Economic recovery can create something better

In Covid-19 recovery we can recreate our economy as it was, or future-proof it against climate change and make it environmentally sustainable.  In doing so we can lift productivity and move closer to the world’s technological production possibility frontier.  This can lift wider wellbeing, including from value that is not priced and exchanged in markets.

Covid-19 is a massive economic shock within a short timeframe and with far-reaching effects.  Climate change is abstract, appears distant in time, and doesn’t emote a pandemic’s visceral imagery and burning platform immediacy.  It will be more devastating and expensive to counter even than Covid-19, and play out over a longer time.

We are recovering from a global natural disaster, not from the Great Depression.  Fiscal expansion should not focus on getting people spending for its own sake.  We will recover from Covid-19 through investing in the economy’s wealth-generating capacity, not through austerity that takes more than it gives.

Transitioning to a low net GHG and environmentally sustainable society requires public investment, regulatory change, and private sector delivery.  This will lift productivity if interventions upskill workers, and if we grow outwards-facing technological capabilities that are anchored in New Zealand firms.

If recovery is to be transformative as well as remedial, it means that when for example we insulate houses, build wind turbines or develop distributed energy systems we need to also:

  • Upgrade skills that are transferable so workers can adopt or create new technology and enhance workplace productivity
  • Build capabilities as close as possible to the international technological leading-edge
  • Anchor advanced capabilities within New Zealand firms to contribute to their future productivity and competitiveness

Recovery and transformation must be both labour intensive and skill uplifting. This does not mean using technology to destroy jobs.  It means extending current skills to increase the tasks a worker can perform, rather than eliminate workers from task performance. For example, electrical skills for built environment applications can be transferred and applied in future to wind turbine, EV, energy storage and distributed generation developments.

Government procurement gives scale, stability and predictability over timeframes that give firms confidence to invest.  It can ensure that New Zealand firms develop the technologies and capabilities to help the economy diversify and become more knowledge and skill intensive, and that these capabilities are both anchored in New Zealand and looking outwards to international markets.

Initiatives within this strategy might include:

Energy-efficient and sustainable built environments

 New housing development should drive adoption and mainstreaming of international sustainable building and energy management technology.  For example, German passivhaus (passive houses) can generate and feed into the grid more energy than they consume.  Housing development is labour intensive and can also extend skills to the international frontier.  It can engage many different firms and skillsets, with deep linkages and multiplier effects throughout the economy.

Existing housing and commercial and industrial buildings can be retrofitted with better insulation, double-glazing, solar water heating, LED lights and heat pumps. This would improve energy efficiency and deliver healthier indoor environments, while fostering technology adoption, skills enhancement and workplace productivity.

 Multi-storey buildings can be made from engineered wood products rather than steel and concrete.  They can deliver superior earthquake resilience and fire resistance, while sequestering carbon.  New Zealand is already technologically advanced in wood engineering, and mass adoption of this technology can lift radiata into higher value markets.

Transport system transformation

Road infrastructure spending is subject to long lag times.  It is capital rather than labour and skill intensive. It has weak backstream economic linkages and therefore low multiplier effects. It would not be a strong economic enabler because roading is already well developed, and at least in the short to medium-term Covid-19 takes pressure off roads due to its impact on tourism and on non-citizen inwards migration.

Railways are capital-intensive and inflexible.  Our geography and low population are constraints.  However, rail freight can take pressure off some roads, with safety and other benefits.  Existing urban rail services can be upgraded.

The big transport sector advances will be mass adoption of EVs, and supporting infrastructure such as a nationwide recharging system.  Mass EV adoption would save New Zealand billions a year in oil imports, and could be enabled through distributed generation.

Sustainable energy and distributed generation

New Zealand has among the world’s highest per capita endowments of renewable electricity.  This includes hydroelectricity, wind, geothermal and solar.  It underutilizes these resources, and squanders them through poor building energy efficiency and transmission losses.

More supportive rules are needed for wind power, photovoltaics, solar thermal, distributed generation and energy storage systems to smooth out generation intermittency.  This might include building regulation changes, feed-in tariff rules, and facilitation of lines companies’ innovation to support distributed generation.

Sustainable development of food and fibre industries

New Zealand’s food and fibres industries must help drive our economic (including regional) recovery and our climate change and environmental sustainability transitions.  They and their regional communities must be respected for this.

Pandemics are “zoonotic spill-overs” that arise from human-animal interactions, especially in densely populated countries with poorly regulated and unhygienic “wet markets”.  We have high animal health status, and freedom from many diseases common in other countries.  Our free-range farming systems, and our lack of dense, unhygienic contact between humans and intensive factory farming systems creates competitive edge internationally for our pastoral industries.

Carefully planned multi-functional dams can deliver hydro-power and amenity values as well as drought-proofing farming against climate change impacts.  Pyrolysis bioenergy can deliver co-benefits such as carbon sequestration in soil, reduced nitrate water pollution, and productivity gains.

We should foster clusters around our core industries, and support spin-offs from them such as knowledge and skill-intensive manufacturing, servicing and digital businesses.

We have strong food safety and biosecurity capabilities that support international food and fibre trade.  Covid-19 means countries will demand more surety in tracking supply chains and managing future biological risks.  This can create opportunities for us.  We can become a world leader in border control as it relates to tracking and tracing biologics, whether food, pests or viruses.

Medsafe is a world leader in tracking pharmaceutical supply chains.  Its capabilities have affinities with those we’ve developed for food safety and biosecurity.  Such capabilities require fidelity, verifiability, cross-border credibility, customer and regulatory compliance.  They are digitally-enabled and may increasingly use blockchain and AI technologies.

Increasingly these capabilities, and testing, monitoring and verification technologies can be applied to risk profiling of cross-border trade between countries with different food safety, biosecurity and human health regimes and different sociological structures.  For example, NBER research suggests that Facebook can help track correlations between coronavirus spread and social networks, potentially helping to predict pandemic pathways and manage them better (NBER Working Paper No. 26990 April 2020.)

Niche knowledge-intensive manufacturing and services (including digital) businesses

Covid-19 will see countries stepping back from value chain globalisation to secure pharmaceutical, medical equipment and other supply chains.  This may close off some opportunities for us, and create new ones.

We can carve out niches in medical services, and in high value biochemical development, akin to the niche Fisher and Paykel Healthcare has developed in medical electronics.  Malaghan Institute’s Graham Le Gros, supported by credible academic experts, suggests New Zealand should develop its own vaccine capabilities.

It is up to businesses to see the opportunities and exploit them, and government should foster the “general purpose technologies (GPTs) that underpin them, and perhaps identify “opportunity domains”.

For example, GPTs such as electrical, electronic and digital technology are enablers for sustainable energy, industrial processing, transport, agricultural and forestry equipment and drone technology.  An “opportunity domain” might, for example, be “distance industries” – online learning, remote monitoring, drones for environmental protection, search and rescue and fisheries surveillance.

Digital technology can overcome our scale constraints and turn them into advantages.  For example, 3D printing technology makes small-scale flexible manufacturing viable – akin to the advances we have made in the past in variable speed drives and flexible production systems.

Unpriced and non-market goods and services

We should also reflect on what we live for, as well as how we make our living.  While social media can waste time and polarise, it enables social connections.  It also delivers “cultural consumption” goods such as through Youtube that are not valued in GDP, and yet they mean a lot to people.

Our recovery can create space for a less material consumption and market transaction-based society.  This means valuing more non-material and non-market “goods”, services and experiences. These include green space, children’s play and adventure grounds, clean rivers, beaches, forests, mountains, tramping and mountain biking amenities.  It includes rare birds again in our gardens, relationships flourishing, and memories of good times we’ve had, including when we were “poor”…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Economic response to coronavirus: increase physical distance and reduce intellectual distance, and replace nation state idiocy with the Republic of Science

Climate change and pandemics such as coronavirus illustrate the supreme idiocy of leaders who think their arbitrary nation state borders are hermetically sealed off from the world.  The stable genius leading the state with the greatest global heft decided that coronavirus was no worse than the flu, until he flipped into closing the borders long after the virus had established itself within his own country.

The UK Prime Minister is keeping borders open so that the continent is not isolated from civilization.  This is worthy and other-centred, however he seems to be accepting mass spread in the hope of achieving herd immunity (!) Failure will be hugely consequential.

The good news is that the Republic of Science laughs at nation state borders and communicates in a common language.  Within days of coronavirus becoming salient scientists cooperated internationally to understand it and start work on response strategies.  Citizens of the Republic of Science share their knowledge of technology such as test kits rather than reinvent what is already in the public domain.

After a nervous start, New Zealand’s response to coronavirus is the right approach, and will become more decisive.  What is yet to be established is the economic response to a pandemic that magnifies an emerging recession in a global secular stagnation environment where monetary policy lacks traction.

Absolute priority must be given to health services needed. This will be the best economic investment we can make.  Basic income needs must be met for the vulnerable, including those who fall ill.  It is too soon for economy-wide fiscal stimulation, and in any case how effective can it be if we expect people to stay home and avoid shops, sporting and other events that set the tills ringing. What therefore can we do?

Most economic activity requires people working with and transacting with other people, thereby risking further spread.  However, in the Republic of Science people can work together without being together.  We need to increase the physical distance and reduce the (internet-enabled) intellectual distance between people.

Distance from people is not distance from nature: most New Zealanders have access to uncrowded parks, public gardens, and walking and cycling tracks and trails.  Access to green space makes working from home more palatable in New Zealand than in other countries.

We can risk-buffer or subsidize time away from work.  For those who cannot work from home, we can encourage them to learn from home.  This can include recommending online learning resources that suit their needs, and prompting them to engage.  Coursera’s “Learning how to learn” course is one of many examples of free online learning resources that can be life-changing for many workers who discover how easy it is to become better learners.

A challenge would be deciding how to link specific individuals or worker cohorts to the online learning resources that can most benefit them.  However, we have the data to do this, and the entrepreneurial people and startup and other IT companies that can rise to this challenge if targets are set clearly and financial incentives are in place.

Encouraging mass online learning can create an inflection point.  For example, the ANZAC frigate project in the 1990s required companies bidding for work to submit tenders online.  This forced many digitally-challenged New Zealand companies to lift their IT and online capabilities, to their long-term benefit.  The coronavirus crisis therefore offers a chance to prompt hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to become online learners and workers, with widely spread and long-term economic benefits.

Secular stagnation partly results from a lack of new technology-based businesses that are worth the cash-rich investing in.  Major countries have failed to take climate change seriously enough to invest in the mass adoption of green technologies that are already economic and that the Republic of Science has helped gift to us.  These include wind and solar power, pyrolysis carbon capture and storage, energy-efficient buildings and electric vehicles.

New Zealand has been especially slow in adopting and applying new international technologies to our own opportunities.  Doing so often requires local R&D investment as well as the capital investment needed to commercialize the results.  We also need a more supportive regulatory framework for adoption of some new technologies, for example GM-based pastoral plant breeding.

