Significant evidence has accumulated demonstrating that soil biochar amendment has many environmental benefits; however, adoption has been slow. This raises the question of how to align the environmental benefits with commercial motivations to drive more widespread implementation. Here, we examine the role that government policy can play in accelerating production and use at commercial scale. We identify three types of programs that can support biochar production: commercial financial incentives, nonfinancial policy support, and research and development funding. We also describe how these programs are currently used to support biochar production. For example, financial incentives can motivate immediate changes in business practices while nonfinancial policies can be important mechanisms to educate consumers and expand market demand. Research and development support can provide the necessary funding for early‐stage innovations that may one day become commercially viable options, even without other types of policy support. There are different risk–reward profiles for each policy mechanism, and these must be considered when evaluating a policy direction. Finally, we offer broad recommendations to the development of policy that maximizes the net benefits of biochar adoption. Key recommendations include improving policies that allow for the monetization of environmental benefits and avoided costs, recognizing soil as a resource through national preservation policy, and developing a broadly accepted set of product standards for biochar.

While a large body of literature exists on the ability of biochar to retain water and nutrients, little research exists connecting these benefits to biochar qualities, water retention mechanisms, and optimal locations for agricultural use. More information is needed for biochar stakeholders to make informed decisions about where deployment should occur. Specifically, we need to know the biochar characteristics that drive changes in soil water properties, how these effects vary geographically, and what financial benefits farmers can expect in their specific region to identify where biochar can be deployed for optimal results. We conducted a meta‐analysis of the relationship between biochar properties, application rates and observed change in water holding capacity (WHC) as a function of soil texture. Then we mapped our results across US counties to determine where biochar application could yield the largest improvements in soil water properties and added an economic model designed to predict how biochar‐driven changes in soil WHC drive irrigation expenses. Limited data drove our focus to sandy soils, and among these locations, our results suggest that biochar application will be especially effective in the southeast, far north and northeast, and western United States. In a prototype application of our model we predict a 37% reduction in irrigated water use for an instrumented site in Nebraska. Our combined statistical and economic models will be useful for future field experiment proposals, farmers purchasing biochar, and decision makers working to incentivize agricultural advances.

Biocomposites can be both environmentally and economically beneficial: during their life cycle they generally use and generate less petroleum-based carbon, and when produced from the byproduct of another industry or recycled back to the manufacturing process, they will bring additional economic benefits through contributing to a circular economy. Here we investigate and compare the environmental performance of a biocomposite composed of a soybean oil-based resin (epoxidized sucrose soyate) and flax-based reinforcement using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. We evaluate the main environmental impacts that are generated during the production of the bio-based resin used in the biocomposite, as well as the biocomposite itself. We compare the life cycle impacts of the proposed biocomposite to a functionally similar petroleum-based resin and flax fiber reinforced composite, to identify tradeoffs between the environmental performance of the two products. We demonstrate that the bio-based resin (epoxidized sucrose soyate) compared to a conventional (bisphenol A-based) resin shows lower negative environmental impacts in most studied categories. When comparing the biocomposite to the fossil fuel derived composite, it is demonstrated that using epoxidized sucrose soyate versus a bisphenol A (BPA)-based epoxy resin can improve the environmental performance of the composite in most categories except eutrophication and ozone layer depletion. For future designs, considering an alternative cross-linker to facilitate the bond between the bio-based resin and the flax fiber, may help improve the overall environmental performance of the biocomposite. An uncertainty analysis was also performed to evaluate the effect of variation in LCA model inputs on the environmental results for both the biocomposite and composite. The findings show a better overall carbon footprint for the biocomposite compared to the BPA-based composite at almost all times, demonstrating a good potential for marketability especially in the presence of incentives or regulations that address reducing the carbon intensity of products. This analysis allowed us to pinpoint hotspots in the biocomposite’s supply chain and recommend future modifications to improve the product’s sustainability.