I entirely agree, but the militant anti-oil etc mob cannot provide a realistic solution either. The likely result of their proposals would be public uprisings and the replacement of moderate governments by totalitarian ones, and goodness knows where that would lead to in environmental terms. My impression is that the deniers currently have little influence except within their own coterie.
The extremists do some good by keeping the climate issue in the public consciousness but weaken their impact by their stupid actions. The denier community is far more insidious. Take a look at the leading lights of Nigel Lawson’s GWPF. They have contacts in government and the civil service. The late Christopher Booker’s book denying MMGW was widely read and was promoted by the right wing press. It opened with a bare faced lie intended to destroy the reputation of `sir John Houghton, first head of the IPCC science panel, formerly CEO of the Met Office and who I knew as my boss with whom I worked closely. An outstanding scientist.
Do you think it will be equally disastrous if we ever get to net negative and the world starts cooling? New ice age and all that?
Although we are approaching the subject from the same angle, it looks as if our lives are subject to a rather different level of exposure to various extremists. Not being part of the weather scene myself, I tend only to see those making the most noise, which currently are the anti-fossil etc brigade (at least as reported in the main media). I regard them as unbalanced and counter-productive but not in the end a major risk. I really haven't seen or heard much of the deniers in recent years, though I have been aware of their baleful influence on US politics. I like to think that the majority of the public and those in office have a reasonable idea of the situation now and that proper progress will be made.
There is no prospect of ever getting to net zero and as Frank says even if we did, the temperature will continue to rise UNLESS we take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We have about as much chance of that happening as getting the government to run a balanced budget.
Tell that to the EU & the Dutch in particular
The trouble is that just leads to increased methane as leaves are dropped etc. which makes the problem 1000 times worse rather than better. Same with the seagrass nonsense, the anaerobic environment where it rots creates methane which is a much worse greenhouse gas. Unfortunately humans, especially those in power, can only concentrate on one problem at a time
All that sounds plausible nut the bottom line is that CO2 is now neatly 50% higher than in the 19th century and higher than at any time in the last million years. See #20.
I would like to think that you are correct but the GWPF is still active and has contacts in high places. The Times, Mail etc are, I believe, not convinced about MMGW and have been actively anti in the past. Know your enemy!
Methane is indeed more prevalent in anaerobic situations but most land is not wetland and therefore aerobic. Increasing foliage which as you say increases the rotting vegetation which increases the carbon in the soils - in other words sequesters carbon, taking it out of the atmospheric part of its cycle. Returning it to the ground from which we had dug it up in the first place.
I’m in no way denying the increases of CO2 or methane, merely the planet is working in strange ways to take advantage of an increased CO2 content in the atmosphere. I would hesitate to link increase in methane owing to increased anaerobic decomposition due to increased plant activity around the world. Since only a very small proportion of the worlds surface is wetland where anaerobic decomposition dominates, I would question if the extra methane produced due to increased foliage is significant. If we are going to link carbon dioxide to human’s exploitation of buried hydrocarbons, would it be more likely that the methane concentration following carbon dioxide has more to do with the methane released as a result of mining and drilling hydrocarbons? We need to do lots of different stuff to sort CC out, if indeed we can and indeed many ideas that appear good and scientifically sound now might turn out to be false as further understanding improves.All that sounds plausible nut the bottom line is that CO2 is now neatly 50% higher than in the 19th century and higher than at any time in the last million years. See #20.
lustyd is correct about methane which tracks CO2
The studies I've read suggest that even rainforests have a net positive contribution of greenhouse gasses. That carbon doesn't stay in the soil, it rots and gets eaten by microbes which turn it into methane and release it - part of the reason there's no new coal being made as microbes evolved to eat the trees. There is way too much assumption in the whole debate and not enough science, or at least not enough science beyond high scool levels of sophistication. Literally everything I've read suggests that growing plants to reduce carbon is a bad idea in the long run, yet our governments have latched on to it because it's an easy win in the short term to "meet targets". Just as with the C word nobody is actually following the science, they're following the money and making up science to back up their business plans.
Reading Gabe Brown’s Dust to Soil indicates a dramatic result of regenerative farming where carbon levels and soil depths have been increased by farming practices. Indeed much of planets soils are as a result of trees and plants. I think coal was formed in farm more dramatic flooding episodes, rapid decomposition and subsequent sedimentation on top. But I think the point we are getting to here is that there are all sorts of systems going on. I very much doubt anything we can do will recreate the coal and oil/gas deposits we have exploited and as you point out, sequestration of carbon in soils and plants might be short term and inefficient. But when you look at what is happening to soils globally, where carbon contents have decreased and of course also contributed to atmospheric carbon levels, perhaps regenerating soils will play a small part in the CC issue. Certainly as far as I have read, synthetic carbon capture is in its infancy and not yet viable on the scale needed
I think that you are forgetting the CO2 and CH4 have long enough lifetimes in the atmosphere so that they are well mixed. The location of the sources is not critical.
That’s a good idea but I have no wish to add to the Mail or the Murdochs’ profits.