6 ms·

Carbon sequestering is not as hard as it would seem. We have several technologies, but we can also just plant trees.

by sqeaky 10y ago

anon1253 10y ago
Yes trees are a perfect solution. They've optimized this process through millions of years of evolution. However, we're still removing more trees than adding them per year. Quite impressively so, even. It takes time for forests to grow. A lot of its carbon sink properties are because of soil succession, which takes decades to mature.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Who is "we"? I think the US is about equalized because industries like the the US paper industry plant about as many trees as we cut. If "we" is the world the lots of poor countries are unsustainably slash and burning. Starving people want to not die today so they make places to plant crops. If we is people afraid of the expanding growth of the Sahara southward then things like the great green wall are interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
  - anon1253 10y ago
    But that's the thing right, "we" is the human population. If the US logging industry plants as much trees as it removes, then it doesn't really really matter if the global rain forests are being slashed and burned for agricultural reasons. Not to mention the massive amounts of forest fires we can expect due to increased heat and drought, which we have absolutely no idea how to deal with. It truly is a global problem. Great Green Wall is definitely a good thing! Throw in some heliostat solar (molten salt) powered desalination, and massive amounts of desert could be "greened" (good for people, economy and climate!)
  - botexpert 10y ago
    As much as media and schools indoctrinate the idea that papers waste most trees, it's not true. The biggest percentage of Amazon rainforest deforestation is for the livestock industry. The beef that USA and Europe gladly import, and the soybean that Brazil gladly exports. Palm oil in Asia also. Consumers just have to stop voting with their money for oblivious and blind short-sighted products. Politiciancs obviously will never tax beef or Lays chips.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    This is why the US should not just be "about equal". We can afford to improve the situation, not just maintain the status quo. Instead, we often find ourselves sitting in judgement of developing countries doing the same things we did to develop.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      Do you think American voters are going to be happy about sacrificing their own well-being explicitly so that other people can pollute/deforest more? Do you think that's a platform that will win elections?
      - sanderjd 10y ago
        I think we should use our wealth and clout to both do better than the bare minimum in our own country and pressure other countries to do at least the bare minimum. I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections. That does sound hard, but if the job description were only to pander, anybody could do it.
        mzw_mzw 10y ago
        > I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections. Do you want a pony, too? Look, we're not talking about straight up charity. You can talk people into charity; despite the standard narrative, the United States is quite generous in that regard. What you're asking for is for us to reduce our standard of living explicitly so other people can pollute. That's going to be a hard sell.
        sqeaky 10y ago
        I agree. No progress has ever been made by giving up something lots of people want. Look at smoking, people know it will kill them, banned in most outdoor areas and that it is expensive/super taxed. The taxes doubled the price and that didn't reduce the smoking as much ecigs, a away for people to get what they with all of the benefits and fewer downsides. Every gain we make needs to unambiguously be a gain otherwise some will choose to ignore the self restriction for their own personal gain and with CO2 we all lose when that happens.
DennisP 10y ago
First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people. We might also want to stop clearcutting vast forests in the Southeastern U.S. to ship wood pellets to Europe, which burns them. Then we'd have to save the rest of our existing forests, many of which are struggling due to various effects of climate change, including heat stress, drought, topsoil loss, disease, and forest fires. Many large forests are net carbon emitters now. After we've done all that and finally stopped losing trees, we can think about having more trees. We'll need space for them, so that means reducing agricultural area even more. We've been emitting about ten billion tons of carbon every year for quite a while, so it's going to take a lot of land. We're also running out of fish in the ocean, so with that food source going away we're going to need more from agriculture than we get now. "Just plant trees." Like many, perhaps even most purported climate change solutions, it sounds great until you work out the scale.
- anon1253 10y ago
  All true, but "the scale of it all" will be truly mind boggling whatever we do, or don't do. Solving this problem will require engineering on a scale never seen before, failure to act will result in losses on a scale never seen before. So it's not a choice about scale, it's a choice about the survival of civilization.
  - DennisP 10y ago
    I completely agree. My only argument was with the word "just." It's a massive problem, and if we were a rational civilization we would be doing everything possible right now, before it's too late. It should be as high a priority as if a civilization-ending asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people. You speak about deforestation in the US, but there are more forests in the United States now than there were at the time of the Revolutionary War.

