I have nothing against putting carbon back into the soil, where (in the form of organic matter) it is beneficial.
The problem is how to achieve that economically and at a sufficient rate.
Unfortunately it seems as if the natural carbon sinks are being overwhelmed, and I haven't seen enough to convince me that the carbon-sinking efficiency of any farming technique is adequate - or indeed whether it would be more area-efficient than some of the natural processes it would be competing against (farmland would have been forest, grassland or some other environment before being converted - this is especially true in the rainforest regions that are being deforested to make way for extensive farming)
OK A couple things. Right off the top you can empty the CAFO's and put the animals back on the land. That restores grassland. That also reduces the need for the majority of grain production (except rice). Right there alone by itself you turn an annual net increase of carbon into a net decrease. Various forms of MIRG out produce CAFO in terms of meat and other animal products produced per acre too, while restoring vast acreages to functioning carbon sinks.
But lets not stop there. That might not be fast enough. System of Rice Intensification is an organic or mostly organic method that actually outproduces even the best conventional rice production while adding significant organic material to the soil. (instead of depleting it)
BUT hey, even that might be enough all by itself. Sure it reduces total carbon in the atmosphere, but maybe levels wont drop fast enough. Let's not stop there. Lets be triple sure. There are after all still vast acreages in wheat, corn and other grains that are not fed to animals. We humans eat some too. Not as much as animals in CAFO's, but we like our bread too. So lets look at that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjI2zWf4uMI
Gee, you don't even have to be organic. Just incorporate organic techniques and poof, just like magic even conventional ag grain and soy fields turn into carbon sinks too.
But hey, maybe you want to be quadruple sure. What about biofuels? Disregarding the fact that biofuels made from grain are a huge waste of energy, and sometimes in a bad crop year don't even return as much energy as it costs to produce them, Biofuels made from switchgrass just so happens to produce 5 times the total biomass, sinks carbon in the soil, and uses far less energy to produce, making it a net gain in BOTH reducing FF AND sequestering carbon. And guess what? Cows just happen to be the keystone species of animal that makes switchgrass thrive. Those same cows that are now taken out of the CAFO's above. What a coincidence.
But hey, maybe you want to be quintriple sure. After all there are bound to be some non compliant farmers or countries somewhere. Got to make up for them too. No problem. We increased livestock production per acre, we increased rice production per acre, we turned conventional grain farms into carbon sinks without reducing productivity and reduced demand for conventional grains. That leaves a ton of land free to be reforested without reducing food production the least tiny bit. And what does reforesting do? You guessed it. Forests sequester carbon too. And just in case someone might complain about loss of food. Permaculture has a model called food forests that sequester carbon and improve the environment while at the same time producing tons of food per acre. If you know what you are doing, you can put them even in the deserts of Jordan, the barren lands of Ethiopia, all over the place. Deforested wet places like the rain forests are a piece of cake for starting permaculture food forests.
All of those solutions I mentioned actually improve the productivity of the land and produce income instead of costing multi mega gazzillions. Most even reduce FF use at the same time they sequester carbon.
All that is needed is for people to say enough is enough, quit squabbling over minutia like sunspot activity etc.. and just do it.
And let's say you are still a skeptic and think it still won't be fast enough. OK then that's when we are forced to implement the expensive multi mega gazzillion dollar high tech studies and projects. But maybe since a huge amount of carbon is already being sinked in up to 4,908 Mha of agricultural land, it won't cost quite so much?
Hey?
Ever calculate how much even a 1% increase in carbon in one ha of soil amounts to? Do the Math yourself. You'll be stunned. Now multiple that by 4,908 Mha.
and realize 5% is a very conservative AVERAGE of what can be done.
And 4,908 Mha doesn't include currently barren land that can be restored.
