[Sdpg] A Carbon Sequestration Proposal for the World

[Friends of the Trees]

======================================================================
A Carbon Sequestration Proposal for the World by Michael Pilarski
======================================================================

Based on Reforestation, Improved Ecosystem Management & Increasing Soil Carbon
Levels in Farm Soils
 
Michael Pilarski, Friends of the Trees Society
Edition 1 - January  1, 2010
 
I have been following the climate-change and carbon storage debates for over
30 years and still have not heard of any proposals that make as much sense as
the one outlined herein. The recent Copenhagen Climate Conference was a lot of
business-as-usual power plays. I have yet to read a single report that said
anything meaningful was agreed upon. There have been a lot of high-tech ways
proposed to tie up the atmosphere’s excess carbon dioxide, but it seems
that hardly anyone talks about the down-to-earth, achievable methods of carbon
sequestering outlined here.
 
One good thing that did come out of the Copenhagen conference is that 50,000
people from civil society, small farmers, indigenous people, NGO’s, etc
attended the alternative Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen.  A lot of real things
were accomplished there and people will go home and make real changes that
count. It is interesting to note that Klimaforum09 was conceived of by a
long-time Danish permaculturist, Tony Anderson.[1]
 
The following proposals are needed global investments whether you believe in
climate change or not. These proposals make financial sense, are doable
without inventing any new technology and will be net gains for society and
biodiversity at large.
 
There are four main themes in this proposal:

Reforestation/Afforestation of 5 billion acres worldwide = 150 billion tons of
carbon sequestration.
Earth repair and improved ecosystem management of existing forests and all
other terrestrial ecosystems = 100 billion tons of carbon sequestration. This
includes cities, forests, marshes, savannas, grasslands, steppes, and deserts.
(I haven’t tackled this equation yet, but this is a conservative
estimate.)
Increasing the soil organic matter content by 1% on arable farmland worldwide
= 43.86 billion tons of carbon sequestration (75.62 billions tons of soil
organic matter which is 58% carbon). These figures are for the top one foot of
the soil. Most farm soils in the world currently have between 1% and 3%
organic matter levels.
Mobilizing the people and resources to accomplish these goals.
    
                     

This adds up to a total of 293.86 billion tons of carbon sequestered. A
billion tons is a gigaton. There is currently 780 billion tons of carbon in
the atmosphere. There are estimated to be 575 gigatons of carbon in the
world’s biomass. This proposal calls for increasing the amount of
biomass-carbon on earth by another 50%. From 575 gigatons to 865 gigatons.
This level of carbon sequestration would bring atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels down to where they were in the early 1800s, if done in tandem with
lowering human-caused carbon emissions.
 
“Although the figure is frequently being revised upwards with new
discoveries, over 2700 Gt of carbon is stored in soils worldwide, which is
well above the combined total of atmosphere (780 Gt) or biomass (575 Gt), most
of which is wood. Carbon is taken out of the atmosphere by plant
photosynthesis; about 60 Gt annually becomes various types of soil organic
matter including surface litter; about 60 Gt annually is respired or oxidized
from soil.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_carbon
 
How I obtained the carbon sequestration figures given here are explained in
the text following. Undoubtedly some figures will need to be revised as more
information becomes available, but not enough to dismiss the general validity
of this proposal.
 
I. Reforestation/Afforestation
Increasing the world’s forest cover by 5 billion acres (from 10 billion
to 15 billion acres)
= 150 billion tons of carbon sequestration
 
1 hectare = 2.47 acres
1 square kilometer = 247.10 acres
 
In this proposal I have chosen to use measurements familiar with US readers.
Acres instead of hectares and square miles instead of square kilometers. In
future editions I plan to supply all the figures in metric as well.
 
Reforestation is the practice of planting trees on land which has just been
clear-cut harvested or had been forested within the last 50 years.
Afforestation is the practice of planting forests on land which were once
forested but have been de-forested for more than 50 years, sometimes hundreds
of years, and in some cases did not historically support forest.
 
Depending on which expert’s figures you go with, the world has only 30%
to 40% left of its forest cover prior to the development of agriculture.
“Eighty percent of the forests that originally covered the earth have
been cleared, fragmented, or otherwise degraded”. World Resources
Institute.
 
Adding 5 billion acres to the current 10 billion acres of the world’s
forest cover would go a long ways toward the desired carbon sequestration. It
takes awhile as new forests’ capacity to tie up carbon increases over
time. It is slow the first few years to a decade but then it accelerates. Each
forest has a maximum amount of carbon it can store. It isn’t infinite,
but generally it takes hundreds of years to reach its maximum carbon store.
This of course depends on the forest not being unduly, negatively impacted by
humans or natural disturbances such as fire, wind-storms, hurricanes, insects
and disease epidemics.  Every forest is subjected to natural disturbance
regimes which damage growth. Forests have adapted to this. The disturbance
regime in some forests is mainly small-scale disturbances but some forests
have disturbance regimes include large, high-intensity disturbances such as
hurricanes, ice-storms and forest fires. Forest fires burn at many intensities
but hot, stand-replacing fires can drastically reduce forest carbon levels. In
the natural scheme of things even though parts of a forested region may suffer
high carbon losses to fire, a region’s overall forests will attain
greater carbon storage over time (barring large-scale climate shifts). Human
forest management can be used to assist this carbon storage process, to
mitigate and reduce natural disturbances and to extract timber and other
natural resources at the same time.  This does mean that I advocate intensive
management of all forests. However I do advocate intensive management of most
new afforestation projects to assist these new forests to succeed.  I discuss
management of existing, natural forests in the 2nd part of this 4-part
proposal.
 
In Friends of the Trees 1988 International Green Front Report, I wrote a long
article on a 5 billion acre, world-wide, afforestation plan. How many trees
would it take, how many tree planters would be needed and how much would it
cost.  The following afforestation discussion is an abridged version of that
article.[2] The full article should be up on my website by February, 2010.[3]
 
Here is a synopsis of my 1988 calculations:
The FAO 1978 figure for total world forest area was 10 billion acres (this
means it was actually less).
My calculations are for adding 5 billion acres to the world forest cover. From
10 billion acres to 15 billion acres.
 
If we take an average of 300 trees to the acre to reforest 5 billion acres
that would be 1,500 billion trees. The world’s population going into
2010 is estimated to be 6.79 billion which means we only need to plant 220
trees per person over 10 years to reach the goal.
 
How many tree planters would be needed? I go into this in some detail in my
1988 article and ended up estimating an average of 400 trees planted per day
per tree planter and a planting season of 60 days a year which is a total of
24,000 trees per tree-planter per year. A ten-year plan to plant 5 billion
acres would take 62.5 million tree planters for two months of the year. It
would make sense that many of them would work in tree nursery production, or
other earth repair work during the rest of the year. Bear in mind that these
are full-time job equivalents. Part of the work can be done as part-time jobs
so people have time to grow food and do things for their family and community.
Bear in mind that many individuals already grow and plant trees on their own
and the upscaling of movements like Wangari Maathai’s Green Belt
Movement in Kenya could accomplish a lot at the grass roots level.
 