We could substantially increase funding for long-term research and applied technology development that focuses on “the Pasteur quadrant”.  This would expand New Zealand’s technological possibility frontier in the long run rather than counter short-term recession.

It takes time to ramp up R&D capabilities, and it is only fair that those choosing research careers can be assured of long-term income security. The low interest rate environment and our low net public debt position makes it possible to finance such long-term investments and in so doing help diversify and risk-buffer the economy against future shocks, pandemic or otherwise.

The light is getting darker and will turn black for some.  However, in putting health first and trusting the Republic of Science we can ameliorate economic loss and leverage a painful inflection point to lift our technology adoption, long-term learning, knowledge creation and productivity.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Economic opportunities for biochar in New Zealand


  1. Anthropogenic warming results from fossil fuel use, deforestation and soil carbon loss disrupting carbon cycles[1] and elevating atmospheric CO2 Internationally, the top climate change priorities are reducing fossil fuel emissions, and stopping carbon losses from deforestation and from wetlands and peat soils.  We must also reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions.  We must do so while supporting food security at a time of growing world population, and while transitioning away from many unsustainable industrial, energy and natural resource use practices.


  1. There is more carbon in soils than in plants and the atmosphere combined. However, since agriculture emerged around 12,000 years ago about 133 billion tonnes of carbon has been lost from soil (Sanderman et al., 2017).  We must stop mining soil carbon.


  1. Under the Paris Agreement, 195 nations have committed to holding the increase in average global temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and to strive to limit the increase to no more than 1.5 °C above. This requires “a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of the century”.


  1. The IPCC notes that even massive reductions in carbon emissions will be inadequate to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, and that large-scale atmospheric CO2 removal is needed to prevent overshooting the 1.5°C temperature threshold.


  1. The IPCC has designated pyrolysis biochar as a credible negative emissions technology (NET) capable of contributing to large-scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, and this is triggering increased research and other investment in it.


What is biochar?


  1. Biochar is charcoal made from biomass and added to soil[2] as a long-term carbon store, to lift productivity, and to protect the environment. Most soil carbon is labile, that is it decomposes and re-emits CO2 back into the atmosphere (as part of the fast carbon cycle).  In contrast, pyrolysis transforms biomass into biochar – carbon that can be stored in the soil long-term[3].  That is, pyrolysis biochar converts fast cycle to slow cycle carbon.


  1. Biochar is not soil or fertiliser. It is carbon with high porosity and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC). Porosity means biochar stores and recycles water, which is beneficial in arid soils. Porosity and CEC helps nutrient retention and recycling, and is associated with enhanced microbial activity and with healthier and more diverse soil microbiome.  Biochar can have positive benefits in animal and plant health and in bioremediation.  It also reduces soil acidity.


  1. Between its pyrolysis production and its end storage in soil biochar delivers “cascading benefits” such as productivity gains, and wider bioremediation and environmental benefits. These benefits include reduced N2O and CH4 emissions, and reduced nitrate loss into water.  The pyrolysis process also delivers valuable energy by-products[4].


  1. Conserving and recycling nutrients is essential for long-term sustainability. Modern farming systems are often energy-intensive and depend on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser[5] made with non-renewable natural gas.  High quality (low contaminant) phosphate is a scarce and increasingly politically locked-up resource.  Biochar in soil can reduce nutrient leaching and improve nutrient recycling and its bioavailability for plants (Major et al, 2009).  Biochar can form part of slow release and “enhanced efficiency” fertilisers.

How does biochar compare with other negative emission technologies (NETs)?

  1. Fuss et al (2018) include biochar in a list of NETs that have multi-gigatonne sequestration potential by 2050. Table 1 in Appendix 1 attached compares the benefits, costs, acceptability, and likely impacts of different NET options.


  1. The most important comparison is between biochar and Direct Air Capture of CO2 (DAC). DAC machines suck CO out of the atmosphere and it is stored, for example underground. DAC can involve use of hydroxide solution, or of amine adsorbents in modular reactors.


  1. DAC is capital and energy-intensive. It offers no clear productivity or wider environmental benefits.  DAC raises questions about how CO could be stored in a geologically secure environment for centuries, given for example earthquake risks.  Injection of DAC CO2. underground may impact on aquafers, with effects similar to fracking.


  1. Unlike other NETs, biochar produces a valuable product with multiple economic and environmental applications. Schmidt et al (2018) conclude that pyrolytic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS) can aspire to carbon sequestration efficiencies of >70%.  They note that PyCCS does not create environmental hazards and that global scale-up is feasible within 10-30 years.
  2. Smith (2016) concluded that soil carbon sequestration and biochar addition to land had lower negative impacts and fewer disadvantages than other NETs. Biochar could be implemented in combination with bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.


  1. Hepburn et al (2019) reviewed 11,000 papers in assessing ten pathways for CO2 utilisation and removal, including biochar. Biochar is competitive with other pathways, depending on a range of productivity impact, carbon pricing and other assumptions.  Pratt & Moran (2019) compare marginal cost curves of different abatement options.  They conclude that even the most expensive biochar projects rival the cost effectiveness of alternative NETs.


  1. Gaunt & Lehmann (2008) found that biochar and bioenergy production combined with applying the biochar to agricultural land avoided between two and five times the emissions compared to when biomass was used solely for fossil fuel energy offsets. They also concluded that revenues from carbon emissions trading alone could justify maximising a pyrolysis plant for biochar production.  Therefore, combining pyrolysis for bioenergy production with biochar carbon sequestration is more effective than producing solely bioenergy.


  1. Biochar lends itself to diffuse, small scale applications. However, large numbers of pyrolysis plants and biochar applications can aggregate into high carbon storage at the nation state and global levels.


  1. Overall, an increase of terrestrial and marine biomass production including long-term carbon sequestration via pyrolysis is considered the NET strategy that may be implemented the most rapidly, and with the lowest risk for other geological and ecological processes.

Political economy and technological system challenges for biochar


  1. Biochar faces political economy and technological system challenges.


Biochar is an inherently diffuse technology


  1. A barrier to widespread biochar adoption is the lack of concentrated business interests who can advocate for its adoption. This can be countered by a change in economic strategy, and a supporting “spirit for our times” zeitgeist that diffuses power and opportunity.


  1. Pyrolysis can be undertaken in large-scale continuous production industrial plants right through to small-scale batches in a backyard. Larger-scale plants can deliver co-products such as heat, power or chemicals. At the smallest scale biochar can be produced in a home log fire, while at a farm scale biomass can be pyrolyzed in a pit to produce biochar with minimal capital cost.


  1. Overall, biochar is a diffuse resource. As Roberts et al (2010) noted, transportation costs are a hurdle to the economic profitability of some pyrolysis biochar systems.  As at 2010 they contended that biochar may only deliver climate change mitigation benefits and be financially viable as a distributed system using waste biomass.  Mobile pyrolysis kilns can be moved to where the biomass is to support a distributed system that depends on seasonal or other “lumpy” biomass production flows, for example forestry harvesting skid sites.


  1. Like biochar, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar tend to be dispersed resources, and they can contribute to sustainable rural communities. A system that facilitates decentralised biochar production on thousands of small-scale sites helps normalise the diffusion of economic power.  Such a distributed system complements a more decentralised energy system as farmers, small businesses and householders integrate solar panels, heat pumps, wind turbines and micro-hydro into their businesses and their lives.  These distributed systems also enhance rural community resilience.


  1. Distributed generation can strand capital assets and depreciate their value. However, there is potential to repurpose stranded assets.  For example, the gas and coal-fired Huntly power station could be converted into a biochar production plant[6].


Biochar as a NET is at an early developmental stage


  1. Biochar is a very old technology for agricultural applications, however it is at an early development stage when used as a NET. Much climate change mitigation R&D aims at centralised, high technology and geoengineering solutions.  The policy advisory community can struggle with such concepts as repurposing indigenous technologies to deal with modern world challenges.


  1. However, pyrolysis biochar is becoming mainstream within the research and applied technology community. It is supported by world class basic science and applied research.  With the rapid scientific and technological progress being made, biochar will become more cost effective and more precisely customised for specific applications.


  1. As biochar moves from a developmental to an operational stage, demand for biochar production will trigger a supply response and scale economies will emerge. Biochar demand will create opportunities for New Zealand manufacturing businesses to make kilns, pyrolysis plants, energy co-product systems and other equipment.  As biochar is widely adopted a contracting industry will emerge, including with mobile pyrolysis plants configured around seasonal use.  Many other uses for biochar beyond agriculture will be exploited.


Biochar is a multi-purpose product


  1. Pyrolysis biochar is a multi-purpose technology that produces different products and services that have different “price” structures (and sometimes no price at all). For example, pyrolysis bioenergy may be valuable if produced close to an industrial heat user, but not valuable elsewhere.  Biochar may deliver “bankable” cascading services such as crop yield increases, but the biochar’s end use in carbon storage may not be valued.  The economics change dramatically if carbon credits are awarded for biochar placed in soil.


  1. Roberts et al (2010) noted that the economic viability of the pyrolysis biochar systems they compared is largely dependent on the costs of feedstock production, the pyrolysis process, and the value of carbon offsets. These costs and values can change enormously, and with this the economic assumptions change.


  1. We need to assess and put value on the wider benefits biochar can deliver. For example, Biederman et al (2013) in a meta-analysis drawing on 317 independent studies looked at a range of economic and ecological benefits.  They concluded that, despite variability due to soil and climate, biochar addition to soil resulted on average in increased crop yield, enhanced soil microbial biomass and higher soil carbon levels compared with control conditions.  They noted that “the central tendencies suggest that biochar holds promise in being a win-win-win solution to energy, carbon storage, and ecosystem function”.


Biochar appears to improve its functionality with time, rather than depreciate in time


  1. Biochar is an unusual economic good because of its enduring presence in soil, and because over time its functionality can improve. Biochar may be costly to apply initially, however once in the soil it enhances productivity over the long-term.  Based on analysis of terra preta soils in Amazonia, it is also plausible that biochar functionality improves over the very long-term.


Specific opportunities for biochar in New Zealand’s food and fibre (primary) industries


  1. Specific opportunities for biochar include:


Cattle and dairy farming

  1. ANZBI (2019) records financially profitable weight gains from feeding biochar to cattle in Australia, with the biochar ending up in the soil as a carbon store. Cattle farming productivity was increased with as little as a 1% biochar addition to stock feed.


  1. At the 2019 ANZBI conference results from biochar use in recent Australian dairy farm trials were reported. These trials indicated that biochar lifted dairy farm productivity and net profit substantially, as well as delivering soil carbon store benefits.  However, it is unclear whether such results could be mainstreamed to all Australian dairy farms, let alone to New Zealand dairy farming systems.  The Australian results were for intensive feeding of cattle rather than extensive pastoral grazing.


