It can hardly be called a new development or a scientific breakthrough; in fact, it’s been around for millennia. Nearly 2000 years ago, farmers in the Amazon basin used it to create terra preta, once regaled by explorers as the most fertile and beautiful of foamy, luscious soil.

Yes, it’s what we now call biochar and it’s been gaining popularity in the scientific community for years. Recently, it was brought back into international spotlight as Britain’s government commissioned a study on biochar’s potential, and the US released a study saying that widespread use of the additive could result in a 12 per cent drop in global greenhouse emissions.

The product is quite simple. It’s a charcoal-like soil additive that consists of cooked biowastes, like wood chips and animal manure. When it’s added to soil, the carbon dioxide released from plants is locked up for thousands of years, instead of being released into our environment. The soil is pitch black as a result of the high concentration of carbon, and is much more fertile.

According to an article in a 2006 issue of Nature, "terra preta contrasts strongly with normal soil and in colour and produces much more vigorous crops."

If further studies come back with positive results, the only thing left to determine would be whether creating terra preta would release more emissions than would be saved by its use. Many scientists argue that exact point, outlined in a letter sent last year by environmental groups to various policy makers. Of course, that would make biochar more of a problem than a solution.

However, according to the same 2006 Nature article, "a hectare of metre-deep terra preta can contain 250 tonnes of carbon, as opposed to 100 tonnes in unimproved soils…The extra carbon is not just in the char — it’s also in the organic carbon and enhanced bacterial biomass that the char sustains." The scientist who conducted these trials, Bruno Glaser, as well as his colleagues in the industry, feel that carbon-friendly ways of production can and should be discovered, so the world can reap biochar’s potential.

Many scientists remain skeptical, but if the products ends up being all it’s expected to be, it will decrease the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and help produce crops in soils that were previously polluted and lacking proper nutrients.

If biochar’s use can somehow be implemented in farms in our world’s more under-developed areas, it could prove to be a literal live saver. In the same Nature article, the author cites the remarkable results of a biochar vs. regular soil trial.

"Bruno Glaser…estimates that productivity of crops in terra preta is twice that of crops grown in nearby soils."

Further studies will determine whether biochar can be produced in low-emission methods. If it can, the result would be a simple, natural product that can potentially reduce emissions and increase food production in the forgotten and ignored corners of our world.

Two of today’s biggest social, moral and political issues — global warming and hunger — could be partially reversed because of innovations by Amazon tribes thousands of years ago.

For more information, go to http://biocharfund.org/

This article was also published at http://hunger-undernutrition.org.

Dear EarthTalk: My New Year’s Resolution is to reduce my "carbon footprint" to help fight global warming. Do you have suggestions for ways I can make good on my promise? – Carrie, via e-mail

There’s never been a more urgent time to reduce your carbon footprint. With the U.S. government still opting out of mandatory emissions cuts, it’s up to every individual, business owner and city or state government to take steps. So here are 10 ways to get you started in the new year:

(1) Step-up Recycling and Composting. Recycling prevents carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by saving the energy it takes to make products from new materials and by saving the energy it takes to incinerate or landfill what we discard. And composting food scraps turns organic material back into fertile soil, which itself is an efficient carbon "sink." To get started, see: www.earth911.org and www.howtocompost.org.

(2) Stay close or stay put: About half the CO2 we generate comes from our car trips, so walk, bike or take mass transit instead. Air travel also produces huge amounts of CO2, so the less you fly, the smaller your carbon footprint. See: www.culturechange.org.

(3) Eat organic and local: Stick to foods produced organically and you prevent harmful pesticides and fertilizers from polluting air, waterways, soils and family members. And if the food is grown nearby, thousands of pounds of CO2 weren’t emitted getting it to your grocery store. See: www.100milediet.org.

(4) Buy green power. Your power company might just source part of its supply from renewable sources like hydro-electric or wind, and will sell it to customers who know to ask for it. See: www.green-e.org.

(5) Change out your lightbulbs. A compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) uses less than a third of the energy of an incandescent bulb to produce the same amount of light—and it lasts 10 times longer. And some CFLs now have 3-way capabilities and can be dimmed. Visit Energy Federation, Inc. at: www.efi.org.