How many nurseries are needed? These figures are per year for a ten year
program. It would take 150,000 nurseries growing a million trees each. Or 1.5
million nurseries producing 100,000 trees each. Or 15 million nurseries
producing 10,000 trees each or 150 million people producing 100 trees each.
Undoubtedly there would be a wide range of sizes of tree nurseries, but small
to medium size are best. These nurseries would require a labor force of
perhaps 20 million. Part of this work force coming from the tree planters in
the off season.
 
How much would it cost to plant the trees? I go into this in some detail in my
1988 article and ended up estimating an average of $1.00 a tree as an average
cost for tree raising, planting out, protection, and tending for several
years. In the current economic paradigm, tree planting/tending costs in the US
are much higher per tree than places like Africa or Asia. This $1 a tree is a
global average. At which rate it would cost $1500 billion to reforest our
proposed 5 billion acres.
 
The industrial inputs to accomplish this are surprisingly few. Food for the
workers is the main input. Shovels, rakes, hoedads and hand tools are
important. People could walk to work if they needed to, but when available,
transportation vehicles are desired. When I was in back country Nepal a days
walk from the nearest road, I could find nurseries producing tens of thousands
of trees each with the only industrial input being some thin plastic sheeting
for seedling tubes. They showed me tree tubes made out of local leaves, for
when plastic was in short supply.
 
Let’s put this in perspective. Global military expenditure stands at
over $1.46 trillion in annual expenditure at current prices for 2008, and has
been rising in recent years. In other words about two years of the
world’s military budget would cover the costs of this 10-year
afforestation plan.  The total US bank bailouts in the latest crisis is
estimated to be as high as $4 trillion which is more than double the cost of
this 5 billion-acre afforestation budget!
 
Thankfully we don’t need to pry the money out of the military or the
banks to get the job done, as I outline in the social section of this
proposal.
 
Where to plant the trees? This would vary from country to country and region
to region as there is a lot of variation in current land ownership and various
degrees of land concentration. As far as deciding where to site those 5
billion acres of new trees, that would be decided at a decentralized local
level. These do not all have to be contiguous, closed-canopy forests.  This
initiative includes tree planting in cities, towns and farmland as well as on
degraded lands. Farmland tree planting would include a combination of
windbreaks, agroforestry, orchards and converting some marginal farmland to
timber crops. Good agroforestry systems on 10% of the arable farmland would
improve the yields on the remaining 90% so that crop production would not
drop, plus there is now all the products of the agroforestry systems.
Agroforestry is highly productive in its own right. [4]
 
Who owns the trees? Here are some possibilities which will be done in various
combinations depending on the country and situation:
 

Farmers plant trees on their own land.  They retain full ownership of the land
     and all the products of the planting.       Society subsidizes them to do
this.
Government land is used. City, town, county, state,      federal. Plantings
are totally native species and designed for native      habitat restoration.
Landowners can sell land to individuals, groups, or      communities for
forest establishment.
Individuals or cooperatives can lease government land      to put in plantings
for future harvest. Subsidized at the beginning and      paying tax on harvest
later.
Landowners can plant totally native plants and be      subsidized. Native
Plant Conservancy, conservation trust lands, etc.
Land can be purchased from land-owners by      cooperatives who plant, tend
and harvest.
Tribes and cultures with common land can plant some      of their common lands
upon agreement of the community. Future products can      be for common good
or leased to families
Abandoned land can be planted by local community or      possibly homesteaded.
Indigenous peoples can do plantings of what they want      where they want on
their territories and be subsidized.
Restoration communities.
Private landowners can give long-term leases on parts      of their land for
planting and harvest.
Land reform. We all know that land reform is needed      in many countries
where people have had their land ripped off.
The goal is to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise      them.
In all cases, care should be taken to protect and      augment any healthy
native ecosystems.
The trees (forests) can be owned by the local      community who support the
people to plant them and tend them. The initial      investment costs can be
borne at the local community level. In some cases      the people who do the
planting/tending get harvest rights from the trees      they plant/tend. If
these planting are well planned and executed there can      start being some
payback in only a few years with gradually increasing      productivity over
time. Tree plantations by outside corporate interests in      lesser-developed
countries for export to developed countries should be      made illegal.
Forests should be owned/controlled/stewarded by local people      and
communities and should be used to meet their needs first before      export.
Exports after meeting local needs should be given a fair price.      The
“Fair Trade” movement is providing some experience in these
regards.
In places with high tree failure due to grazing,      subsidize the planting
and give a payment to the tender for every year      that the plant lives.
Once harvests start, the payment stops.  This is one way of giving people     
incentive to protect trees in development projects.

For the sake of simplicity I have chosen to focus on the number of trees
planted. A good permaculture or restoration design is going to call for
planting ground-cover plants, shrubs, and vines, as well as trees. On many
sites, you have to start out with erosion control plants, soil building plants
and tough pioneer plants to create the conditions for later plantings of late
successional species. Trees alone do not make a forest. Fungi, soil
microorganisms, insects, birds, mammals, etc all have to be factored in. In
some cases this calls for inoculation or re-introducing species. However, it
has been demonstrated all over the world, that if you plant the trees, many
other species will show up on their own.
 
How much carbon would 5 billion acres of new forest sequester?  Obviously it
would increase every year with significant increases starting in years 10 to
20 depending on the climate, soils, etc.
 
How much carbon does a forest usually contain? Obviously this is going to vary
widely, depending on the climate, how old the forest is, management, etc. The
heaviest forests in the world are the temperate rainforests of the Pacific 
Northwest with up to 400 tons per acre of biomass.
 
The US Forest Service gives the total carbon content of a maple-beech-birch
forest from the US at 65 years of age (after clearcutting) as 206.7
tons/hectare which is 83.68 tons/acre.
 
Here is their breakdown in tons of carbon/hectare. Live tree 101.1, standing
dead tree 7.0, understory 1.7, down dead wood 7.2, forest floor 25.3, and soil
organic 64.4.  In other words, 31% of this forest’s carbon is held below
the soil. Mind you, this is a north temperate forest so it will have a higher
amount of biomass on the floor and in the soil, as compared to a tropical
forest with its much higher rates of decomposition. To me, the most surprising
parts of this study was that the soil organic matter (SOM) was a very high %
of the total and that SOM did not decrease upon clearcutting but actually kept
increasing slowly through the 2nd rotation. [5]
 
For the sake of our purposes here I propose looking at how much carbon would
be tied up in new forests at age 50 years.  This exercise could be done for
carbon amounts at 10 years, 20 years, etc. But in most places in the world
trees are starting to get pretty big by age 50.  An acre of forest of
widely-spaced trees in Africa’s dry sahel of Africa is obviously going
to weigh a lot less than an acre of forest in the wet tropics vs. in temperate
rainforests, vs. tall-grass prairies, etc.  If we estimate an average carbon
amount of 30 tons an acre in our 5 billion acre of new forests at age 50 would
contain 150 billion tons of carbon. I believe this is a conservative estimate.
 