  1. Profitability is heavily influenced by biochar costs[7]. The ANZBI-reported trials used biochar priced between A$100 to A$6,750 tonne – a huge variance that makes a big difference to the economics.  The lowest price was for an industrial waste product.  The economics greatly improve when biochar is a by-product of other processes such as bioenergy production, or when the biochar is made from waste that would otherwise be costly to dispose of.


  1. Farmers and orchardists can make their own small biochar batches cheaply and use them on their farms or orchards. Such production might have minimal capital costs, though it could be labour intensive.


  1. N2O emissions and nitrate loss that harms water quality are big challenges in dairy farming. Many studies are relevant to addressing such issues (see Clough et al, 2013; Steiner et al, 2010; Huang et al, 2014).  Hestrin et al (2019) provide insight into the chemical bonding mechanisms through which biochar enhances nitrogen management while minimising air and water pollution.


  1. Biochar could capture nitrogen and other nutrients from dairy farm drainage and slurry pond[8] Nutrient-laden biochar could then be added to soils to lift productivity and become a permanent carbon sink.  There is also a lot of research underway internationally on using biochar to lower CH4 emissions from soil.


  1. Activated charcoal (including biochar) has long been used in veterinary medicine for animal health. This could have particular significance in the dairy industry, however the benefits are much wider.  Schmidt et al (2016) and Toth & Dou (2016) report that biochar may boost feed conversion rates and improve stock health for poultry, pig and fish farming as well as cattle industries.  Biochar may reduce antibiotic use in intensive animal industries.


  1. Biochar has shown promise as a feed additive to inhibit methanogenesis in ruminants. It is in use in the EU for this, and is also employed in bedding for wintering barns and poultry operations where its denitrification attributes can improve stock health and reduce farm costs.

Integrated dairy composting barn system incorporating biochar

  1. Composting barn systems can be used to improve cow welfare and reduce negative environmental impacts. They are being trialled in New Zealand.  The barn system needs dry biomass such as miscanthus or sawdust for the cows to lie on.  Cow wastes can be absorbed, and composted together with biochar, and incorporated back into the soil as an enriched amendment and a carbon store.

Sheep and beef farming

  1. Sheep and beef farming involves extensive grazing undertaken on many different soil types and topographies. Biochar making would need to draw on different biomass sources and the biochar tailored to different conditions.  Biochar could reduce liming needs on acidic soils.  In sufficient quantities it could improve water retention on drought-prone soils.


  1. Tree, berry, vine crop regimes and greenhouse horticulture produce pruning and other biomass waste from which biochar can be made. This can be used to improve microbial activity, nutrient recycling and bioavailability, reduce fertiliser input costs and improve water retention.


  1. In Australia trials with mixing biochar into topsoil around avocado trees have lifted productivity and been profitable. Biochar has also had plant health and crop quality benefits in macadamia trials.  When biochar prices are high it is often only economic in targeted applications for high value crops, for example when added to tree or vine root zones.  Banded application of biochar is more effective than uniform mixing in the soil.


  1. Biochar can enhance plant health – see for example Elad et al. (2010). Wood vinegar is a liquid by-product from the volatile pyrolysis gases. It has fungicidal and other properties.  In the right quantities it can improve seed germination and enhance plant health.

Arable (including cereal) and vegetable growing

  1. In arable crop and vegetable growing biochar could be used to improve nutrient cycling. This could reduce fertiliser input costs and lift productivity. Biochar can improve soil structure, foster microbial life, and enhance water storage.  It can have plant health benefits, including lifting crop seed germination rates.


  1. There is strong international evidence of biochar delivering large yield increases in tropical soils – see: . However, the evidence suggests that fresh biochar is unlikely to have significant, positive productivity effects on fertile temperate soils in the short-term[9].  This is because it can reduce plant nutrient availability by binding and immobilizing nutrients.  It may also feed a bloom of microbes that use up nitrogen in the soil, depriving plants.


  1. However, these problems can be corrected by adding a small amount of fertilizer to the biochar or soaking it in liquid nutrient before biochar is added to soils. For example, biochar used for dairy effluent filtration would capture nutrients, and the nutrient-rich biochar could then be added to soil.


  1. Ye et al (2019) did a meta-analysis of one year field trials on crop yields, using different biochars with a range of management practices in different soils and climates worldwide. These trials involved biochar, inorganic fertilizers (IF) and organic amendments (OA).  Key findings were that, compared with a non-fertilized control, a 26% yield increase was observed with the use of IF only.  When biochar was added (at 10t ha or less) with the IF a 48% increase occurred.  When the control was IF, the addition of biochar added 15% to 19% to crop yield.


  1. Crop yields did not increase if more than 10t ha of biochar were added. Use of biochar alone did not increase crop yield. Evidence suggests that the beneficial biochar impacts were more through CEC than through liming effects.


  1. A meta-analysis by Jeffery et al (2011) found that crop productivity increased by 10% on average following biochar soil amendment. However, yield effects ranged between positive and negative with different soil types, environmental, and management conditions.
  2. Further effects of biochar amendments include lower emissions of N2O, with lower CH4 emissions measured especially on flooded soils (Kammann et al, 2017). Biochar can also have a positive effect on a soil’s water balance. On temperate soils, a 16% reduction in water losses was measured, which at the same time reduced the negative effects of soil dryness on microbial abundances by up to 80%.
  3. Dokoohaki et al (2019) noted that there was huge variance in biochar’s impacts on crop yields, depending on soil type and other factors. A consistent finding was biochar had low or negative impacts on yields from soils with high soil organic matter (SOM), high CEC and high pH soils, and high yield impacts on soils with low SOM, low CEC and low pH.


  1. They noted that lowering soil acidity likely results in increased microbial activity that in turn enhances nutrient availability. They forecast that enriching soil with biochar could increase U.S. crop yields by between 4.7 and 6.4 percent, with improvement more marked when applied to less productive soils.


  1. Economically profitable yield increases from biochar applications in maize growing have been reported from China. The Chinese experience is that biochar-enhanced chemical fertilisers can be profitable.  However, there is little evidence so far of economic returns from biochar applications in arable farming in developed, temperate countries, with the exception of some crops.
  2. Keske (2019) concludes that it is economic in Canada to use black spruce biochar to grow potato and beet crops. In Australia, biochar applied at around 145kg per ha has significantly improved potato production. However, biochar has not so far proved economic in Australian broadacre cropping on a large scale (ANZBI, 2019).


Municipal waste management

  1. Municipal biomass waste is costly to dispose of, and if deposited in landfills CH4 is often emitted. Pyrolysis can turn waste into value whilst reducing emissions. Biochar can also adsorb excess nitrate and phosphorus from effluent before it is discharged.  Large-scale pyrolysis in municipal and other waste plants can produce energy for cogeneration or process heat as well as biochar.  For example, in Sweden and Finland pyrolysis bioenergy is used for district residential heating and industrial process energy, as well as biochar production.


  1. Massey University researchers are researching the economics of producing biochar from municipal sludge. Avoidance of tipping fees can make biochar so economic that municipal authorities could afford to deliver this biochar to farmers for free.  Such biochar would be especially valuable to farmers if the biomass source had high ash content and fertilizer value.



Home garden, urban trees, parks and amenities

  1. While biochar is perceived as a product for the agricultural industries, it has widespread urban applications. These include niche applications such as in potting mix (as a peat substitute) for home garden or landscaping use, and biochar to improve urban tree health.  In Stockholm, urban trees often had plant health problems and high mortality rates.  Over about a decade these problems have been solved through modifying soils around the trees with biochar.  In some cases, six year old trees planted in biochar-modified soils are five times larger than 30 year old trees planted without it.


  1. Biochar can also be used for urban amenity turf applications. For example, ANZBI (2019) recorded high economic returns from biochar used to enhance water efficiency in an arid region Californian golf course.


  1. Radiata forestry can impinge on soil fertility and acidity. Forest debris left to itself decomposes and releases CO2.  It can also create environmental risks through downstream damage from storm events, as we learnt in June 2018.  Turning such debris into biochar on site through mobile pyrolysis plants and applying it to forest lands could remove downstream hazards as well as sequester carbon for the long-term.


  1. While biochar made from forestry residue has high carbon content it would not add much to soil nutrient levels. However, biochar alkalinity can reduce soil acidity and enhance replanting of seedlings for the next forestry rotation.  Solla-Gullon et al (2008) report reduced radiata mortality and higher growth in biomass due to biochar application in control plots in Spain.  Thomas & Gale (2015) in a meta-analysis report large tree growth responses from biochar applications.


  1. On amenity and conservation lands, wilding pines and other invasive plants can be converted to biochar, offsetting control costs.

Forest processing waste

  1. A big opportunity for the forestry sector may be making biochar from wood waste. This can range from slash left after forestry harvesting through to sawdust.  A wood processor turning logs into sawn timber or more elaborately-engineered products could convert wood waste into biochar and use the pyrolysis heat to dry the high value processed wood products.


  1. It is noted that switching from coal to wood bioenergy in industrial applications will create more demand for wood waste, and so biochar will need to compete with this alternative use. However, biomass boilers can be designed to produce biochar as an output alongside process heat.


Miscanthus for bioenergy and biochar co-production

  1. Miscanthus can be used for bioenergy production such as renewable diesel fuel (RDF). This can reduce fossil fuel emissions, with biochar made as a by-product.  Miscanthus can be integrated into intensive dairy farm production, into extensive sheep and beef farm regimes, or it could be grown as a dedicated crop.  Similar opportunities may come from hemp, including where it is grown for seed and produces fibre suited to biochar.

Intensive animal industries

  1. Pig and poultry industries produce concentrated, high nutrient waste. Some of this can be made into biochar, however it seems likely that most would be best turned into compost with biochar added to it to enhance its quality.


  1. Adding biochar to feed may have also have animal health benefits, and may help with reducing antibiotic use in intensive animal industries. Biochar incorporated into bedding may, through denitrification, reduce ammonia gas levels in broiler barns.

Compost making

  1. Compost by itself is quickly broken down in soil by microbial processes. Adding biochar to it makes a more humified, stable and biologically productive form of compost.  Adding biochar even in small amounts (e.g. 2-10%) can have big positive impacts on compost quality, and also deliver wider environmental benefits.


  1. Following the addition of 2% biochar to compost, Jindo et al (2012) recorded a 10% increase in carbon captured by humic substance extraction and a 30% decrease of water-soluble, easily degradable carbon. They also found an increase of fungal species diversity in the mature biochar compost, as compared to the control.  They inferred that these fungi were responsible for the increased humification.  Co-composting of biochar with nitrogen-rich manures can reduce nitrogen losses due to ammonia volatilization by up to 50% (Steiner et al, 2010).

Short-rotation coppicing of poplar, willow or other species

  1. Short rotation coppice (SRC) plantings can use fast-growing species such as poplar or willow[10]. These are easy to manage and to harvest mechanically, and can yield 10-20 tonne per ha per annum of dry matter within two to three years of planting.  Each tonne of biomass could yield 300-500 kg of biochar under different process conditions.


