I recall seeing these posts last fall. At the time I thought it sounded like a good idea, but I didn't know enough about global warming to see how it fit in.
Guess I'll have to check out these links. It seems to be based on the same concepts that I've been pushing on the Climate Change Forum.
"Sustainable productivity is more important than focusing on cutting GHG emissions." -
Below is from a post on the Climate Change Forum, "Peat Bogs to solve Warming?"
It was written a bit tounge in cheek, as obviously one item (bogs) can't solve warming; but the general idea was to manage the vast reservoirs of Carbon on Earth in such a way as to soak up a little extra. That little extra would be more than equivalent to anthropogenically produced amounts.
"Bogs are a good example of earth in general, they both absorb and emit lots of CO2 (and come close to balancing in the long term).
I think it's something like 130 GtC/yr that exchanges on a yearly basis (terrestrial only). Humans emit about 7 GtC/yr. If we could shift that balance (130 Gt exchange) just a couple of percent, we could sequester as much as we produce. Of course that would mean watering our 'lawns' much more than we do now (worldwide). And overall, the earth is drying out. So...I'm not a "Doom & Gloom" kind of guy either, but it's hard not to be....
Maybe grow a backyard bog (or any wetland)....
Which also leads me to ask about the oceans as an HNL (whole 'nother level).
Oceans are maybe larger than 130 GtC/yr. exchange (which also are not healthy, growing absorbers anymore) IMHO.
I still think that both oceans and lands have shifted to be net producers of CO2 overall (due to human activities)." -S. (post#21500)
Thanks,
~Samwik
"...if we are to secure a sustainable world for our grandchildren". -Sir Harry Kroto
Thanks rede, right on!