It has come to my attention that some people in the world are proposing
cutting down existing forests so they can plant new forests and claim carbon
credits.  This is obviously an insane and obscene proposal. Current forests
need protection and better management to maximize carbon sequestration.  You
don’t increase carbon sequestration by cutting big trees down to plant
baby trees!
 
Planting 5 billion acres of trees is feasible, desirable and doable. This
becomes a huge carbon sink as well as greatly increasing natural resources
available for human use and having many beneficial affects on world climate
such as increasing rainfall and slowing winds.
 
II. Earth repair and improved ecosystem management of existing forests,
marshes, grasslands, shrub-steppes, deserts and cities
= 100 billion tons of carbon sequestration 
 
This following chart is incomplete and has multiple sources, but it is what I
could find at the moment of going to press with this first draft.
 
World land surface 36.48 billion acres
Arable land: 10.57%.
     Permanent crops:  1.04%.
     Irrigated land:  2,770,980 sq km (1,721,886 sq mi).
Forest  9.8 billion acres
     Closed forests
Woody savanna and savanna; 13.8%
Open and closed shrub 12.7%
Non-woody grassland 8.3%
Tundra 5.7%
Marshes
 Peatlands (4,000,000 square kilometers) [6]
Desert
Cities, towns, roads, human environment 3% plus [7]
 
Forests contain the largest amounts of carbon per acre, but almost all land
surfaces store carbon in the form of organic matter. Grasslands, marshes,
shrub-steppes, deserts, farmland, cities. A sensible human goal would be to
assist nature to create biologically rich, resilient ecosystems that store
carbon to the highest extent possible, EVERYWHERE.  Ecological land-use
practices can achieve habitat restoration and at the same time increase food,
livestock forage, medicine, fiber and resources for humans.  Well-managed,
restored ecosystems grow in biological productivity, biodiversity and carbon
storage over time.
 
There are many different kinds of earth repair work such as erosion control,
refilling aquifers, cleansing air, building soils, stabilizing riparian
systems, reducing flooding, reversing desertification, planting forests,
restoring native plants, animals and ecosystems, etc
 
Note that I use a number of terms to describe the wide range of work needed to
carry out this carbon sequestration plan. Earth repair, earth-healing, and
ecosystem restoration are terms I use interchangeably. A term being used in
Australia is “land care”. The Land Care movement in Australia [8]
is one of the world’s best examples of a nation-wide, land care effort
which involves government funding as well as a significant labor force of
volunteers and paid workers. Of course, it is a drop in the bucket compared to
the huge environmental problems Australia faces at this time, but it has given
some very good experience to ramp up and for other parts of the world to
study.
 
FORESTS:
Applying restoration forestry management to the current existing world forests
would increase the amount of carbon held in the world’s forests by a
large factor, plus there would be a steadier supply of higher quality woods
than under current, short-rotation forestry methods. Plus there would be less
stand-destroying forest fires.  This is outlined in my 1994 book
“Restoration Forestry: An International Guide to Sustainable Forestry
Practices”.[9]
 
“Globally forest vegetation and soils contain about 1146 billion tons of
carbon, with approximately 37% of this carbon in low latitude forests, 14% in
mid-latitude, and 49% at high latitudes. Over 2/3 of the carbon in forest
ecosystems is contained in soils and associated peat deposits.” They
estimate that total forest carbon (aboveground) to be 359 billion tons and 787
billion tons in soils (and peat).
“Forests are important in the global carbon cycle because they store
more than 55% of the global carbon stored in vegetation and more than 45% of
that stored in soils.” The study concludes that 60 to 87 billion tons of
carbon could be sequestered by improved forestry practices in the 55 years
between the years of 1995 and 2050. The Terrestrial Carbon Cycle: Managing
Forest Ecosystems. [10]
 
Effective carbon sequestration via forests is not necessarily dependent on the
number of trees, nor necessarily on the number of acres of trees.  Certainly
both are part of the equation, but the most important part of the equation is
how many pounds of biomass are there on each acre of forest. We need forests
which have big trees, big snags, big down logs and woody debris, plus healthy
litter layers, soil organic matter and lots of big roots (both dead and alive)
in the ground. All these things added up are the biomass along with all the
soil life, insects, birds, mammals, etc.
 
In other words, we need forests that weigh a lot.
 
A forest with thousands of spindly dog-hair trees does not have much carbon. A
forest with a diffuse cover of small trees does not have much carbon. Forests
need to be managed for a goodly amount of old growth. Thinnings can provide
lots of wood of all diameters, while maintaining a "heavy" forest.  We can
have our lumber (and better quality lumber), and have good carbon tie-up at
the same time.
 
Here in the Okanogan and in the interior Pacific Northwest in general, there
are a lot of overstocked young forests and abnormally high rates of hot,
stand-replacing fires which burn out most of the carbon.  To get long term
carbon storage in these forests, we need much better forest management. This
includes cool burns and thinning so that we reduce our frequency of stand
replacing fires. Once our dryer site forests get reasonably large trees than
they are much more resistant to fire. Thus fire can have a place in a
landscape that still manages to achieve a high carbon storage overall. All we
have to do is look at the historical records of what was here a short 200
years ago. Gorgeous forests with heavy carbon storage being managed by the
indigenous peoples.
 
By my reckoning we need to dramatically increase the world's forest cover AND
we need to increase the weight of most forests by a large factor, depending on
the current level of forest health or degradation. Only a small percentage of
the world’s forests have not been degraded and are operating at natural
weight levels.
 
All forests cannot achieve equal weights. Limiting factors include light,
growing season, water, temperatures, and soils. The heaviest forests in the
world are in the Hoh valley rainforest on Washington State’s Olympic
peninsula with weights of up to 400 tons of biomass per acre.  This is due to
big trees plus slow decomposition rates. Big logs pile up. In the tropics,
decomposition rates are fast and so almost all the biomass is in the live tree
mass. Tropical forests can never get as heavy as temperate rainforests. It
would be interesting to see a chart on the average biomass weights of
old-growth forests from climates all around the world.
 
Heavy forests are what we need to aim for.  Helping forests gain weight is the
primary single way that can draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide. The add on
benefits are immense including oxygen production, ozone layer strengthening
(this from stronger oxygen columns extending up into the atmosphere), a large
increase in the production of timber and forest products, flood amelioration,
soil building, healthier fresh water ecosystems, better ocean fisheries, etc,
etc.
 
Every area needs a team of forest weight-watchers.
 
SHRUB-STEPPES AND GRASSLANDS:
“Approximately 13.8 percent of the global land area (excluding Greenland
and Antarctica) is woody savanna and savanna; 12.7 percent is open and closed
shrub; 8.3 percent is non-woody grassland; and 5.7 percent is tundra. Thus,
approximately 40.5 percent of terrestrial area is grassland. This estimate of
52.5 million km² (12.97 billion acres) for total grassland area falls
within the range of previous estimates: 40.5 to 55.5 million km².”
World Resources Institute. [11]
 
The vast majority of grassland and steppe is used for domestic livestock
grazing. The biomass/carbon weight of these ecosystems is held largely below
ground as root mass and soil organic matter. Restoration activities and
improved grazing management could likely double the amounts of carbon held in
these ecosystems.
 
FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER MARSHES occupy what percentage of the earth’s
land area? What were their extents historically? I am looking for this data if
someone can send it. Marshes are one of the most biologically productive
ecosystems on earth. They have a high carbon content and a high carbon
turnover. Marsh restoration and improved management has many benefits
including carbon sequestration, improved fisheries, biodiversity and
protection of land from storm surges.
 
CITIES, TOWNS, VILLAGES:
Urban cities cover 3% of the world’s land surface. Towns and villages
occupy what percentage of the earth’s land area? I am looking for this
data is someone can send it. Most cities, towns and villages will be more
livable places with a healthy addition of trees, shrubs, vines, gardens,
parks, etc. The concrete jungles of the world need to be turned into places
like the fabled “Hanging Gardens of Babylon”. Home gardens for
food production in cities, suburbs, and towns is already a big deal in many
parts of the world and is rapidly becoming more popular. This all results in
increased vegetation, biomass, soil organic matter and carbon sequestration.
Permaculture offers one of the best wholistic design systems to design
productivity, livability and carbon into urban and settled landscapes.
 
III. Increasing soil carbon levels in farm soils worldwide
= 43.86 billion tons of carbon sequestration
 
This proposal calls for increasing the soil organic matter content by 1% on
arable farmland worldwide.
 
3.98 billion acres of arable cropland x 19 tons (weight of 1% organic matter
in an acre of soil) = 75.62 billions tons of soil organic matter x .58 (soil
organic matter is 58% carbon [12] = 43.86 billion tons of carbon
sequestration.
 
Arable land is that capable of being used for crop growing and, thus, has
qualities including a fresh water supply and a richness in nutrients, and is
located where the prevailing climate is suitable (not too hot or too cold).
 
The total area of arable land in the world today, according to the CIA World
Factbook, is 3.98 billion acres. 10.57% of the land surface. The definition
used is land that is under cultivation, or temporarily fallow (for less than
five years) -- but it excludes abandoned land resulting from shifting
cultivation. There is .61 acre of arable land per capita in the world.
 
About 10% of the world’s arable land is in perennial crops such as
fruits, nuts, rubber, palm oil, berries, herbs, asparagus and other crops
produced by woody-stemmed plants and herbaceous perennials.
 
This is only one of a range of estimates for world arable land. One difficulty
is that different people have different definitions of arable land. Many parts
of the world have imperfect surveys, and every year large amounts of land are
lost to degradation and abandonment. Permaculture does not have such a black
and white view of arable and non-arable lands.  Permaculture has taught me to
recognize the productive potentials of every acre of land. In a sense, all
land becomes productive land even though we may not till or cultivate. For
instance we may enhance and manage for valuable species for wildcrafting. The
yields we aim for or not only in the form of crops, but also in the form of
functions, biological productivity, stability, resilience, and biodiversity.
 
The average organic matter in world arable soils at present is somewhere
around 2%. A 3% organic matter content is considered good soil and 1% is not
uncommon. Best farming practices could likely double the amount of organic
matter content held in the world’s farm soils. This would store a huge
amount of carbon, increase crop yields, reduce erosion and reduce floods, all
at the same time. Let’s look at the current situation and what is
possible.
 
20% of arable land is irrigated. 2,770,980 sq km (2003) irrigated. CIA
Factbook.
"During the past 40 years nearly one-third of the world's cropland (1.5
billion hectares) [3.7 billion acres] has been abandoned because of soil
erosion and degradation."
"About 2 million hectares [4.94 million acres] of rainfed and irrigated
agricultural lands are lost to production every year due to severe land
degradation, among other factors."
“Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously
degraded.” [13]
For the sake of our purposes here, let us define an acre-foot as the top one
foot of soil from an acre of land. 43,560 square feet.
 
Different kinds of soils have different weights of their acre-foot.  It is
easiest to grasp by looking at how much a square foot of soil weighs.
Silicious sand
…………………………110
pounds
Half sand and half clay……………..…..96
Common arable soil……………...80 to 90
Heavy
clay……………………………..75
Garden mold rich in vegetable matter.....70
Peat
soil…………………………..30
to 50
Source: Farm & Garden Rule-Book by L.H. Bailey.
 
For this proposal we have chosen 87 pounds as our average square foot of soil
weight so our world average for an acre-foot would weigh 1900 tons. Increasing
the proportion of soil organic matter in an acre of soil by 1% is a 19 ton
(38,000 pounds) gain in soil organic matter. Each 1% of soil organic matter in
an acre-foot weighs 19 tons.
 
Here are some methods to increase soil organic matter in farm soils. There are
many books written on each of these topics.
 
Reduce or halt water and wind erosion.

Use of multi-year, sod crops of grasses/legumes/forbs to build organic matter.
Typically 4 to 7 years. Mostly these are used for livestock pasture and/or
hay.
Growing green manure crops for incorporation into the soil. One, two or even
more crops a year depending on length of growing season and its place in the
crop rotation.
Careful recycling of farm manures and crop wastes back to the fields. Better
results are had if these are composted first.
Judicious use of fertilizers (preferably natural) to get good crop growth.
These can be added when making composts to good affect.
The judicious use of the Keyline system of soil and water management developed
by PA Yeoman in Australia. [14]
Addition of tree biomass to the soil, ideally through a composting process.
Sawdust, chips, bark, ramial chipped wood (chipped green branches) [15]
leaves, leaf litter.
Conversion of some cropland from annual to perennial crops, particularly tree
crops. Soils devoted to annual cropping have little organic matter in the 2nd
or 3rd foot. Agricultural tree crops such as fruit orchards will obviously
increase organic matter in all levels of the soil that the tree’s roots
reach.
Long term fallowing of degraded farmland. Take land out of cultivation for a
decade or more. Manage for tough pioneers that can stop erosion, build soil
and provide wildcrafting income. A prime area for planting some of the needed
5 billion acres of new forest.
Terra Preta and Biochar. [16]
Soil inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi, blue green algae, EM effective
microorganisms, Biodynamic preparations, earthworms, etc.

 
There are many more soil building methods.
 
Terra Preta soils are a recent discovery in the Amazon  Basin which have been
receiving increasing interest in the last decade. Terra Preta soils were
created centuries ago by indigenous people and contain high amounts of
charcoal and organic matter and oftentimes, unfired pottery shards. Charcoal
is a form of carbon that can exist in the soil for thousands of years.
Charcoal functions as apartment houses for soil microorganisms and has a high
cation exchange capacity (storage spots for fertility elements in the soil
such as calcium, magnesium, nitrogen). Pottery shards perform similar
functions in the soil. In the last several years the term biochar has been
used as a name for charcoal produced for agricultural use.  What climates that
biochar is useful in as an agricultural amendment is still being worked out. 
We can say for sure that it is an excellent addition to wet, tropical soils. 
It is most likely also useful in temperate wet climates where nutrients and
minerals are easily leached from farm soils. Biochar charcoal added to soils
has the potential to substantially increase soil organic matter, crop
production and long-term carbon sequestration.
 
