Download WECHAR_talking_points

Concerns over the proposed WECHAR Act (Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration
Act)
Climate impacts of biochar:
Biochar is mainly black carbon and if small particles become airborne, they would act like black soot and
thus cause more warming – a molecule of soot causes hundreds of times as much warming as a molecule of
carbon dioxide.

Removing large amounts of biomass is far from carbon neutral, as the EPA has acknowledged.
Proposals in the WECHAR Act would see federal loan guarantees for large-scale vegetation removal
from public lands, with no assessment of the amounts carbon which will be released in this process and
which could be substantial.

There is evidence that adding charcoal to soils can cause microbes to turn existing carbon in soil into
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Furthermore, nobody knows how much carbon in biochar will stay in
soils for how long. A recent Canadian study showed no extra carbon two years after biochar was
applied.
Soil impacts:

Biochar, except for the small amount of ash is fresh biochar, is not a fertiliser and impacts on plant
growth vary. In a recent US study, five out of eight different applications resulted in stunted crop growth.
A spokesperson for a leading biochar research project in Australia, CSIRO, has warned farmers against
using biochar without several more years of research.

The impacts of vegetation removal under the WECHAR Act on soil compaction and erosion could be
substantial, particularly since mechanical removal would have to be used. In the case of salt cedars,
roots as deep as ten metre would need to be pulled out to prevent regrowth, which poses a serious threat
to soils.
Impacts on ecology and water:

The WECHAR Act foresees the removal of any plants classed as ‘excess biomass’, which opens the door
to large-scale, destructive logging on public lands, including in National Parks.

The Bill proposes the removal of salt cedars (tamarisks) for biochar production in the Mojave Desert.
This is contrary to current scientific knowledge which shows that salt cedars have a far lower water
requirement than previously thought, that removing it does not restore the natural hydrology and that
mechanical removal of salt cedars in particular can have serious negative impacts on soils and future
vegetation.

There is no evidence that other proposed vegetation removal will save water and improve natural
hydrology either.

The Bill takes no account of the Endangered Species Act even though endangered species depend on salt
cedars in the Mojave Desert and on pinyon-juniper habitats in the Great Basin, which are also to be
removed for biochar production. For example, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher has become reliant
on salt cedars.
Other concerns:

The Act would require federal loan guarantees for an unproven technology. The potential costs to the
Government appear not to have been assessed.

The Act would fund both biochar deployment and biochar research and would thus lead to an imbalance
in soil science, where there is a serious need firstly to independently research what the effects of
charcoal on soils is and how soils are responding to climate change. Soil scientists need to be free to
research a wide range of agricultural techniques in different context.