  1. As an example, if a 300 ha dairy farm planted 5% percent of its area in SRC, using its least productive land or riparian margins from which cattle are excluded to protect water quality, it could be making biochar and storing around 80 to 100 tonnes of carbon annually. Scaling this approach across the dairy sector as a whole, this could total around 2MT pa of CO2 removed from the atmosphere[11], with only minor alterations to land use and farm practices.  This takes no account of other wider productivity and environmental benefits.


  1. Sheep and beef farms typically have a higher percentage of less productive land than dairy farms. This means more opportunities for growing poplar, willow and other biomass for biochar production.  However, topography would make mechanical harvesting more difficult on some sites[12].


Manuka-based biochar

  1. Honey is harvested from manuka growing wild, typically on low fertility soils. Manuka is a succession species – left to itself other species will grow through and suppress it.  Efforts are underway to systematise plantation production to optimise honey output sustainably.


  1. One possible production regime would be continuous harvesting and replanting of manuka to maintain ongoing honey, oil[13] and wood production, with wood turned into biochar, perhaps with pyrolysis by-products such as energy. Coppicing is another option to produce biomass for biochar, while sustaining honey and oil production.

Tagasaste (tree lucerne)

  1. Tagasaste is fast-growing, and fixes nitrogen and provides fodder year-round. It is winter flowering and valuable for bees. It produces protein-rich fodder, is suited to varying climates and soils, and is drought-tolerant.  Its roots can access soil nutrients as deep as 10 metres down.  Tagasaste can be grown for biochar production.  It can also be coppiced to provide ongoing biomass for biochar making, while also delivering fodder and other multi-use benefits.

What interventions are needed to catalyse mass adoption of pyrolysis biochar?


  1. New Zealand currently lacks a high-volume biochar supplier, which constrains trials with it. Biochar has been slow to win acceptance in New Zealand, however the Biochar Network New Zealand has built awareness, and the sterling work of Massey and Lincoln academics and research students has contributed to rapid growth in the international scientific understanding of biochar and to recognition of the key role it will play in future.  However, there is still low awareness in the agricultural industry of what biochar can deliver.


  1. Biochar offers industry a positive opportunity to lift productivity, while reducing GHG emissions. It is more attractive than other NETs that have environmental risks.  It does not stop farmers from farming, nor does it require radical changes in proven farming practices.


  1. To develop biochar into an effective NET and a sustainability technology in New Zealand we need:
  • formal government recognition of biochar’s value and the roles it can play
  • the formation and oversight of market(s) for sequestration credits
  • end-to-end quality control and certification
  • strategic funding of pilot demonstration projects[14]
  • information and extension services that share results from pilot projects, and allow biochar production and application to be continuously refined

Recognition of biochar’s value in climate change policy and for sustainability

  1. The IPCC recognises biochar as a credible NET, and this must be reflected in our formal climate change policy settings. We need to also promote biochar’s contribution to sustainable productivity.


  1. Soil carbon falls outside the Paris Agreement’s carbon accounting boundary, however it falls inside the international voluntary carbon market. Biochar needs its own sequestration status as a stable carbon form to distinguish it from short-term labile soil carbon.


  1. For biochar to earn carbon credits there needs to be a valid carbon accounting methodology and verification system[15]. Verified credits can be monetised in the voluntary offsets market if buyers are secured.  Buyers can be businesses that are willing to buy soil carbon rather than forestry carbon (for example in recognition of the implications of forestry carbon farming on isolated rural communities).


  1. In New Zealand, a market for biochar to earn verified carbon credits would incentivise biochar pyrolysis and allow scale economies to emerge. This market could involve a public or private entity or be a public-private partnership agency.


  1. Some Finnish businesses[16] led by Fortum in collaboration with a financial services company and the Swedish bank SEB have established Puro, a marketplace that aims to make carbon removal from the atmosphere verifiable and tradeable through an open, online platform.


  1. Puro establishes a parallel voluntary mechanism for CO2 removal methods currently excluded from existing carbon pricing schemes. It issues CORemoval Certificates (CORCs) that are technology-neutral.  It currently supports three COremoval methods – biochar, carbonated building materials, and wooden building elements.  Links are at: and

  1. Large-scale biochar production and sequestration can be monitored efficiently so carbon credits are valorised. However, this is difficult with small-scale production at the farm or household level.  Rather than incentivise small-scale production at the micro-scale with carbon credits, it may be better to offer free on-line optimisation information (or extension services) that enables small-scale players to maximise biochar productivity in their chosen application without claiming carbon credits.




An end-to-end quality control and certification system


  1. Biomass sources, pyrolysis processes, cascading uses, and end sequestration must be fit for purpose. End-to-end quality control is needed.


  1. A certification-based or other such verification system would need to validate how a biochar product was produced, its carbon and nutrient content, and its performance in specific applications. Such a system would provide confidence in biochar cascading uses and final sequestration in soils rather than, for example, use as a charcoal fuel.  An authentication mechanism could be built into a blockchain system.


  1. Quality biochar starts with quality biomass. Biomass contaminated with toxic chemicals[17] or metals should not be used in agriculture or horticulture.  Biomass source influences biochar properties – for example wood-derived biochar has higher carbon content whilst food waste and manure-derived biochar has higher nutrient content.


  1. Pyrolysis process settings must comply with rigorous stack emissions and air quality standards. This must minimise release of flue gases with products of incomplete combustion, particulates that can damage air quality, and release of embers that create fire risks.  This is achievable with large production plants, however it may be more difficult to achieve with small-scale operations.


  1. Process settings must be calibrated to achieve the desired balance between biochar, biogas and biooil (“wood vinegar”). This balance will be determined by the intended cascading use and the end biochar sequestration, and by the value of by-products such as energy.  For a typical biomass, slow pyrolysis produces around 35% biochar, 30% biooil, and 35% biogas by weight. Fast pyrolysis produces around 20% biochar and 60% biooil and 20% biogas by weight.


  1. Pyrolysis temperatures influence biochar properties and long-term stability in the soil. Different biomass sources and pyrolysis conditions can be used to make biochar optimised for specific applications such as animal feed additives, maximising stable carbon sequestration[18], nutrient sorption or phosphate recycling.


  1. The European Biochar Certificate (EBC) is the voluntary European industrial standard. It is designed to ensure sustainable biochar production and minimise hazards to agronomic systems. These standards guarantee ecologically sustainable procurement and production of biomass feedstock for biochar production, compliance with emission standards, and environmentally safe storage.  Biochar quality is comprehensively monitored, documented and independently controlled and complies with all threshold standards related to the Ordinance on Soil Protection.


  1. The EBC pillars are independent on-site control (government accredited), accredited laboratories, and legal backup. The EBC certifies sustainable provision and production of biomass feedstock, energy efficient, low emission pyrolysis techniques, biochar quality (low contamination), low hazard biochar use and application.


  1. New Zealand can also draw on Australian work on biochar end-to-end quality control assurance, or it can develop its own system.

R&D-based pilot demonstration projects


  1. Enough is known about biochar to focus R&D on some applied demonstration projects in “real world” New Zealand agricultural and horticultural production systems. Results from these projects can be promoted through on-line tools, and can support fine-tuning of biochar technology and its mainstreaming.  Higher levels of investment should be made in the Biochar Research Centre at Massey, and in biochar-related research at Lincoln and Waikato universities.


Continuous learning and fine-tuning

  1. As biochar use expands and is applied to different opportunities it will be important to continuously learn from its productivity and environmental performance in different agricultural and horticultural settings. This will allow ongoing finetuning and optimisation, with results disseminated to those engaged in biochar technology.


  1. New Zealand’s biochar research must be linked to and leverage off the international research effort. We should be fast in identifying, testing and leveraging possible “game-changing” results.  For example, Masek et al (2019) find that a low concentration potassium addition to biochar can improve its soil carbon sequestration effect by up to 45%.  Potassium doping also increases nutrient content of resulting biochar, making it better suited for agricultural applications.


  1. New Zealand needs to quickly adapt scientific advances in biochar research, both domestic and international, and apply them to our own opportunities. In doing so, biochar can be a key part of our climate change response, while also lifting our productivity and sustainability.




Appendix 1: Comparison of negative emissions technologies (NETs)

Table 1: NET Comparision

NET Description Assessment
Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2 DAC machines suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and it is stored, for example underground. DAC can involve use of hydroxide solution, or of amine adsorbents in modular reactors.


DAC is capital and energy-intensive, see:


DAC offers no clear productivity benefits, except possibly if the CO2 is used for such purposes as enhancing greenhouse horticultural output.  However, this would still lead to CO2 release as biomass breaks down.  CAC has no wider environmental and bioremediation benefits.  DAC raises question about how CO2 could be stored in a geologically secure environment for centuries.

Enhanced weathering This can involve pulverising olivine or other materials to increase their surface area and absorb more carbon.  This carbon can then be stored in seawater or soils. This is very capital and energy-intensive.   It also delivers no wider productivity or bioremediation benefits.
Ocean seeding Iron or nitrogen could be added to seawater to encourage algal blooms, thereby absorbing more CO2.


Creates risks of low oxygen dead zones.  Would face international as well as local opposition.
Blue carbon habitat restoration Restoration of salt marshes, mangroves, tidal wetlands, seagrass beds to act as carbon sinks.

Protection and where possible enhancement of wetlands and peat soils.

Good strategy to follow, with wider environmental including biodiversity benefits.  It is however limited by geographic constraints.
Afforestation Planting trees to sequester carbon. Afforestation (and avoiding deforestation) have key roles to play.  However, there are limits to available land, and risks of crowding out food production at a time of rapid population growth.

Woodfield (2019) raises concerns that incentives for forestry planting for carbon sequestration in NZ are too short-term, and may have unintended negative consequences.  He contends there is no clear “what next” strategy after carbon credits are earned on the first rotation, noting that harvesting incurs liabilities unless the forest is then replanted.

However, it might be possible to sustainably manage some permanent forests for co-products such as honey, edible fungi or coppiced wood as well as using them as carbon sinks.

Using wood and other biomaterials to replace GHG-intensive materials. Sustainably-produced timber and other biomass can replace GHG-intensive materials such as concrete, steel and plastics.  Examples include engineered wood in multi-storey buildings. With policy change, it might be possible to offset forest harvesting liabilities through credits for carbon stored in long-life wood products. This is an effective strategy, enabled by advances in multi-story wood engineering technology.  Each tonne of dry wood that displaces concrete-based materials avoids nearly four tonnes of CO2 emissions (Sathre & O’Connor, 2010).  However, global impacts may be small due to the limited quantities of wood that can be used in building.


It is noted that biochar as well as wood can substitute for carbon emission-intensive construction, infrastructure and packaging materials.

Bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Burning biomass to produce energy for electricity generation or process heat, with CO2 capture and storage.


This avoids some fossil fuel CO2 emissions.  However, it raises issues about how CO2 that is captured can be stored.  There is concern that BECCS may be harmful to ecosystem services and biosphere integrity if implemented at scale (Boysen et al., 2016b; Burns & Nicholson, 2017; Heck et al., 2018).

Note that replacing fossil fuel use with bioenergy can reduce emissions, however this is not a NET because CO2 is not removed from the atmosphere.  When bioenergy that replaces fossil fuel use is combined with biochar production and sequestration it is a NET.

Enhancement of labile soil carbon. The importance of soil carbon sequestration is widely recognised.  In 2015 the French Government launched a call for a 0.4% increase in soil carbon annually.  Using farming techniques to lift labile soil organic matter (SOM) can help support this. Gains can potentially be made in lifting SOM by changing farming techniques.  However, labile carbon turns over rapidly, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere rather than being a permanent carbon store.
Biochar Turning biomass into charcoal and using this biochar for productivity and bioremediation purposes before storing it in soil as a long-term carbon store. Unlike other NETs, biochar produces a valuable product with multiple economic and environmental applications.


Schmidt et al (2018) conclude that pyrolytic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS) can aspire to carbon sequestration efficiencies of >70%.  They note that PyCCS does not create environmental hazards and that global scale-up is feasible within 10-30 years.


Smith (2016) concluded that soil carbon sequestration and biochar addition to land had lower negative impacts and fewer disadvantages than other NETs.  Biochar could be implemented in combination with bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.


Pratt & Moran (2019) compare marginal cost curves of different abatement options.  They conclude that even the most expensive biochar projects rival the cost effectiveness of alternative NETs.


Biochar lends itself to diffuse, small scale applications. However, large numbers of pyrolysis plants and biochar applications can aggregate into high carbon storage at the nation state and global levels.



ANZBI 2019: A Report on the Value of Biochar and Wood Vinegar.  See link at:

Biederman, L. et al 2013: Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling:  a meta-analysis.  GCB Bioenergy 5, 202-214.

Borchard N et al 2019: Biochar, soil and land-use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions: A meta-analysis.  Science of the Total Environment 651 2354–2364

Boysen, L. 2016: Impacts devalue the potential of large-scale terrestrial   removal through biomass plantations. Environ Res Lett 11 095010.

Burns, W.; Nicholson, S. 2017: Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response,” Journal of Environmental Studies and SciencesVol. 7(4), pp. 527-534.

Chen, J. et al 2018: Beyond fossil fuel-driven nitrogen transformations. Science 360, eaar6611. (2018).

Clough, T. et al 2013: A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics. Agronomy 2013, 3(2), 275-293.

Dickinson, D. et al 2015: Cost-benefit analysis of using biochar to improve cereals agriculture.  Global Change Biol. Bioenergy 7, 850-864 (2015).

Dokoohaki, H. et al 2019: Where should we apply biochar?  Environmental Research Letters Vol 14, No 4.  Published 29 March 2019.

Elad, Y. et al 2010: Induction of systemic resistance in plants by biochar, a soil-applied carbon sequestering agent.  Phytopathology. 2010 Sep;100(9):913-21.

Fuss, S. et al 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects.  Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).

Gaunt, J.; Lehmann, J. 2008: Energy Balance and Emissions associated with Biochar Sequestration and Pyrolysis Bioenergy Production. Environ. Sci. Technol.  2008 42, 11 4152 – 4158.

Heck, V. et al 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change 8(2) February 2018.

Hepburn, C., Adlen, E., Beddington, J. et al. 2019 The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal. Nature 575, 87-97 (2019)

Hestrin, R. 2019: Fire-derived organic matter retains ammonia through covalent bond formation.  Nature Communications 8 February 2019:

Huang et al 2014: Fertilizer nitrogen uptake by rice increased by biochar application.  Biology and Fertility of Soils 50 (6): 997: 1000. August 2014.

Jeffrey et al 2017: Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett 12 2017.

Jeffrey, S. et al 2011: A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis.  Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 144, 175-187 (2011).

Jindo, K. 2012: Chemical and biochemical characterisation of biochar-blended composts prepared from poultry manure. Bioresour Technol. 2012 Apr;110:396-404.

Keske, C. 2019: Economic feasibility of biochar and agriculture coproduction for Canadian black spruce forests. Available at:

Lal, R. 2006: Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic pool in agricultural lands.  Land Degrad. Dev. 17, 197-209 (2006).

Major, J. 2009: Fate of soil-applied black carbon: downward migration, leaching and soil respiration. Global Change Biology, 16, 1366–1379.

Masek et al 2019: Potassium doping increases biochar carbon sequestration potential by 45%, facilitating decoupling of carbon sequestration from soil improvement Scientific Reports Vol 9, Article 5514.

Pratt, K, Moran, D. 2010: Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of global biochar mitigation potential. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol 34, Issue 8, August 2010. pp 1149-1158.

Roberts et al, 2020: Lifecycle assessment of biochar systems.  Environ Sci Tec Jan 15; 44 (2) 827-33

Sanderman, J. et al. (2017) Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesdoi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114

Sathre, R., O’Connor, J. 2010: Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution.  Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 104-144 (2010).

Schmidt, H-P 2018: Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage. Global Change Biology.  Bioenergy. Link at:

Singh, B. et al 2012: Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature.  Environmental Science and Technology 21, pp.11770-11778.

Smith, P. 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emissions technologies.  Glob. Change Biol.  Vol 22, Issue 3: 1315-1324.

Solla-Gullon, F. et al 2008: Response of Pinus radiata seedlings to application of mixed wood-bark at planting in a temperate region: Nutrition and growth. Forest Ecology and Management 11, pp  3873-3884.

Steiner, C. et al 2010: Reducing nitrogen loss during poultry litter composting using biochar. J Environ Qual Jul-Aug 39(4): 1236-42.

Thomas, S; Gale, N. 2015: Biochar and forest restoration: a review and meta-analysis of tree growth responses. New Forests 5-6: 931-946.

Toth, J.; Dou, Z. 2016: Use and Impact of Biochar and Charcoal in Animal Production Systems. In: Guo, M., He, Z. and Uchimiya, M., Eds., Agricultural and Environmental Applications of Biochar: Advances and Barriers, Soil Science Society of America, 199-224.

Woodford, K. 2019: Carbon neutrality requires permanent forests not production forests.  See:

Ye, L.; Camps-Arbestain, M. Shen, Q.; Lehman, J.; Singh, B.; Sabir, M.  2019: Biochar effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: a meta-analysis of field studies using separate controls.  Soil Use and Management 2019; 00 1-17.


[1] The slow carbon cycle forms coal and oil over millions of years.  The fast carbon cycle sequesters carbon in vegetation and soil and then releases carbon back into the atmosphere over months or years.

[2] Kelpie Wilson’s superb outline of how biochar functions in soil is at:

[3] Biochar can store carbon for hundreds of years or more.  The longevity depends on factors such as the biomass used, the pyrolysis process applied and soil and climate conditions.  For policy purposes we can regard biochar as a permanent carbon store over the timeframes needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.

[4] There are many wider biochar applications that are not discussed in this paper. See link to 55 uses for biochar at: updated at: Biochar can play a key role in a circular economy.  Answering the question ‘what unsustainable resource use can biochar displace?’ will generate biochar innovation in many different fields.  Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper co-authored a recent book on non-agricultural uses of biochar: BURN: Using Fire to Cool the Earth.

[5] Excessive synthetic nitrogen fertiliser leads to air and water pollution and harms the soil microbiome.  Chen et al (2018) explores ways of reducing the need for fossil fuel use to meet nitrogen needs.


[6] This fits well with current plans to phase out coal use at the Huntly plant.  The Huntly plant is close to both biomass sources and to dairy and other agricultural users of biochar.  It is also located in a community that needs jobs and new business development.

[7] Massey University researchers have estimated a biochar production cost of NZ$400 per tonne for the purposes of assessing economic opportunities in New Zealand.

[8] One approach might be to use a floating mat of biochar on a slurry pond surface to bind nitrogen.

[9] It is difficult to gauge biochar’s long-term effects, though it seems that biochar functionality improves over time.  Kelpie Wilson likens terra preta soils to well-aged cheese.  These soils have been dated back thousands of years.  They seem to self-generate, in that when terra preta soils are “mined” as potting mix, leaf and other plant material that falls onto these soils is colonised by biochar microbiome, forming new and highly productive terra preta soils but without enhanced carbon content.


[10] Some research in Taranaki and Manawatu suggests that biochar made from willow can lift clover growth for reasons other than liming effects.

[11] This is based on one tonne of carbon equalling 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted.

[12] Some sheep and beef farms have large and unproductive poplar trees that could be turned into biochar.

[13] Manuka oil extraction requires harvesting biomass and bringing it to an extraction facility which requires process heat.  Residue from this could be turned into biochar using an integrated oil extraction and pyrolysis facility.

[14] These projects could be supported by adaptable multi-user facilities to produce biochar with different characteristics for diverse research and pilot demonstration projects.

[15] Australia has made progress with carbon farming initiatives, including methodologies governing measurement and verification.

[16] Other businesses involved include Tieto, Valio, St1, ÅF Pöyry, Compensate Foundation, Carbofex, Yara Suomi Oy, Lassila & Tikanoja, SOK, Orbix, Nordic Offset and Hedman Partners.

[17] An example is tantalised timber.

[18] Singh et al (2012) report that the mean residence time (MRT) of biochar in clayey soil ranges between 90 and 1,600 years, based on limited laboratory trials using a range of biomass sources.  They considered that the MRT was likely to be longer in field conditions.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Bardolatry or secular clarity – why Shakespeare keeps us sane in identarian times

In a social media age that isolates as much as connects people, and that polarizes politics and fuels extremism it is reassuring to see William Shakespeare flourishing through it all.

It is striking how much hostility Shakespeare has attracted over the centuries.  Most attempts to suppress or ignore his works aim to limit human consciousness as revealed in Shakespeare, in order to promote narrow moral, religious, nationalistic, cultural or racial codes or world views, or simply for small-minded or intellectually lazy reasons.

Shakespeare has been censored or de-platformed for bawdiness, failure to deliver happy endings, subliminal undermining of the Corn Laws, lack of a class angle or socialist realism, failure to check his privilege, suspected grain-hoarding, portraying black people and continentals in too favourable a light, cultural appropriation, plagiarism, identity theft, promotion of underage sex, homoeroticism and cross-dressing.

He is guilty of all of these, except for identity theft – “Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare”, and yet over 5000 books have been written to “prove” this was not so.

The anti-Stratfordian sect began with Delia Bacon who devoted her life to “proving” that Shakespeare’s works were written by Francis Bacon (no relation).  Although she ended her life in institutional care believing herself the Holy Ghost, her theory grew into a movement that also attributed to Bacon authorship of the King James Bible,  Montaigne’s Essays, Spencer’s Faerie Queene, Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, and the plays of Lyle, Greene, Kyd and Marlowe – despite the fact that Bacon was dismissive of drama!