Prairie soils hold their organic matter in a different form than forest soils.
Soil organic matter in prairie soils is held primarily as humus. Organic
matter in forest soils is held in the form of live and dead root material as
well as varying amounts of humus. Some forests have a significant amount of
humus, but many forest soils have little humus.
 
It is important to realize that there are two types of soil organic matter.
 

One type includes stable humus compounds which are very long lived in the
soil, decades to hundreds or even thousands of years. These long-lived humus
elements are very important for soil health as they provide structure,
permeability, water holding capacity, resistance to wind and water erosion and
cation exchange capacity.
Another part of the soil organic matter is transitory with a shelf life of
weeks, months or a few years. It provides the food base for the soil food web
pyramid and releases nutrients for plant growth.

Managing farm soils for carbon sequestration and crop productivity means
balancing and encouraging both of these types of soil organic matter.
Short-lived and long-lived.
 
Even with the best practices some soils may not be able to have their ogm
increased by 1%. By far the majority of soils can achieve this and many soils
can actually be increased by 2%, 3% or even more. Farm soils that are
currently in good health and have a good organic matter content will have a
relatively easy time adding 1% more soil organic matter. Most farm soils in
the world are getting worse, not better, at this time in history. How long
would it take to achieve an average of 1% globally? As a general average I
would say it takes 4 years to increase a soil’s organic matter by 1% if
you do the right things and have the resources. Few farmers have the resources
to tackle this effort on all their acres at once plus there will be early
adopters and late adopters. If this becomes the goal of farmers worldwide we
could see significant progress in the first ten years of effort and possible
achievement of this goal (1 % average raise globally) in 20 years.
 
I have established five agroforestry systems of my own over the last 23 years.
 In my more recent plantings I would estimate I have been able to add 1% soil
organic matter every 3 years. The result of gradually reducing cultivation and
gradually increasing trees, shrubs and perennial crops as well as managing
live ground covers. My system uses labor-intensive practices on a small
acreage with organic fertilizer inputs.
 
We are usually taught in school that it takes 500 years to create an inch of
soil. This might be true if you think of how long it takes to weather rock
into soil, but it is certainly not true about creating topsoil out of subsoil.
Changing poor soils into rich soils can be accomplished in a matter of years
or decades. Keyline practitioners claim that they can usually double the depth
of the topsoil in four years.
 
The Keyline system of soil and water management was developed by PA Yeoman in
Australia. It has many facets, but some of the most important are: it is
integrated systems design, includes contour farming, reforestation of steep
slopes, capture and storage of runoff for flood-flow irrigation and subsoiling
with special implements in specific patterns across the landscape to aerate
the soil, build topsoil, and stop erosion. Livestock are integrated into the
system. [17]
 
Erosion
 
Accelerated erosion is estimated to affect a large portion of the
world’s farmland. 40% of the world’s farmland is considered
seriously degraded. Erosion carries off soil organic matter as well as
nutrients. Keyline subsoiling is a technique that can greatly reduce erosion
on sloping farmland under tractor tillage.
 
“On-going soil erosion and expanding urbanization contribute to the
continuous loss of cropland in the U.S. Annually, more than two million acres
of prime cropland are lost to erosion, salinization, and waterlogging. In
addition, more than one million acres are removed from cultivation as
America's limited arable land is overwhelmed by the demands of urbanization,
transportation networks, and industry.” David Pimental and Mario
Giampietro.[18]
 
“Environmental Costs of Agriculture. The use of inappropriate
agricultural practices, like large monocultures and removal of shelterbelts,
contributes to serious wind and water erosion. Soil and water losses are
responsible for significant economic and environmental on-site costs in U.S.
agriculture. Each year the estimated 4 billion tons of soil and 130 billion
tons of water lost from 400 million acres of U.S. cropland translate into an
on-site economic loss of more than $27 billion. The most significant component
of this cost is the loss of valuable soil nutrients, which must be replaced by
increased applications of fossil-based fertilizers in order to maintain and
augment yields.” Pimental.[19]
 
“Around the world, deforestation and desertification result from
peasants pushing into sub-marginal land while high-quality farmland is either
held out of use entirely, or used to grow export crops. The situation is so
acute in Brazil, for example, that squatters have been massacred simply for
occupying remote, unused areas of privately-held ranches. A large, organized
movement has grown around the peasants' demand simply to be allowed to use
land that others have no (current) use for.”[20]
 
An important point that isn’t understood on the world stage is that
small-scale, intensive farming is just as good, or better, at producing high
yields as industrial agriculture. If appropriate LEISA (low external input
sustainable agriculture)[21] and permaculture methods[22] were used worldwide,
there would be no starvation and everyone would eat well (even with
today’s population).
 
Given today’s economic paradigm it is impossible to see how enough labor
could be paid out of farm receipts to do the needed soil restoration work.
Some countries pay farmers or cost-share to build soil.  I believe it can be
accomplished by a multitude of new small farmers. People with small enough
land bases that more individual attention can be given to each acre. Currently
existing family farmers and subsistence farmers around the world should be
assisted in staying on the land. Farmers need access to fertilizers and other
inputs. All existing arable farmland should be protected from degradation and
from loss to development.
 
Restoration communities could be given long-term leases for degraded land to
do earth repair work in exchange for a place to grow food and build houses
(inexpensive houses, local materials). The restoration work and plantings
eventually provide wildcrafting opportunities to make the communities
self-supporting. In the early stages they can be given outside support if
available.
 
What is the size of the total workforce it would take to achieve these three
goals? We calculated it would take 62.5 million tree planters and perhaps 20
million people to run all the nurseries. These are overlapping labor forces.
Quantifying labor requirements for objective two is much harder to calculate.
What I would suggest is that earth repair is something that almost everyone
would do to one extent or another.  It should be a career path for many, but a
full flowering of humanity would certainly include a universality of kind and
loving actions for the Earth.
 
For the sake of a round number how about 100 million people’s efforts
employed in Earth repair work. This is one worker out of every 32 people in
the world labor force or about 3%.  Bear in mind that many of these people are
only employed for part of the year and that as tree planting goals, etc become
completed that they can go on to other work. One generation of earth repair on
the world level should suffice to get a great deal of the job done. There is
less work (and more resources and time for enjoyment) for ensuing generations.
 
Implementing these practices will cost in terms of money, labor and resources.
These proposals are not public giveaways or money out the door. They are wise
investments that will pay off for generations to come. As well as the economic
benefits of higher crop yields and more nutrient-dense foods, there is also
savings from reduced losses to floods, decreased costs of purifying water for
metro water systems, improved fisheries, reduced health care costs from less
air and water pollution and so on.
 
The question is not “Can we afford this?” The question is
“Can we afford not to?”
 
IV. Mobilizing the people and resources to accomplish these goals
 
The knowledge of how to sequester the carbon in the atmosphere to a
comfortable level already exists. We know how to afforest lands, and put
carbon back into farmland soils. Ecological ecosystem management is still
evolving, but we know a lot already and have the methodologies to figure it
out. The labor, the knowledge and the resources are easily at hand.
 