Carbon sequestering is not as hard as it would seem. We have several technologies, but we can also just plant trees.

by sqeaky 10y ago

Carbon sequestering is not as hard as it would seem. We have several technologies, but we can also just plant trees.

Yes trees are a perfect solution. They've optimized this process through millions of years of evolution. However, we're still removing more trees than adding them per year. Quite impressively so, even. It takes time for forests to grow. A lot of its carbon sink properties are because of soil succession, which takes decades to mature.

sqeaky 10y ago
Who is "we"? I think the US is about equalized because industries like the the US paper industry plant about as many trees as we cut. If "we" is the world the lots of poor countries are unsustainably slash and burning. Starving people want to not die today so they make places to plant crops. If we is people afraid of the expanding growth of the Sahara southward then things like the great green wall are interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
- anon1253 10y ago
  But that's the thing right, "we" is the human population. If the US logging industry plants as much trees as it removes, then it doesn't really really matter if the global rain forests are being slashed and burned for agricultural reasons. Not to mention the massive amounts of forest fires we can expect due to increased heat and drought, which we have absolutely no idea how to deal with. It truly is a global problem. Great Green Wall is definitely a good thing! Throw in some heliostat solar (molten salt) powered desalination, and massive amounts of desert could be "greened" (good for people, economy and climate!)
- botexpert 10y ago
  As much as media and schools indoctrinate the idea that papers waste most trees, it's not true. The biggest percentage of Amazon rainforest deforestation is for the livestock industry. The beef that USA and Europe gladly import, and the soybean that Brazil gladly exports. Palm oil in Asia also. Consumers just have to stop voting with their money for oblivious and blind short-sighted products. Politiciancs obviously will never tax beef or Lays chips.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  This is why the US should not just be "about equal". We can afford to improve the situation, not just maintain the status quo. Instead, we often find ourselves sitting in judgement of developing countries doing the same things we did to develop.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    Do you think American voters are going to be happy about sacrificing their own well-being explicitly so that other people can pollute/deforest more? Do you think that's a platform that will win elections?
    - sanderjd 10y ago
      I think we should use our wealth and clout to both do better than the bare minimum in our own country and pressure other countries to do at least the bare minimum. I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections. That does sound hard, but if the job description were only to pander, anybody could do it.
      - mzw_mzw 10y ago
        > I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections. Do you want a pony, too? Look, we're not talking about straight up charity. You can talk people into charity; despite the standard narrative, the United States is quite generous in that regard. What you're asking for is for us to reduce our standard of living explicitly so other people can pollute. That's going to be a hard sell.
        sqeaky 10y ago
        I agree. No progress has ever been made by giving up something lots of people want. Look at smoking, people know it will kill them, banned in most outdoor areas and that it is expensive/super taxed. The taxes doubled the price and that didn't reduce the smoking as much ecigs, a away for people to get what they with all of the benefits and fewer downsides. Every gain we make needs to unambiguously be a gain otherwise some will choose to ignore the self restriction for their own personal gain and with CO2 we all lose when that happens.

DennisP 10y ago

First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people. We might also want to stop clearcutting vast forests in the Southeastern U.S. to ship wood pellets to Europe, which burns them. Then we'd have to save the rest of our existing forests, many of which are struggling due to various effects of climate change, including heat stress, drought, topsoil loss, disease, and forest fires. Many large forests are net carbon emitters now. After we've done all that and finally stopped losing trees, we can think about having more trees. We'll need space for them, so that means reducing agricultural area even more. We've been emitting about ten billion tons of carbon every year for quite a while, so it's going to take a lot of land. We're also running out of fish in the ocean, so with that food source going away we're going to need more from agriculture than we get now. "Just plant trees." Like many, perhaps even most purported climate change solutions, it sounds great until you work out the scale.

anon1253 10y ago
All true, but "the scale of it all" will be truly mind boggling whatever we do, or don't do. Solving this problem will require engineering on a scale never seen before, failure to act will result in losses on a scale never seen before. So it's not a choice about scale, it's a choice about the survival of civilization.
- DennisP 10y ago
  I completely agree. My only argument was with the word "just." It's a massive problem, and if we were a rational civilization we would be doing everything possible right now, before it's too late. It should be as high a priority as if a civilization-ending asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
> First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people. You speak about deforestation in the US, but there are more forests in the United States now than there were at the time of the Revolutionary War.