Some anti-Stratfordian “scholars” such as Looney, Silliman and Battey had surnames that were less than confidence-building.  However, they were not all barking mad.  Some argued (speciously) that Shakespeare could not have written Shakespeare because he was from too humble a background, was too provincial, hadn’t travelled to all his plays’ settings or been an eye witness to ancient Greek and Roman events, didn’t have a university degree in creative writing (which is not surprising as he never attended university), and so on.

Another line of attack on Shakespeare argues that little is known of his life – did he even exist?  Actually, an enormous amount is known about Shakespeare’s life, though certain claims are still controversial.  For example, Flann O’Brien’s assertion that Shakespeare’s last words (spoken to his wife) were “did you put the cat out?” has never been fully documented.

To be charitable, the anti-Stratfordians were to some extent reacting to excessive worship of Shakespeare, especially from the 18th century.  This “bardolatry” was an admiration of Shakespeare so amplified as to become unhinged.  It attributed to him supreme wisdom, infallibility on all questions, and deigned him divine.

A manifestation of this is George Romney’s 18th century painting The infant Shakespeare attended by Nature and the Passions.  This is a Nativity scene that some see as sacrilegious idolatry, while others see it as diminishing to Shakespeare by comparing him with a religious leader!  Much later, James Joyce wrote that Shakespeare created more than anyone other than God.  With belief in God in modern times shrinking, the logic might be that Shakespeare is increasingly a substitute for God.  However, those who love Shakespeare give him centre stage for his secular perspicuity and clarity, and do not claim divinity for him.

Shakespeare’s birth is a singularity, that is it is a unique event that has changed the world, however no one claims he is the son of God.  There is no official Nicene Creed that codifies what we all have to dogmatically believe about Shakespeare.  However, some unofficial protocols exist.  For example, the Chandos portrait that was owned by Richard Plantagenet Temple Nugent Brydges Chandos Grenville is seen as the most lifelike depiction of what Shakespeare actually looked like.

Bardolatory as a mindset falls across a spectrum.  At the weaker end is the belief that Shakespeare’s works instantiate all human psychology and constitute supreme human reality.  At the extreme end are those who ban paper bags for fear they may be made of the pulped works of Shakespeare.  In the middle are those who sometimes refer to Shakespearean scenes in the present tense, or who get confused over whether his characters are real people, imaginary characters or possible people.

Shakespeare was not uniquely and supremely gifted at birth.  Other English poets had Shakespeare’s innate talent, though not his staying power, luck, sanity or work rate – poets are made as well as born.  The erratic Christopher Marlowe was stabbed to death at 29 years old in a fight.  Keats died of TB at age 25.  Thomas Chatterton poisoned himself with arsenic at age 17.

While Shakespeare’s observations about the natural world and medical matters are impressive for his time, they are not unique. Shakespeare tells us nothing about quantum physics or Galois theory. However, he is unique in his observations of human nature, psychology and sociology.

Shakespeare recorded human nature as he saw it, not as it was assumed to be.  He saw things directly and not through the distorting lens of dogma and theory.  He benefited greatly from a school system that taught him deep language and classical content, rhetoric, and how to think.  He was the better for not studying theology or going to university and imbibing the flawed theories of the time.

Shakespeare invented around 1700 new words and many metaphors and turns of phrase to describe things no one else had observed with such clarity.  His mind roamed so freely that anyone immersed in his work can think of Shakespeare scenes or quotes that provide insight into all major events and emotions in their lives.  These insights help you see you are not alone, that others have faced similar things and got through them.  There is no powerful human experience, emotion or relationship that Shakespeare does not shed light on and help us understand better.

Shakespeare’s work has spurred centuries of monumental creative achievement.  A tiny homeopathic sample includes Romeo and Juliet inspiring West Side Story, and Taming of the ShrewKiss me Katie.  The Tempest alone inspired around 37 operas, while Verdi composed operas such as Otello and Falstaff and Mendelssohn the music for the ballet Midsummer Night’s Dream.  Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and Berlioz all wrote music for Romeo and Juliet. Other composers such as Rossini, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, Smetana and Elgar all set Shakespeare to music.

Countless poems, short stories and novels from Dogs of WarBrave New WorldOwls do Cry to Pale Fire take their inspiration or their titles from Shakespeare.

When trillions of Twitter messages, Facebook uploads, and WhatsApp exchanges are forgotten Shakespeare will survive and his influence will continue to expand multiplicatively as his works spur more achievements in literature, music, arts and other fields.  However, what is most important today is that his works anchor human universality, and uphold it against an identarian world which (by the nature of group identity) is divided within itself.

In doing so, Shakespeare helps keep us sane as well as human.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is Paul Krugman right on fossil fuels replaceability?

The IMF estimates that fossil fuel industries globally receive around US$5.2 trillion a year in subsidies (2017 figures).  Paul Krugman notes that the US$649 billion a year in subsidies the US provides is around US$3 million for every American oil, coal, and gas industry worker.

Krugman argues that fossil fuels are therefore “zombie industries” that destroy value, and that politics keeps them in business through direct and implicit subsidies.  For example, US coal production dropped by 30% from 2000 to 2018, and in 2019 US renewable electricity production exceeded that from coal.  Around 40% of US coal is mined in the Powder River Basin straddling Montana and Wyoming – in key electoral states the Trump administration is propping up coal to stop renewables replacing it.

However, is it possible to replace fossil fuels in transport, industrial and home and building energy uses?  Around 16% of oil is used in non-energy applications such as plastics, rubber and synthetics – are there renewable replacements?

Transport energy

Public transport lends itself to electrification, and urban planning, lifestyle and mindset changes can lift its uptake.  Rising oil prices have long driven advances in vehicle energy efficiency gains, and hybrid cars are now mainstream.  Major car companies internationally are gearing to EV mass production, and battery technology is advancing.  Some hopes are held for hydrogen vehicles, however this would depend on renewable electricity, and it faces logistical constraints and safety concerns.

Aviation and maritime transport depend on energy-dense fossil liquid fuels, however biofuels may help replace some of these.

Building, infrastructure, and metal making

Wood can be substituted for fossil hydrocarbon materials in many applications, and lignin can replace asphalt as a binding agent in roadbuilding.  However, concrete and steel are still needed, and the challenge is how their environmental impacts can be reduced.  Steel in most countries is made using coal, however it has long been made with charcoal in parts of Brazil with poor coal resources.  Australia’s CSIRO is developing advanced pyrolysis plants for charcoal for steel making.

Swedish steelmaker SSAB is building a fossil fuel-free steelmaking plant at Luleå, Sweden.  ThyssenKrupp and ArcelorMittal have announced similar projects.  Bill Gates is investing in Boston Metal, which is developing oxide electrolysis-related technology to make steel using electricity rather than coal.

Built environment energy use

In built environments, electricity can replace fossil fuel use such as gas heating.  Design innovations such as passive housing can enhance energy efficiency, and in some cases make buildings net energy producers.  Existing technologies such as solar water heating, LED lights, heat pumps and insulation have short payback periods. Sometimes it requires only education or regulatory tweaks to trigger their mass adoption.

Natural gas use in synthetic fertiliser production

The Haber-Bosch technology for synthetic fertiliser depends on natural gas, and the process of making ammonia also generates high carbon dioxide emissions.  However, electrochemistry, photocatalysis and bioengineering research is underway on more sustainable ammonia production processes.

Rubber, synthetics and other non-energy products

Natural rubber from rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis), guayule (Partheneum argentatum) and Russian dandelion (Taraxacum kok-saghyz) can replace synthetic rubber.  While fibres such as wool, cotton, silk, jute, flax and sisal cannot replace the functionality of some synthetics, biotechnology has potential to do so over the longer term.

Pyrolysis can turn biomass into biochar for agricultural productivity gains and as permanent soil carbon sequestration.  It can also produce charcoal for building and infrastructure materials, carbon black, paints, activated carbon and many other (non-fuel) applications.  These non-agricultural applications are highlighted in Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper book: BURN: Using Fire to Cool the Earth.  In all cases, pyrolysis can deliver energy co-products, such as process heat.

A way forward

Overall, the case for mass transitions away from oil and coal to renewable energy is strong economically, often even where there is no climate change rationale for it.  For example, New Zealand’s mass adoption of EVs alone would save billions a year in oil imports.

While distributed unevenly, there are vast undeveloped wind, solar, hydro and geothermal resources around the world.  Much of this can be harnessed through localised distributed generation systems that avoid the need for higher cost transmission infrastructure.

It is technologically and economically feasible to replace oil and coal in energy applications within a timeframe needed to address climate change challenges.  It is up to politicians and voters to determine whether to do so.  However, natural gas may play a longer-term transitional role in some countries, given it is less GHG-intensive than coal and is valuable in meeting surge renewable electricity demand.

The biggest challenges will be replacing oil in non-energy uses, such as fertilisers and other chemicals, plastics and synthetics. With rapid advances already made in renewable energy technologies, chemical engineering for sustainability might emerge as the major scientific challenge over the next decade or so.

However, decarbonising the global economy is constrained more by politics than technological possibility.  Political decisions involve rational and irrational calculus, cost-benefit analysis and wild surmises, narratives (truthful or deceptive), the short and long-term, and huge variance in how actors respond to shocks whether physical or psychic.

Shocks can trigger positive and long-term change.  For example, the passivhaus (passive house) concept gained traction from the late 1980s in Germany.  However, its origins were partly from North American architects and builders responding to OPEC’s oil embargo after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (fracking) in the US has temporarily reduced US oil prices, however the hydrocarbon reserves exploited will be quickly run down.  At any time, conflicts in the Middle East or elsewhere could force shifts towards renewables.  Extreme events such as droughts, fires, methane emissions from melting permafrost, or rapid melting of Antarctic and Greenland icecaps may force action even in the more polarised and intellectual sluggish polities.

We cannot of course trust in salutary shocks, and every effort needs to be made to commit to ambitious emissions reductions. Furthermore, carbon sequestration technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere will be needed as well as emissions reductions.

Anything you can do with fossil hydrocarbons you can do with plants, however costs may appear prohibitive until the technology advances.  Since fossil fuels are non-renewable, we will eventually run out of them, and so research on renewables is a “no regrets” strategy

We need to put more trust in technology and the science that supports it.  Cost forecasts for renewable energy and materials often assume away learning curve advances as continuous improvements and scale economies reduce costs and improve performance whether for wind power, lithium batteries, photovoltaics and concentrated solar power (CSP).  Furthermore, there will be new breakthroughs as non-linear and unexpected as LED lights were in the 1960s – and what we may see from graphene.

Paul Krugman’s optimism for renewables is therefore justified in economic and technological terms, and globally as well as in the US.  What happens in practice may be as much to do with zeitgeist as economic analysis, and may owe something to unexpected, painful and ultimately therapeutic shocks.  When they happen.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Michael Kremer and O-Rings

Congratulations to Abhijit Banajee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for their well-deserved Nobel Prize!