What is lacking is that the energies of the people are not being directed this
way.  The financial powers seem hell bent on destroying the natural
environment and maximizing human misery. A miniscule percentage of government
and corporate budgets go towards earth repair work. Most people in the world
are busy trying to make a living or are living in slums or are landless
peasants. People often have no sense of ownership of their local environment
or a feeling of having a voice. People who work with their hands with the land
are often looked down upon.
 
But, if the current governmental and economic system breaks down, it opens the
door for some new evolution of local control/governance.  If local people have
to rely on their own environment for sustenance, it might inspire them to do
local, earth repair work.  There has to be some system of rewards.  This can
include future harvesting rights, management positions, community subsidy
credits in the local currency and public prestige.
 
There actually are hundreds and thousands of real world examples to look at
and draw upon. If the best are identified and multiplied across the globe we
could have a global earth repair movement directed, and funded at the local
community level. No need to wait for permission and funding from upstairs.
 
Let’s take a few minutes to examine the world’s labor force. The
US as of November 2009 has an official unemployment rate of 10.0%. This is
actually only one category of the unemployed they measure. With a little
research into the other categories we find that the actual unemployment rate
is 15.8% of the so-called workforce, which means it is certainly higher than
that, depending on where you want to draw the line at who is employable.
 
Some other official unemployment rates are: Zimbabwe 90%, Turkmenistan 70%,
Mozambique 60%, Nepal 42%, Kenya 40%, Spain 19.3%, Ireland 13%,  France 10%,
Russia 9.9%, Canada 9.3%, China 9%, Argentina 8.8%, United Kingdom 7.8%, India
7.2%, Japan 5.5%, Denmark 4.2%, Bhutan 2.5%, Thailand 2.1%, Cuba 1.8%,
Liechtenstein 1.5%, I read the other day that unemployment was 70% in
Afghanistan, but I see the Wikipedia source cites 40%.  If you want to know
more you can see all the world’s countries unemployment rates at:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate"  These
figures are the most current rates available as of November 2009. Most of the
countries of the developed world currently have between 7% and 15% rates. What
is the average unemployment rate in the world? Realize now that different
governments have different ways of calculating this. Ecuador for instance has
an official jobless rate of 8.3%, but it also has an official underemployment
rate of a whopping 51.6 %.
 
Here is a credible information source that puts a lot of money into research.
The CIA World Factbook tells us that the “World Unemployment rate is 30%
(2007 est.) note: combined unemployment and underemployment in many
non-industrialized countries; developed countries typically 4%-12%
unemployment. Definition: This entry contains the percent of the labor force
that is without jobs. Substantial underemployment might be noted. The
information in this page is accurate as of September 17, 2009.” [23]
 
As of 28 December 2009, the Earth's population is estimated by the United
States Census Bureau to be 6,792,800,000. What % of these are in the
workforce?
 
Index Mundi gives us a figure for the Earth’s total labor force of 3.232
billion (2008 est.) [24]
 
If we take a conservative figure of 20% world unemployment and Index
Mundi’s labor force figure, we theoretically have a 1.616 billion labor
force in the world who could divert their energies into earth-healing and
other useful activities. It is interesting that a lot of the countries with
the highest unemployment rates are also the most in need of ecological
services to repair damaged environments. Here in the US with a labor force of
154,300,000, the official unemployment figure of 10% gives us 15.43 million
people with time on their hands. At the 15.8% rate it is 24.37 million people.
During the Great Depression, US unemployment was said to have gone up to 30%. 
One more big economic downturn and the US could reach 30% again which would
equal 46.29 million people. There is no problem with labor power to do the
needed earth repair work.
 
One of the permaculture principles is to turn problems into opportunities.
This is certainly the case with the unemployed. Society needs to figure out
how to unleash the human potential in these huge numbers of unemployed people.
Another permaculture principle is to turn wastes into resources. This applies
to humans as well as things. Society needs to learn how to make every person
count. The profession of “horticultural therapy” has clearly shown
that many disturbed people obtain benefit from working with plants. The carbon
sequestration workforce outlined here would require millions of people with a
wide range of capabilities. A lot of the work is skilled, however some of the
work is capable of being done by people with marginal job skills or various
handicaps. Everyone deserves a chance to have meaningful work that is within
their capacity. Good training and supervision are necessary to optimize
results.
 
One goal of a rational society is to encourage each of its citizens to be all
that they can be.  Utilize the talents and passions of every person. Current
societal norms mean that a large number of people’s talents and energies
are not being utilized. This includes the unemployed, under-employed,
multi-generation welfare cases, disenfranchised, cast out, homeless etc. This
is probably between one fourth and one third of the population at this time.
And if we looked closely at all the people who have jobs and pull down
salaries, we could debate how many of them are actually doing useful work. The
point I am trying to make is that there is a huge amount of latent energy in
our under-utilized (and mis-utilized) people in our society.  Permaculture is
not only about how to make symbiotic relationships between flora and fauna;
permaculture is also about making symbiotic relationships between people. How
can people cooperate to their mutual benefit?  How can true democracy and
freedom be implemented to unleash peoples’ creativity?
 
I would like it to be clear that I am not proposing that we bring all of the
world’s unemployed into the formal work force. Rather it is that they
create space in a new economic paradigm which has a lot to do with the
world’s informal economy. Indeed my proposal is to take large numbers of
people out of the formal employment sector and bring more of their energies
into aspects of the informal economy such as home food growing, barter,
volunteerism, gift-economies, etc. True democracy and freedom is about
decentralization and self-reliance. It is opposite to globalization and
specialization.
 
It is unlikely that the carbon sequestration measures outlined in this
proposal would ever be fully implemented from the top down. Even so, we should
recognize, and applaud, that there already is some government funding,
government agencies, non-profit organizations and lots of volunteer groups
(from local to international) who are doing useful earth repair work of all
kinds. Most people are sympathetic to the concept of earth repair. There are
tree planting and soil building projects happening in many places. They are
providing the knowledge base for larger efforts such as envisioned here.
 
How can these changes happen? Here is one possible scenario. A collapse of the
value of the dollar throws the economy of the US and the world into shambles. 
Unemployment skyrockets. Production of real goods plummets. Globalized
shipping shrinks. Government services are drastically curtailed. Many
countries and regions are forced to rely more on their own resources.
 
Citizens of countries that are affected will be unhappy with the governments
and powers that caused the mess. Here would be an opportunity to elect
populist governments that favor things like freedom, justice, ecological
development, local governance, protecting the environment and reversing the
world’s carbon flows. There is no doubt that there are plenty of
would-be dictators and wolves in sheep’s clothing that would also be
vying for political power.
 
With unemployment so high, a good chunk of the unemployed decide to go to work
fixing up the ecosystems around them and making them more productive and
habitable for life. How is everyone going to get paid? This is going to call
for a lot of innovative thinking and development of local economic systems.
This is not likely to be a top-down outside funding process. It looks to me
like there will shortly be a world-wide economic crisis that will dwarf the
2008/2009 recession. This could have any number of outcomes but the emergence
of local currency and exchange systems are likely to be one outcome.  This is
an entry point to come up with systems that will reward people for doing land
care work in local environments. Everyone in the locality benefits and so they
recognize this by rewarding the people doing the work for the whole community.
Volunteer work could also be a big factor in how the work gets done.
 
A new economic paradigm is beginning to be articulated. Economic systems are
not my specialty. Planting trees and building soil are my specialties.
Nonetheless here are some of my ideas of what a new economic paradigm might
look like.
 
 

Barter of goods and services at the local level becomes a major means of
exchange.
Local currencies spring up around the globe. Neighboring currencies develop
means of reciprocity.
Stock markets, commodities exchanges and money speculating are made illegal.
Loans are made by local savings institutions and revolving loan funds embedded
in local communities.
An internationally recognized medium of exchange enables things like travel,
imports and exports. Gold and silver look pretty ideal to me. Universally
recognized and easy to travel with.
Abolish the World Bank, International Money Fund (IMF) and similar
organizations.  They are just too compromised in the old paradigm to be
reformed.  Allow new international organizations to evolve based on equal
rights and whose roles are to facilitate international exchange, but not to
have control of any money.
Encourage local production for local consumption to the fullest possible
extent. Most communities have the capability to produce almost all of their
food locally and many of their other needs.
Manufacturing is done at the smallest scale feasible.
Self-employment, small businesses and worker-owned cooperatives are the norm. 
The Mondragon Cooperative in Spain has demonstrated how to scale up
worker-owned cooperatives into large manufacturing industries.
A much smaller % of people work for someone else as an employee.
There would be few chain stores, coast to coast fast-food joints, big-box
chains, etc. The marketing of goods is done by locally-owned stores.
A higher percentage of people are employed in the informal sector as compared
to the formal sector.
Farmland is owned by farmers. No big outside ownership of plantations. No
speculating in farmland. Limits on farmland ownership
Most taxes are collected locally and are allocated by local democratic
decision-making. Regional, state and national governments need some tax money
but a fraction of today’s.

The ideas listed above will be resisted by the current people at the top, but
it will obviously benefit the farmers, the workers and the vast majority of
people in the world today. And even for the people at the top, just imagine
what it would be like for your children and grandchildren to live in a world
without fear, hunger, desperation, crime, violence, terrorism, war,
repression, etc.  Really, it is in the best interests of everyone to come up
with a new economic paradigm.
 
The seeds of a new economic paradigm are sprouting and growing in many places.
My personal belief is that the changeover will happen. I do not think it will
come about because of armed revolution. I believe that a world-wide economic
collapse will force willy-nilly the development of local systems to replace
the collapse of big institutions. A forced decentralization. It won’t be
pretty. I believe that the powers at the top already know the collapse is
coming and are positioning themselves to gain even greater control of the
world. My hope is that when the dust settles, the new economic paradigm will
have replaced the old. 
 
In the current economic paradigm a car mechanic in India gets paid ten times
less than a car mechanic in the US for the same amount of work.  A tree
planter in China might get paid 20 times less than a tree planter in
Switzerland for the same amount of work. Why is it that there is such a
disparity in what is paid for the same amounts of work in different parts of
the world?  Everyone knows that the countries of “The North” rip
off the countries of “The South”, also referred to as The
“Developed World” and the “Developing World”. It could
also be referred to as “The Siphoning Countries” and the
“Siphoned-from Countries”. What would the world look like if these
North/South inequities were resolved so that fair trade becomes a reality?
 
The relevance of these economic and social comments to my carbon proposal is
that local economic systems with local taxation can fund the needed earth
repair work outlined in this proposal. Local people will act in their own best
interests when given the power to do so.  Fixing the local environment,
building farm soils, having healthy forests, etc is obviously in the
local’s best interests.
 
It takes an extremely optimistic outlook to see how the world is going to get
from its present condition to a world which has accomplished the proposals
outlined here. Obviously vast changes would be needed in economic systems,
land distribution and governance. The world’s human population is
straining the planet; the hungry and oppressed number in the billions; nature
(and laboratories) are creating new diseases every day; climate perturbations
are increasing worldwide; a collapse of the current economic system looks
imminent; and the worldwide information network is enabling faster
dissemination of information, knowledge and ideas. 
 
These are some of the factors affecting the future we will soon be inhabiting.
Humans have shown great adaptability in the past and the knowledge of how to
make a transition to a just and sustainable future is taking clearer outline.
Will humanity choose this path?
 
The nice thing about this proposal is that it doesn’t require any
international agreements or money from the big financial actors of the world. 
It doesn’t even need a functioning world economy or world communication
infrastructure. The solution is in a decentralized approach whereby local
populations act in their own best interest. The impetus is from below rather
than from above.
 
Michael Pilarski – January 1, 2010
 
This proposal is dedicated to Richard St. Barbe Baker, known as the
Man-of-the-Trees, 1889-1982. Throughout much of the 20th century Richard St.
Barbe Baker was a tireless advocate for doubling the world’s forest
cover. St. Barbe Baker inspired me to start Friends of the Trees Society in
1978 to help carry on his life’s work. [25]
 
This proposal is the first draft of a work in progress. Send feedback to
Michael at friendsofthetrees.net
 
About the author:
Michael Pilarski combines hands-on experience in agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, tree planting, agroforestry, plant propagation, ethnobotany,
wildcrafting, ecosystem restoration and permaculture; with extensive research,
writing, networking and teaching in all of these fields. He started farming in
1972 and has planted 80,000 trees so far.
 
 
 

REFERENCES & RESOURCES: SECTION 1
 
1 www.klimaforum09.org
 
[2] Friends of the Trees 1988 International Green Front Report, Michael
Pilarski. 1988, 196 pages, Available only from the author.
 
[3] Friends of the Trees Society www.friendsofthetrees.net
 
[4] World Agroforestry Center http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af/
 
[5] Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with
standard estimates for forest types of the United   States.
http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/8192
 
Data (scientific estimates) on amounts of carbon in various biomes.
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/099.htm
 
REFERENCES & RESOURCES: SECTION 2
 
[6] Swamps, marshes, peatlands.
http://www.galeschools.com/environment/biomes/wetland/kinds.htm
 
[7] “Restoration Forestry: An International Guide to Sustainable
Forestry Practices”. Michael Pilarski, editor. Kivaki Press, Durango,
Colorado. 592 pages, out of print, currently only available from the author.
 
[8] Land Care Movement, Australia
www.landcareaustralia.com
 
Forest Farming
www.edibleforestgardens.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening
 
Land use statistics by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country
 
Society for Ecological Restoration International
www.ser.org
 
Global Restoration Network
www.globalrestorationnetwork.org
 
REFERENCES & RESOURCES: SECTION 3
 
[9] Pilarski, Michael, “Restoration Forestry: An International Guide to
Sustainable Forestry Practices”. Kivaki Press,  Colorado. 592 pages, out
of print, currently only available from the author.
 
