The Biochar Debate

The biochar debate is raging over on the Guardian website. It began when George Monbiot criticised biochar enthusiasts for their over-hyping of this ‘miracle’ cure for curbing carbon emissions.  With all the rapidity of internet debate, both Chris Goodall and James Lovelock have already responded to Monbiot’s censure (see sidebar). I have always admired George Monbiot for his combination of meticulous calculations, ability to create convincing scenarios and his refusal to pander to the ‘business as usual’ approach, but recently I have been struck recently by how weary he seems. I remember seeing him at a panel discussion not long after the Stern Report was published (those golden days when it seemed that, finally, the age of environmental responsibility was upon us) during which he said the greatest danger we now faced was that we would talk and talk and do nothing. This has proven to be a depressingly accurate prediction and as the economic crisis takes precedence in the media and policy it sometimes seems that we’re even in danger of losing the talk. Which is why it is heartening to see debate like this still happening.  

I don’t feel I understand enough about biochar to make a definite judgement (and it’s so often the case that the more you read, the less you understand, though I haven’t yet read Earthscan’s authoritative new book on Biochar, also mentioned in Goodall’s article) but surely one thing that history should have taught us is that mono-mass anything is a bad idea. Variety is the source of productive life on this planet and we shouldn’t be fighting against that with one catch-all solution to our problems but rather embracing the opportunity for diversity in energy production, reducing or ‘dealing with’ carbon emissions, green technologies and alternative ways of being. So I can only conclude with Monbiot that while biochar might be an answer to our problems, it’s not the only answer.