It should be pointed out also that the strategy of carbon dioxide emission reduction, by itself, has very little influence on atmospheric CO2. The IPCC fourth assessment FAQ says:

"Complete elimination of CO2 emissions is estimated to lead to a slow decrease in atmospheric CO2 of about 40 ppm over the 21st century." In 200 years, we would only be back to about 1975 CO2 levels, because carbon dioxide lasts indefinitely in the atmosphere. In other words, going cold turkey on fossil fuels, or going carbon neutral, is hardly going to make any difference.

Trees won't do it. Soil carbon can. It's a great opportunity because it will require a positive transformation of agriculture, and has enormous water benefits besides.

Hello
On the following page:

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0221-soil_carbon_lovell_interview.html

you state:
"It appears that the pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280ppm, and that globally we are now at 455ppm, and heading towards 550ppm."

It's my understanding that the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 383 ppm in 2007, 37% above the concentration at the start of the industrial revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750).

The One Hundred Months technical report produced by the New Economics Foundation - http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sbfxot55p5k3kd454n14zvyy01082008141045.pdf

States:

"Our analysis shows that, assuming that other anthropogenic driven radiative forcings remain constant
and the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions (due to economic growth and increasing carbon
intensity of the economy) remains stable – by the end of December 2016 we will exceed an
atmospheric CO2e concentration of 400ppmv."

(This is CO2 equivalent not just CO2).

This will probably mean a 2 degree centigrade temperature rise. We can not go any higher than that.

Your endeavour must succeed!!!

Dear Craig, you are right -- the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is in the 383-387 range. I will amend Lovell's remarks -- my apologies for not catching it while reviewing the interview.

Are you familiar with P.A. Yeomans work on keyline systems in Australia? Yeomans' work developed in the 40's 50's and early 60's is what we now call Carbon Farming. His original farm is now under threat from housing development. Please watch and support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lI-znogTk

Yes, soil holds carbon, and yes, we need to sequester more of it by treating the soil naturally but the last thing we need is further commodification of the planet's natural processes and the creation of more life-wrecking markets.

CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW!

Permaculture has been advocating a holistic approach that includes shifting to renewables that are carbon free or neutral, lifestyle changes and designs that lower energy thru put and produce real energy yields and yes, plants are the key to carbon sequestration and restoration of planetary health, stability and true productivity. The devil is indeed in the details and I encourage all to look at permaculture as a design system to ensure that this is done the right way. I also can't believe at this late stage this message isn't getting out in the mass media.In the end plants must sequester the carbon and maintain a stable carbon cycle-period.

Hi wonder " How much Carbon can be stored in 1m2/one Hectare of Rainforest"?
Is this possible?
If anybody have any idea please post your opinion here in this site or email me
Raj
gorkha_raj@yahoo.co.uk

I think the 100 Months Report has made an unfortunate error in calling a CO2 (currently ~380 ppm) a CO2e (currently ~420 ppm depending who you read)....

So you can't say that CO2e will get over 400 ppm by 2016 (yeah maybe if they're referring to CO2)..... but the original article was also unclear in the comparison of a historical CO2 to a current CO2e.... :)

CO2e (equivalents) converts all the other GHGs into equivalent radiative forcing (warming potential) as CO2..... meaning that the current ~420 ppm CO2e number includes the methane, nitrous oxide etc

It then follows that the current ~380 ppm of CO2 is also correct (but only counts the actual CO2).

So both are wrong - and also right!

So did I miss something?