That's a good question, but I don't know that I have a good answer.
First, I would define "what is needed" as reducing the level of human impact on the ecosystem to a sustainable level. Implicit in this is that I think our current impact is ecologically unsustainable. Second, I don't think an approach that puts all the emphasis on "carbon" is appropriate. A system that narrowly focuses on canceling the negative effects of CO2 might be a necessary component, but is not sufficient.
I think a real solution requires large scale behavioral change that starts now. I don't trust that any "solution" that involves carrying on more or less as we currently are plus the addition of a small tithe for conservation efforts is workable. If we want progress, we need to actually cut back on on our consumption, rather than offsetting it with good intentions.
I may be overly pessimistic, but my current belief is that it won't be possible to have a sustainable earth with our current levels of population and the current first-world standard of living. Technology might eventually get us there, but not on the timescale we need. Since the world as a whole is unlikely to voluntarily accept such as step backward, I think it's likely that the next 100 years will involve a lot of strife and suffering when the reductions occur involuntarily. While we may not be able to completely avoid this outcome, our goal should be to minimize the trauma and depth of the disaster.
On a more optimistic note, I'd suggest that in the meantime we can support reforestation efforts on their own merits without suggesting that they are also a cure-all for the rest of our ecological ills.
First, I would define "what is needed" as reducing the level of human impact on the ecosystem to a sustainable level. Implicit in this is that I think our current impact is ecologically unsustainable. Second, I don't think an approach that puts all the emphasis on "carbon" is appropriate. A system that narrowly focuses on canceling the negative effects of CO2 might be a necessary component, but is not sufficient.
I think a real solution requires large scale behavioral change that starts now. I don't trust that any "solution" that involves carrying on more or less as we currently are plus the addition of a small tithe for conservation efforts is workable. If we want progress, we need to actually cut back on on our consumption, rather than offsetting it with good intentions.
I may be overly pessimistic, but my current belief is that it won't be possible to have a sustainable earth with our current levels of population and the current first-world standard of living. Technology might eventually get us there, but not on the timescale we need. Since the world as a whole is unlikely to voluntarily accept such as step backward, I think it's likely that the next 100 years will involve a lot of strife and suffering when the reductions occur involuntarily. While we may not be able to completely avoid this outcome, our goal should be to minimize the trauma and depth of the disaster.
On a more optimistic note, I'd suggest that in the meantime we can support reforestation efforts on their own merits without suggesting that they are also a cure-all for the rest of our ecological ills.