Peter Wood — Yes, but not for a very, very long time. See David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” or some of his papers on the website.

If we were to end all emissions overnight, then it has been predicted that we will eventually return to 300ppm CO2. So activities that actively sequester carbon are not necessarily needed, but are almost certainly going to be needed in any practical solution.

I don’t think I mis-state what you write exactly. It’s more that I disagree some of your basic premises and because of that I disagree with many of your themes and conclusions. I see you as what is generally labelled a “technofixer” – i.e. that all our CO2 emission problems can be fixed by somehow nudging the market towards low-carbon technologies. I just fundamentally disagree with this starting point. There is no real reason to suppose that technologies such as CSP, PHEV’s and the like will actually cause the world as a whole to turn its back on coal, oil and gas and I firmly believe that we will continue to consume these resources until they are exhausted (even if we do some ‘green’ things in parallel).

I would find your blog more interesting and relevant if you spent more time discussing the global political issues. What are your views on contraction and convergence? How do we get poor developing countries to not follow us down the high-carbon road? How do we stop deforestation? How do we achieve the overriding goal of leaving most of the remaining coal, oil sands, heavy oil, etc. in the ground?

Is your ‘grand vision’ to develop some nifty US green technology and export it to the world, thus simultaneously fixing climate change and the US economy? If so I really need to go somewhere else.

[JR: You might try reading some of my blog or the links I give to my explanation of the "solution." The lines above that I have italicized seem to be in conflict. The only possible way of getting the world to leave most of the coal oil sands etc. in the ground, is plausible substitutes, which are of course technologies -- hence the techno-fix. Indeed, if we didn't have alternative energy technologies that delivered the same energy services with 90% lower emissions, the only other solution would be to voluntarily use 90% less energy, a solution don't think you are proposing.

Frankly, your criticism above is quite muddled, as you'll see if you read it again. This blog certainly isn't for everybody, but readership doubled this year, so I will take that as a good sign I'm on the right track.]

Nowhere on that entire website are the steps discussed that get us to 350. It only talks about some wind, solar etc… all the stuff that never gets us to 350 (logically so, because these are carbon-neutral technologies).

In order to get to 350, Hansen is clear – we need:

-reforestation
-biochar
-biomass coupled to CCS

Nothing else.

So a website devoted to 350ppm should only talk about these three. Else, it’s just another 450-is-ok website.

Perhaps the guys behind 350 should know that we are currently at 387ppm. That is: we need to scratch CO2 out of the atmosphere. You don’t do that with carbon-neutral technology. You do that with trees (and their conversion).

So 350 should be all about biomass. About nothing else.

And Gore too.

Joe, why am I on moderation? Is everyone on moderation or just people with opinions?

[JR: Very few people end up on moderation -- maybe 1 in 50. I previously explained to you why you are on moderation. There are three things that will get someone on moderation: repeated use of ad hominems, repeated pushing of long-debunked denier talking points, and misstating what I just wrote (and then attacking the misstatement). You did the latter, more than once. Anyway, virtually all of your posts get through quickly, but just keep in mind that sometimes I don't check comments after dinner and you are at a different time zone, so it is possible you might not get posted for 12 hours, and if there were a lot of comments in between, then I might accidentally, just once, miss your comment entirely.]

Bush and the US make an easy climate change target for we foreigners but in reality there is not much positive action going on anywhere. If Obama can kick start some real action on CO2 emissions then fantastic. I’m not holding my breath.

Are you not aware that we’re stuck with this pos for a few more weeks and that we massively voted in a major change of direction?

Watch what happens when our new guys take over.

Hope you folks there in Old Europe can keep up…. ;o)

I see that the message I posted some 30 hours ago is still marked for moderation. This means that I can see it but no-one else.

Why?

If you continue to pre-mod my comments then there is no point in me posting them, as they will not appear until long after the thread has been buried by new ones. I could understand you censuring my comments if I was a “denier” but that is absolutley not the case. I am however highly critical of US politics which seems to be designed to provide the US with a permanent excuse for inaction. Is that why you censure me?

It’s not much of a blog if you only allow people to comment if they agree with you, your party, your sponsors and your country.

[JR: You are on moderation. Sometimes I miss one. No conspiracy.]

Best.

D