A new way to tell the same thing

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L19703, doi:10.1029/2007GL031018, 2007

Received 15 June 2007; accepted 7 September 2007; published 6 October 2007.

Long term climate implications of 2050 emission reduction targets

Andrew J. Weaver
School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Kirsten Zickfeld
School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Alvaro Montenegro
School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Michael Eby
School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Abstract
A coupled atmosphere-ocean-carbon cycle model is used to examine the long term climate implications of various 2050 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. All emission targets considered with less than 60% global reduction by 2050 break the 2.0°C threshold warming this century, a number that some have argued represents an upper bound on manageable climate warming. Even when emissions are stabilized at 90% below present levels at 2050, this 2.0°C threshold is eventually broken. Our results suggest that if a 2.0°C warming is to be avoided, direct CO₂ capture from the air, together with subsequent sequestration, would eventually have to be introduced in addition to sustained 90% global carbon emissions reductions by 2050.

(My italics)

As I said in the blog of 28/10, (why it needs two..) , it is not enough with reductions. More efficient measures need to be done. Only an extreme reduction of the effluents of greenhouse gases plus a strenuous sequestration effort might do the job.

Sequestration is easy, good for the soil, and might be profitable, so why not do it?

A small company, Purity, making kettles for water heating and purification, has taken up the idea: They calculate how much carbon dioxide emissions the making of their product generate and will contract a group of farmers in Ethiopia to make and bury charcoal to improve their soils under the supervision of an independent company. After that, Purity can claim that their products are carbon negative! (Since more carbon is buried than actually is released.)

Something for the big oil companies to take after?

Or buy carbon emission permissions... from a person who actually buried the same amount of carbon as charcoal!