Kremer’s paper The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development (1993) is both dated in allusion and timeless in its deeper meaning.  It argues that high skill workers in sequential processes cooperate to minimise errors that would otherwise destroy output value.  The “O-Ring” alludes to the Challenger space shuttle disaster that occurred when just one part – an O-Ring – failed on launch.  Only those of us of a certain age remember it vividly with sadness for the astronauts who “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God…” in President Reagan’s words.

Kremer argues correctly that skilled workers cluster together, that quantity cannot substitute for quality, and that small differences in worker skill lead to large wage and productivity differences between countries.  The argument resonates with Lucas’s rationale for why skilled people move not to where skill is scarce but to where it is plentiful.  Highly skilled people lift others’ productivity.  Furthermore, a chain is only as strong as its weakest part – a rocket is only reliable when all the key components work effectively.

Kremer uses his model to help explain why agriculture is associated with low economic development levels.  He argues that countries with high skill workers specialise in products that require expensive intermediate inputs and countries with low skill workers “specialise in primary production” with poverty associated with it.

Historically, agriculture was an industry that permitted large error margins.  Shepherds could pipe on oaten straws oblivious to time – including “just in time!”  Illiterate and innumerate workers could find work because their low skills did not create “O-Ring” like risks.  Those days are now over, and on this point Kremer’s wonderful paper needs to be updated.

A low skill worker who causes a food safety or biosecurity failure at any point in the supply chain can cause massive damage to our food and fibre exports.  These supply chains are under social media and other scrutiny. The “O-Ring risks” are ethical and psychic as well as safety, surety and security-related.  Animal welfare, working conditions and environmental impacts all impinge on what is allowed in markets let alone creating value in such markets.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The worlds a stage, from Ira Aldridge, Paul Robeson to Justin Trudeau

That a Canadian Prime Minister is red-faced in the media after wearing blackface eight years ago shows benefit from Shakespeare spending the last four hundred years breaking down skin colour typecasting.

Shakespeare challenged racism in The Merchant of Venice and Othello. Both plays are set in Venice, in Shakespeare’s time as much a centre of European culture as New York is now.  Othello is a black man valued for his military prowess, Shylock a Jew for his money-lending, with both of them otherwise excluded from Venetian society.  Both plays portray the fundamental unity of humanity.

For hundreds of years white actors portrayed Othello, with the play labelled as “about jealousy, the green-eyed monster”.  Othello is not about jealousy.  It is about race, identity and an individual’s dignity.  Othello before he stabs himself asks that those surviving him “Speak of me as I am…” rather than as a stereotype from which group characteristics can be inferred. – see link at:

Black actors took to the stage to break down racist barriers from at least the 1820s.  They understood that all the worlds a stage, and that actors were the “abstract and brief chronicles of the time” who helped shape cultural and social attitudes.

William Henry Brown established the first known black theatre company in the US, The African Theatre, in 1821.  It performed Shakespeare plays to segregated audiences.  Its leading actor was James Hewlett – the first black professional actor to perform in America.  Hewlett played Richard III and Othello.

In 1824 an English “comedian”, Charles Mathews burlesqued The African Theatre in his solo show, “Trip to America”. In one skit, a black actor delivered a garbled version of “To be or not to be,” changing the line “by opposing end them” to “by opossum end ’em.”

The African Theatre company was forced out of business by hostile white people and authorities, with the theatre house being burnt down in 1826.

Ira Aldridge (1807 – 1867) was an American-born actor who made his career after 1824 largely in London and Europe.  He is the only African-American actor among the 33 actors of the English stage honoured with bronze plaques at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre at Stratford on Avon.

In 1825 Aldridge made his London debut, becoming the first black actor in Britain to play Othello.  He was 17 years old, portraying a black man eight years before slavery was banned throughout the British Empire and 40 years before his native country fought a civil war to abolish slavery.

Aldridge later began playing white characters, including Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. In The Siberian Exiles, performed in 1831, Aldridge played a white man who was disguised as a black. Drama involves people pretending to be someone they are not.  The audience must be complicit in this deception and see who an actor is imagined to be, not who he is in real life.

In tours in Britain in the 1830s Aldridge began donning “whiteface” to portray roles as diverse as Shylock, Macbeth, Richard III, and King Lear. When Thomas Rice arrived in England with his racist “Jump Jim Crow” minstrel routine, Aldridge wove one of Rice’s own skits into his show.  By parodying the parody, he disarmed Rice’s racism.

In 1916 the Harlem Lafayette Players performed Othello with an all-black cast to commemorate Shakespeare‘s death. In 1930, Paul Robeson assumed Aldridge’s mantle by playing Othello in London.  Amanda Aldridge, Ira’s daughter was in attendance, and gave Robeson the gold earrings her father had worn as Othello.

Paul Robeson played Othello on Broadway in 1943 with huge success.  However, segregation stopped him performing in the South.  Robeson recognized that Shakespeare foreshadowed and understood future challenges of black people in racist environments, and that Othello conferred dignity on black people – see link at:

Charles Mathews and Thomas Rice’s blackface “entertainment” degraded black people, while Trudeau’s actions have embarrassed only himself.   This shows progress in the struggle against racism and “otherism” that is blind to individuality and personal dignity, and sees only the delusion of group type.  It also shows Shakespeare’s prescience, and highlights the sense that he is always ahead of us, preparing us to grapple with future challenges we may only be dimly aware of.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The evolving Treaty of Waitangi discourse and its wider benefits

The Hobson’s Pledge group argues that the Treaty of Waitangi is an equal rights, colour-blind and unifying document.  Governor Hobson greeted each chief signing it with the pledge:  He Iwi Tahi Tatau, “We are now one people”.

It is true that the Treaty itself does not create superior rights for Māori.  However, statute law that Parliament enacts can create additional rights such as Māori-specific educational or health entitlements.  Such laws come from democratically-elected Parliaments, not from the Treaty.

The Treaty of Waitangi was drafted in English, and the missionary Henry Williams translated it into Māori. When chiefs debated it, Williams clarified various points. He told Māori that they would be “one people with the English, in the suppression of wars, and of every lawless act; under one Sovereign, and one Law, human and divine”.  The “divine” was left out of the text – the Treaty is a secular document.

The Treaty is ahead of its time.  It has also shaped our times, including our evolving constitution and social norms.  Treaty-based advocacy, rather than creating race-based privilege has strengthened New Zealanders’ common law rights.  It has protected against uncompensated regulatory takings. It has fostered cultural inclusiveness and therefore requisite variety through which New Zealanders can engage better with diverse ethnicities and world views.

The Treaty has a preamble and three articles.  The preamble states the need for a central government and rule of law.

Article One transfers sovereignty (kawanatanga) over New Zealand (Nu Tirani) to the Crown.  Treaty discourse sometimes asserts an equal Crown-Māori partnership.  Queen Victoria did not enter into equal partnerships with the British aristocracy, let alone with remote tribes!  There was never an exclusive equal Treaty partnership between the Crown and Māori.

The Treaty gave Māori equal rights with Pakeha from 1840, except for Treaty restrictions on Māori land sales set out in Article Two.  After 1840, other provisions for Māori were created through statute law, not through the Treaty.

Since 1840, New Zealand’s constitution and polity has democratized and decentralized power.  Crown (or rather Parliamentary) powers are now controlled by elected lawmakers.  Rather than having an equal partnership with voters, elected lawmakers are subordinate to them because voters of all ethnicities can hire and fire them every three years.

Article Two transfers Magna Carta and English common law property rights to Māori.  These tino rangitaranga rights over land and other properties (taonga) were given explicitly to individuals and whanau as well as chiefs and tribes.

Some words used in the Treaty have changed in meaning since the early 19th century.  Hongi Hika used “taonga” to refer to tangible “property procured by the spear.” However, taonga can now include cultural “properties” such as language.

Treaty-related discourse has supported statutory recognition of, and funding for Te Reo.  Māori language is now part of New Zealand identity. Pakeha use Māori terms such as arohanui and kia kaha to express feelings ineffable in English.

Te Reo revival has indirectly fostered the case for teaching Asian and other languages.  This has helped build respect for other cultures.  Māori cultural assertions have led to new educational models such as Kohanga Reo and Wananga.  Other cultural assertions led to faith-based (Catholic) or pedagogy-based (Rudolf Steiner) schools.  The common principle in such cultural assertions is the need for self-expression in an inclusive society.

Article One establishes Crown sovereignty and statute lawmaking powers, while Article Two protects common law property rights at the individual, family and tribal levels.  A critical principle is that where there is a conflict between a statute and common law then statute law prevails.  However, in such cases due process must be followed and compensation may be paid for regulatory takings.

The Bastion Point dispute in the 1970s saw Māori exercise their common law rights.  The seabed and foreshore issue from 2003 saw Māori exercise Article Two common law claims and Parliament exercising its statute law powers to moderate these claims to protect perceived public interests.

The only part of the Treaty that reduces Māori rights compared to other New Zealanders’ is the Article Two provision giving the Crown the right to buy Māori land as a monopolistic purchaser.  This right reduced the prices that Māori might have realized from land sales.  This Crown pre-emption clause is the only part of the Treaty which is now outdated.  However, it was justified in the 1840 context where there was widespread fraud, and confusion over who owned what and who had rights to trade in land.

Article Three confers on Māori the rights and privileges of Crown subjects, and extends to them the Crown’s protection. In the Raglan golf course case in the 1970s, the Crown had taken over Māori land for an airbase in World War Two.  It was justified in doing so, given the existential threat that New Zealand faced at that time.  Article Three commits the Crown to defending Māori (and other New Zealanders) from external threats.  However, with the end of the War the Crown failed to return the land, and therefore breached Article Two common law rights.  The land was returned.

The Treaty of Waitangi is, together with the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 a founding document for New Zealand as a British colony.  In 1907 New Zealand ceased to be a colony and became a Dominion with more self-governing status within the Empire.

New Zealand acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1969. The New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 saw Parliamentary sovereignty established, and the Crown reduced to a procedural and symbolic role.  However, the Treaty has influenced how Parliamentary sovereignty has been exercised through, for example, the Māori seats.

When Māori assert Treaty rights they often act indirectly for all New Zealanders.  Since the Treaty is an equal rights document, any right upheld or created through Treaty litigation can create a common law right that is extended to all.  This explains why Pakeha farming and fishing interests have typically supported Māori rights.  In future, Treaty-related common law arguments will help us to navigate tension between rights to farm and the state assigning social licences to farm.

Māori have often led in environmental protection, most notably for water quality.  An example was in 1981 when the New Zealand Synthetic Fuels Corporation (Syngas) was given permission to build a marine outfall for its Motonui plant.  At this time sewerage, meat works and industrial waste was being discharged into waters near Waitara.  This was culturally offensive to Māori and threatened their fisheries.  Local Pakeha also disliked it.

