4 ms·
To an extent, that actually works to sequester carbon, but it's not clear that it's the most cost-effective way to do it. Nor would people be OK with the percei
by fragsworth 10y ago
To an extent, that actually works to sequester carbon, but it's not clear that it's the most cost-effective way to do it. Nor would people be OK with the perceived waste.
- visarga 10y agoI'm curious, what would be the most effective way to sequester carbon?
- dredmorbius 10y agoPossibly shellfish, given past limestone deposites (calcium carbonate).
- niels_olson 10y agoJust use the stover. And slaughterhouse cities like Omaha and Kansas City and Chicago also import their fuel and receive timber. Let's take Omaha. Omaha Steaks could sell carbon-negative beef if the USDA inspectors can certify that 2x the carbon went into biomass energy plants. It would create demand for 3x, 4x, and 10x beef.