(6) Upgrade and unplug: Upgrading any appliances (including computers and TVs)? Be sure to look for the "Energy Star" logo, which only energy efficient models can wear. Also, turn off appliances when not in use to prevent wasting so-called phantom energy coming in off the grid. See: www.energystar.gov.

(7) Adjust your thermostats: If you don’t need a sweater indoors, your heat is too high. Likewise, in hot weather turn down the AC. Also, keeping your hot water at no more than 120 degrees—the minimum temperature to keep the water bacteria-free—is another way to save energy, money and the environment.

(8) Plant a tree…or 300! An average tree stores 13 pounds of carbon per year; a mature tree can absorb upwards of four times that amount. Just 300 trees can counterbalance the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that one person produces in a lifetime. So get to work! See: www.americanforests.org/planttrees.

(9) Buy offsets: Many organizations sell "carbon offsets," whereby you pay a voluntary fee to offset your daily CO2 emissions. The money usually goes to develop alternative, renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar. See: www.climatetrust.org, www.nativeenergy.com and www.my-climate.com.

(10) Get involved: Donate time or money to groups working to fight global warming. Just about all green groups devote some work to climate change, and they need your help. See: www.volunteermatch.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I can’t understand why it is not mandatory to recycle in the U.S. In my home we recycle 80 percent and toss 20 percent and I am trying to improve those percentages. What needs to happen to make recycling the law of the land? – Vicki, Geneva, NY

Mandatory recycling is a hard sell in the U.S., where the economy runs largely along free market lines and landfilling waste remains inexpensive and efficient. When the research firm Franklin Associates examined the issue a decade ago, it found that the value of the materials recovered from curbside recycling was far less than the extra costs of collection, transportation, sorting and processing incurred by municipalities.

Plain and simple, recycling still costs more than landfilling in most locales. This fact, coupled with the revelation that the so-called "landfill crisis" of the mid-1990s may have been overblown—most of our landfills still have considerable capacity and do not pose health hazards to surrounding communities—means that recycling has not caught on the way some environmentalists were hoping it would.

However, many cities have found ways to recycle economically. They have cut costs by scaling back the frequency of curbside pickups and automating sorting and processing. They’ve also found larger, more lucrative markets for the recyclables, such as in developing countries eager to reuse our cast-off items. Increased efforts by green groups to educate the public about the benefits of recycling have also helped. Today, dozens of U.S. cities are diverting upwards of 30 percent of their solid waste streams to recycling.

While recycling remains an option for most Americans, a few cities, such as Pittsburgh, San Diego and Seattle, have made recycling mandatory. Seattle passed its mandatory recycling law in 2006 as a way to counter declining recycling rates there. Recyclables are now prohibited from both residential and business garbage. Businesses must sort for recycling all paper, cardboard and yard waste. Households must recycle all basic recyclables, such as paper, cardboard, aluminum, glass and plastic. Businesses with garbage containers "contaminated" with more than 10 recyclables are issued warnings and eventually fines if they don’t comply. Household garbage cans with recyclables in them are simply not collected until the recyclables are removed to the recycling bin. Meanwhile, a handful of other cities, including Gainesville, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii, require businesses to recycle, but not yet residences.

In perhaps the most famous case of a city putting recycling to the economic test, New York, a national leader on recycling, decided to stop its least cost-effective recycling programs (plastic and glass) in 2002. But rising landfill costs ate up the $39 million savings expected. As a result, the city reinstated plastic and glass recycling and committed to a 20-year contract with the country’s largest private recycling firm, Hugo Neu Corporation, which built a state-of-the art facility along South Brooklyn’s waterfront. There, automation has streamlined the sorting process, and its easy access to rail and barges has cut both the environmental and transportation costs previously incurred by previously using trucks. The new deal and new facility have made recycling much more efficient for the city and its residents, proving once and for all that responsibly run recycling programs can actually save money, landfill space and the environment.

CONTACTS: Franklin Associates, www.fal.com; Recycling in Seattle, www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Recycling; Hugo Neu Corporation, www.hugoneu.com

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.