Te Atiawa challenged Syngas, and as a result new treatment plant was built to reduce pollution.  This case led to wider water quality protection benefiting all.

Treaty arguments have also protected historical and amenity values.  In 2002, Ngāi Tāmanuhiri challenged the sale to an oversea buyer of Te Kurī a Pāoa (Young Nick’s Head).  They highlighted the site’s historic value to themselves and to Pakeha.  After negotiations with the new owner, the headland became an historic reserve and public access was retained.

Māori are increasingly leading on New Zealand’s sustainability and climate change challenges.  Tuhoe are working with Opus on a tree resin alternative to petroleum-based asphalt road sealing in their rohe.  Inalienable Māori land that cannot be sold forces owners to manage inter-generationally for sustainable returns rather than one-off capital gains.  The iwi-owned Parengarenga Incorporation in the Far North is experimenting with biochar to improve soil sustainability and carbon sequestration, while delivering productivity benefits.  The iwi is on an inter-generational journey with its whenua.

In recent times, conferring rights on rivers and other ecosystems reflects human indivisibility with nature.  This way of viewing the environment is consistent with modernist and mainstream international science and philosophy.

An equal rights constitution does not of itself deliver equity in social outcomes.  The Treaty and other constitutional documents may not be the right framework within which equity can be addressed.  However, the social cohesion spirit that can be inferred from a “one people” Treaty narrative sits uncomfortably with inequality of opportunity in New Zealand.

Treaty of Waitangi settlements have so far focused on iwi or hapu on the assumption that these collectives will act for all their members.  What is lost sight of is that individuals are specifically mentioned in Treaty Article Two, yet Treaty settlements have not been made to individuals.  In a future post, this issue will be discussed.

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,
as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page.
You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is matauranga Māori?

“The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself the enemy of all he reads, and…attack it from every side”

Ibn al-Hatham (Alhazen), Islamic mathematician, physicist and polymath 965-1040

A communication principle is that language should have exact and unambiguous meaning.  “Matauranga” means “knowledge, skills or wisdom”.  “Matauranga Māori” implies knowledge, skills or wisdom that Māori hold uniquely, or at least have special interests in.

Some argue that matauranga Māori includes a knowledge creation method that is distinct from “western science”.  However, much science has its origins in Asia and the Middle East, not “the West”.  For example, Ibn al-Hatham who was born in Basra and lived in the 10th century was a mathematician, physicist and polymath of Newton’s calibre.  The science now undertaken in Chinese and Japanese universities is methodologically akin to that in the US and Britain. That is, modernist science is not culturally or geographically distinctive.

Knowledge should not be confused with customary traditions or beliefs.  Knowledge can be derived and transferred in culturally-distinctive ways.  However, it must be falsifiable through international peer review and replication before it can be validated as “truth” rather than as belief, custom or assertion.

Modernist mainstream science includes cultural learning through observation and trial and error improvements, and is transmitted through intergenerational cultural pathways.  For example, ethnobotany is common practice across all cultures. It has underpinned plant breeding and drug discoveries over thousands of years.  It is validated through modern scientific methods.

Matauranga Māori as it relates to the natural world seems to have three main principles that concur with modernist science:

Humans are part of nature and subject to it


We must be humble – no “O what a piece of work is man”.  If we mistreat nature through biodiversity loss and carbon emissions there will be consequences…

Knowledge builds from and through past foundations

Intellectual whakapapa and ethnobotany echo Newton “standing on the shoulders of giants”, and Darwinian evolution.  We respect our blood as well as our intellectual ancestors.  What they achieved provides foundations for new learning.

Deep scientific understanding is multi-disciplinary

Deep understanding such as of ecology, wellbeing economics and climate change is multi-disciplinary, cross-cutting, interwoven and integrated.  It is not contained within narrow specialised silos.

Science is a universal and public activity that transcends cultures.  Culturalism – the idea that individuals are determined by and cannot leave their own closed and exclusive culture – impedes the learning flows that are essential for scientific advances.

There is no such thing as “Māori science”, “Jewish science” or “Western science”.  Scientific knowledge is only “truthful” when it is validated empirically and through replication across cultures.

So let’s celebrate “matauranga Māori” through more of our brightest Māori and other New Zealanders committing to “modernist science” of a form that translates as “matauranga Māori” – and which also translates into every other language, while still having the same exact and unambiguous meaning…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Submission on Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Bill


Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this legislation.

My submission is in three parts:

  • a comment on the climate change strategy New Zealand should pursue
  • the case for negative emissions technologies (NETs)
  • specific amendments suggested to the draft legislation

Overall New Zealand climate change strategy

New Zealand has among the world’s highest per capita endowments of renewable energy.  This includes geothermal and hydro where we are exploiting most of our potential large-scale capacity.  We could develop much more small-scale hydro and geothermal heat pump capacity.  We can develop much more wind and solar power.  Intermittency issues can be solved with clever use of existing technology.

We can improve home and building insulation and energy efficiency.  Bioenergy and electrical energy can replace most fossil fuels in industrial processes. The benefits are economic as well as environmental.  For example mass adoption of electric vehicles would save New Zealand billions of dollars a year in imported oil, as well as reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality.

Both distributed electricity generation and pyrolytic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS) are diffuse rather than centralised technologies, which will benefit regional New Zealand.  Distribution energy production needs regulatory facilitation. For example, the Commerce Commission could be more active in using 54Q of Part 4 of the Commerce Act to foster sustainable electricity production and efficiency and distributed generation systems.  Feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity generation led to massive uptake of these technologies overseas, for example in Germany.

Current climate change policy thinking puts too much emphasis on ruminant methane.  Key New Zealand industries such as dairying can flourish sustainably if we use pasture management changes and biochar to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and lift permanent soil carbon sequestration.  While it has a higher short-term warming effect than carbon dioxide, methane is a flow issue more so than a stock issue because of its short life.  Therefore reducing ruminant methane emissions is less important than reducing nitrous oxide and net carbon dioxide emissions.

The case for negative emissions technologies (NETs)

The IPCC notes that even massive reductions in carbon emissions will be inadequate to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.  Large-scale atmospheric carbon dioxide removal is therefore needed to prevent overshooting the 1.5°C temperature threshold.

The options for negative emissions technologies (NET) are limited and in most cases are costly and generate no economic benefits.   Enhanced Weathering and Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage (DACCS) are unproven, capital and energy intensive and deliver no wider productivity benefits.  DACCS also creates risks in secure storage of carbon dioxide.

Planting trees sequesters carbon, but only while the trees are growing.  While commercial softwood forest carbon sequestration curves flatten out in around 30 years, lowland native forests keep sequestering carbon over longer time-periods.  When carbon in tree roots and forest soils are included, mature kauri forests have the world’s second highest per hectare carbon storage in the world – behind only Eucalyptus regnans with acacia under-storey.


However, if forests are permanent they deliver no economic benefits from harvest.   If trees are harvested, some carbon is sequestered in long-life wood products such as housing, however most is lost.  Furthermore, forests are vulnerable to climate-induced risk such as drought, fire and disease.


Soils contain more carbon than both terrestrial plants and the atmosphere combined.  However, biological processes break down biomass and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Different agronomic and pasture management techniques can sequester more soil carbon, however these quickly reach limits.  Most soil carbon turns over within a few weeks or months and is released in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.  Biochar differs because it is a stable carbon form retained in the soil permanently.  It also delivers productivity and environmental benefits.


The October 2018 IPCC special report highlighted Pyrolytic Carbon Capture and Storage (PyCCS), that is biochar, as a promising negative emission technology (NET).  PyCCS can therefore be a core NET, and it can also create economic value.


Pyrolysis can convert forestry, agricultural, horticultural, vineyard, municipal and other waste into something valuable.  Biochar reduces nutrient loss, improves nutrient recycling, increases soil life and enhances soil productivity.   It reduces nitrous oxide emissions and reduces nitrate pollution in water.  It enhances compost’s effectiveness. It purifies waste water.  It remediates contaminated soils.  It can be used as an animal feed additive for animal health issues and to reduce methane emissions. Above all, biochar can store carbon in the long-term, mitigating global warming.

Biochar is a “cascading use” technology.  As a specific example, making biochar produces energy that can be used in industrial processes.  The biochar can then be used to filter nutrients out of waste water.  The nutrient-enriched biochar is then added to soil, lifting productivity.  The final cascading use for this biochar is as a long-term carbon store in soil.

Biochar offers particular opportunities for the dairy industry.  It can reduce nitrous oxide and in some cases methane emissions and reduce nitrate damage to waterways.  Biochar can convert nutrients that would otherwise be lost into productivity gains.  It also has animal health benefits.  After achieving such benefits it then ends up as a permanent soil carbon store which can be offset against other GHG emissions including methane.

PyCCS will take off and have productivity and well as a carbon storage benefits in New Zealand when two conditions are met.  Firstly, a financial value must be placed on long-term biochar carbon sequestration in soil.  Secondly, a quality assurance certification system must be put in place. This will certify how particular biochars are made and from what biomass, and verify biochar properties as they relate to specific uses.  This could be based on the European Biochar Certificate, on an Australia system that is being established, or could be designed specifically for New Zealand’s circumstances.

When these conditions are in place they will stimulate and give direction to the research and innovation to apply biochar widely to our productivity, climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability strategies.  Early success will breed more success, and as scale is achieved biochar costs will drop dramatically allowing wider application. Combined Heat and Biochar (CHB) systems are well demonstrated overseas and reaching commercial maturity, thus demonstrating one pathway to lower production costs.


Specific amendments

It is suggested that offshore mitigation should be removed as an option and the draft legislation amended accordingly.  It is too difficult to avoid corruption and negative unintended consequences from offshore mitigation.  Verification is insurmountably difficult for some emissions mitigation technologies and claims.  Institutional integrity is lacking in some jurisdictions and in some industries.

Furthermore, offshore mitigation reduces pressure on New Zealand industries to transform their productive processes and make them sustainable.

To build visibility of and create opportunities for negative emissions technologies such as pyrolysis carbon capture and storage the following specific wording additions (in italics) are recommended:

Section 4 amended (Interpretation)

Net emissions means gross emissions combined with emissions and removals from land use, including long-term soil carbon including biochar sequestration, land use change, and the forestry sector

Part 1A

5B Purposes of Commission

  • (including through reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and storing carbon long-term in soil and other terrestrial environments)

5S net budget emissions means gross emissions, offset by removals including long-term carbon storage in soil and other terrestrial environments



(d) …removals including carbon storage in soils and other terrestrial environments..



(b) measured removals, including long-term carbon sequestration in soil an other terrestrial environments

Supporting links

In support of this submission the links below are to two posts on pyrolysis carbon capture and storage (7 June 2019), climate change strategy (4 January 2019) and a paper on biochar and bioenergy production (2007).


Peter Winsley


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments