The IPCC's fourth assessment FAQ notes that if 100% emission reductions happened in 2007, we would only lose 40 ppm of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100, and slightly more by the year 2200. In other words, the strategies now advocated by most climate activists would maintain what James Hansen calls dangerous levels (above 350 ppm) not just for a few years, but for generations. It's a gallant cavalry charge into the barbed wire.
Soil, even in its presently depleted state, holds more than the atmosphere and vegetation combined. Its ability to hold carbon out of the atmosphere is ten times that of vegetation, if you factor in average residence times of carbon. It is commonly supposed that the rise in atmospheric CO2 after 1850 is entirely due to fossil fuel burning. But that is also when much of the US tallgrass prairies began to be plowed up. Various alternative agriculturalists have discovered pretty fast ways of building soil organic matter (58% carbon), especially for the temperate grasslands. But these management methods don't fit into most of our mental models of solutions for climate change. They don't involve technology, fire, or soil additives, as the biochar or terra preta concept does, or the various technological carbon sequestration ideas. They don't jibe with popular kinds of environmental protectionism. And they did not originate in the centers of institutional power. Taking carbon out of the atmosphere takes energy (it's the reverse of combustion or respiration). Using free solar energy, captured by plants (especially deep-rooted perennial grasses), a fair amount of carbon can be converted into soil organic matter quickly and cheaply, with enormous ancillary benefits such as much improved water cycling. To do this on a large enough scale to change atmospheric concentrations would require transformational change in the way we manage land, and the way we view the processes of life. Policies and incentives would help. If building soil organic matter were the center of gravity of our Farm Bill, and of our public lands policies, we would see enormous change, and it would be along the lines of those changes currently advocated by those concerned with the food quality and nutrition aspects of our farm policy. For further details, see http://soilcarboncoalition.org My question for the group: If this is an opportunity, what are some ways to spread awareness of it, and to create motion? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
