be viewed as the reason for this injustice to an indigenous people's heritage and posterity.

 

I can see however, that some project to improve already-populated marginal lands by integrating new growth for feedstock with local biochar production and usage, might be a viable humanitarian project. But that shouldn't be confused with the sort of "land grab" that some nations and corporation are employing in the name of "green" projects for non-local food and profits. For instance, refugee camps, as well as refugees, should be able to benefit from an organized application of various biochar processes.

 

Accounting for biochar's side effects, and co-benefits, is a part of any reputable biochar project; and that accounting should never be displacing people or food production.

 

~