Ken, best not to look at it as an either or problem. There are ways to increase agricultural sustainability and at the same time store carbon and promote biodiversity.
Sent from my iPhone John Harte On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural intensification and not worrying so much about carbon storage.. For solving the climate problem, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's the energy system, stupid." _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://kencaldeira.com https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected]>, with access to incoming emails. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, David desJardins <[email protected]> wrote: > Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large > even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we > convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. > > But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from > the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those > trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, > than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing > carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. > > On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that >> discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land >> cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes >> for interventions. >> ᐧ >> >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple >>> metrics >>> we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a >>> particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say >>> those >>> optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Roger D. Aines >>> >>> Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader >>> >>> E Programs, Global Security >>> >>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >>> >>> Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 >>> >>> 925 423-7184 >>> 925 998-2915 cell >>> >>> >>> >>> Administrative Contact >>> >>> Michelle Herawi [email protected] >>> >>> 925 423-4964 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, "John Harte" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in >>> >the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of >>> forest >>> >or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody >>> plants >>> >grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living >>> >biomass. >>> > >>> > >>> >John Harte >>> >Professor of Ecosystem Sciences >>> >ERG/ESPM >>> >310 Barrows Hall >>> >University of California >>> >Berkeley, CA 94720 USA >>> >[email protected] >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, "Robert H. Socolow" <[email protected] >>> > >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I >>> >>think that's the argument being made. >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >>> >>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins <[email protected]> >>> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> forest has to be carbon-balanced, it isn't removing net carbon from >>> >>>the atmosphere but essentially all of the carbon taken up by plants >>> >>>eventually gets returned to the atmosphere when those >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >>Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> >>an email to [email protected]. >>> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> > >>> >-- >>> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> >"geoengineering" group. >>> >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an >>> >email to [email protected]. >>> >To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
