[请点击7页生物碳简介 （中文版） 谢谢]
Here’s the question: If the maximum “safe” level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million, but today’s level is ALREADY 387 ppm, is it “good enough” to simply reduce the rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Simply put, is any policy option limited to a ‘reduction in the rate of increase’ merely a re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Or, as seems logical, must we reverse direction and start REMOVING CO2 from the atmosphere as rapidly as possible? Can we reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by at least 10% fast enough to prevent serious global climate disruption? Can we get back to at least 350 parts per million before it is really too late? Attempting anything less would seem to be akin to voting for a disastrous future.
In 2007, we were already at at CO2 level of 383 ppm. So we have known of this overshoot for at least two years. We have, however, yet to hear any serious talk of changing direction. Nor is there any action to remove CO2 from the atmosphere on a global scale in order to attempt to preserve a semblance of life as we have know it. History shows that overshooting limits and carrying capacities inevitably has dire results: die offs and collapses. Is this what we want for our future?
Is biochar, the subject of this note, one way to reverse direction, make the soils healthier and more productive, as well as make a profit with increased crop yields? A profit driven approach to removing CO2 from the atmosphere seems the most likely to succeed. How would we engineer this on a global scale to achieve the results we desire in the required time frame?
If you are unfamiliar with Biochar / Biocarbon / Terra Preta, you can start learning about it in the Biochar Notes by clicking on the link below:
Another excellent resource on Biochar, Hawai’i Agriculture Notes: Biochar, is maintained by Ben Discoe.
See Elizabeth Kolber’s essay on James Hansen in the June 29th issue of The New Yorker magazine. [This is not a link as a paid subscription is required.]
And Bill McKibben’s article in the Dec. 28th, 2007 Washington Post: