You can give out large tracts of land to larger groups of people interested in working together (and getting free land).
Frankly, its not specifically about sequestering to offset the people in the general economy; its reducing the size of the general economy non-negative fashion (it actually positively effects employment) and restoring the sequestering potential of idle, devastated land according to a realistic target level. Should the people in the general economy also reduce consumption and go "green"? Sure, but no short term solution exists in a real, viable form (they all involve burning carbon today and paying it back in 30 years).
Most governments aren't doing anything substantial. What they do normally plan on increases short-term carbon emissions. This is something that actually reduces emissions and increases sequestration, without requiring centralized planning, carbon debt or large capital investment. The level of its effectiveness comes right down to the number of participants.
Hell, instead of promoting sustainable agriculture, we should be turning those places back into carbon sinks. Did you know only about 20% of corn crops go straight to human consumption? We can have much lower food yields and still have everyone fed (meaning we have a lot of unnecessary farm land that created carbon debt). Agriculture, even in a greener form, is the wrong answer to a world at threat.
Also, I have clear bias so I have no idea how many people would do this, as it sounds like a great idea to me high. Did I mention you get free land and get to quit your shitty day job?
= new reply since forum marked as read