[10] The Terrestrial Carbon Cycle: Managing Forest Ecosystems.
www.epa.gov/wed/pages/projects/globalclimatechange/TerrestrialCarbonCycle.pdf 
 
[11] World Resources Institute.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/forests-grasslands-drylands/map-229.html
 
[12] 58% of soil organic matter is carbon by weight
http://www.scientifics.com/info_/Total%20Organic.pdf
 
[13] Some good charts and statistics on arable land.
www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/food-and-soil.php
 
[14] Keyline System of Soil and Water Management
www.keyline.com.au
 
[15] Ramial chipped wood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramial_Chipped_Wood
 
[16] Terra Preta de los Indios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
 
[17] Keyline System of Soil and Water Management
www.keyline.com.au
 
[18] FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY by David Pimentel of Cornell
University andMario Giampietro Istituto of Nazionale della Nutrizione, Rome.
Article at http://dieoff.org/page40.htm
 
[19] FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY by David Pimentel of Cornell
University andMario Giampietro Istituto of Nazionale della Nutrizione, Rome.
Article at http://dieoff.org/page40.htm
 
[20] http://www.henrygeorge.org/popsup.htm
 
[21] Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture
www.leisa.info
 
[22] For permaculture a good portal is:
www.permacultureactivist.net
 
Loss of Soil Organic Matter and Its Restoration. By William A. Albrecht,
Professor of Soil, University of Missouri
Albrecht is one of the leading soil scientists of the 20th century. This
article tells why organic matter in the soil may be considered our most
important national resource. The author describes how it furnishes fuel for
"bacterial wrecking crews" and how it is turned into plant nutrients. He shows
that many of our farm practices have enormously reduced the supply originally
present in the soil and warns that we must expect a permanently lower level of
agricultural efficiency if we do not take steps to counteract this waste. The
problems involved in maintaining an adequate supply of organic matter in the
soil are dealt with from a practical standpoint.
www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010120albrecht.usdayrbk/lsom.html
 
A discussion on soil organic matter from the University  of Minnesota.
www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/7402_02.html
 
Thought provoking essay with good charts on arable land in the world, world
fertilizer consumption, etc
www.henrygeorge.org/popsup.htm
 
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). “The term Good Agricultural Practices
(GAP) can refer to any collection of specific methods, which when applied to
agriculture, produce results that are in harmony with the values of the
proponents of those practices. There are numerous competing definitions of
what methods constitute "Good Agricultural Practices", so whether a practice
can be considered "good" will depend on the standards you are applying. This
article describes one particular definition of "Good Agricultural Practices"
as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations.” 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Agricultural_Practices
 
Easy to understand graphs on world arable land, fertilizer consumption, etc
www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/food-and-soil.php 
 
Climate Friendly Farming Project
http://csanr.wsu.edu/CFF/cffproject.html
 
REFERENCES & RESOURCES: SECTION 4
 
[23] CIA World FactBook
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2129.html
 
[24] www.indexmundi.com/world/labor_force.html
 
[25] Richard St. Barbe Baker
www.manofthetrees.org
 
Thomas H. Greco, Jr.’s website. The mission of this site is to demystify
money by presenting the best leading-edge ideas on monetary and non-monetary
exchange.
www.reinventingmoney.com
 
Understanding Economics
www.henrygeorge.org
 
WiserEarth helps the global movement of people and organizations working
toward social justice, indigenous rights, and environmental stewardship to
connect.
www.wiserearth.org

a PDF of this article is available here! 
http://www.friendsofthetrees.net/articles.htm






  






  






  






  






  






  


  



  


 Two-week Permaculture Design Course - July 12-25

Skalitude Retreat Center, Methow  Valley, WA
 With Michael Pilarski and other instructors.
 
Permaculture principles and design methodology, once learned, can be applied
and adapted to any site. The course covers the traditional Mollison
permaculture curriculum as well as lots of local knowledge. The species and
techniques will be aimed at the interior Pacific Northwest which includes
North-central Washington, Eastern Washington, Eastern  Oregon, Idaho, Western 
Montana and southern Interior British Columbia.
 
Before April 1, $800
 April 1 to June 15, $900
 After June 15 $1,000
 Single day $80
 (includes camping, meals, hand-outs, and diploma)
 Private rooms and beds in two-person rooms are available for extra cost.

Check out all of Michael's workshops and events for 2010 
http://www.friendsofthetrees.net/events.htm


Agroforestry & Wildcrafting Videos & YouTubes

Michael Pilarski is looking for one or more persons to produce some
agroforestry  and wildcrafting videos and youtubes. I would like to do some
video  documentation of my 5 agroforestry systems developed over the last 23
years.   Also I would like to capture some of  my wildcrafting knowledge in
video form to  educate more people about useful and sustainable wildcrafting
methods. 2010  timeframe, especially this spring and early summer.  There are
lots of  opportunities for the longer time frames also.  Contact Michael.

michael at friendsofthetrees.net  mailto:michael at friendsofthetrees.net


Did you know?
Michael Pilarski is featured in a documentary film!
Check it out . . .
 
Most of the filming was done in Okanogan County in 1988 and in 2007/2008. This
documentary focuses on the back-to-the-land movement and their ideals. The
plot centers on interviews with six people, one of them being Michael
Pilarski.
 
There is footage from the 1988 Spring Healing Gathering, the 2007 Fairy &
Human Relations Congress, and the Okanogan Family Faire (aka Tonasket Barter
Fair).
 
DVDs of the film are available online through their website or by mailing $18
(postpaid price) to Friends of the Trees PO Box 826 Tonasket, WA 98855

www.backtothegardenfilm.com  http://www.backtothegardenfilm.com/


   



  






  






  






  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Blessings for the New Year!
Michael Pilarski
Friends of the Trees Society
PO Box 826 Tonasket, WA 98855  
Phone (509) 486-4056, or (509) 486-2672 Michael at friendsofthetrees.net 
www.friendsofthetrees.net
Use an explanatory subject line.  For quicker results - write “Respond
quickly” as part of the subject line.

Fairy & Human Relations Congress - Skalitude Retreat Center, POB 74 - Carlton
- WA - 98114

Subscribe to this newsletter:
https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/subscription.php?username=jkinsey&send_id=1007216575&l=s&newsletter_id=1410146663
Unsubscribe sdpg at arashi.com:
https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/subscription.php?username=jkinsey&send_id=1007216575&l=u&email=sdpg@arashi.com
Change your preferences:
https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/subscription.php?username=jkinsey&send_id=1007216575&l=p&email=sdpg@arashi.com
Forward to a friend:
http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/forward.php?username=jkinsey&newsletter_id=1410146663&email=sdpg@arashi.com&send_id=1007216575
Report this email as spam:
https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/abuse_report.php?username=jkinsey&send_id=1007216575&email=sdpg@arashi.com

This email was sent using MyNewsletterBuilder.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.permaculture-guilds.org/pipermail/san-diego-permaculture/attachments/20100109/18f29efe/attachment.html>