16 ms·
Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost
- corpMaverick 9y agoIt is not just a bomb that can blow the arctic. It can destroy all human civilization. And at this point, we may have lost any ability to do anything. Edit: Doom scale... 1 Inconvenient storms. 2 More frequent natural disasters. 3 Destroying coastal cities. 4 Causing hunger, wars and mass migrations. 5 Decimating human population. 6 Destroying human civilization. 7 Destroying all humans on earth. 8 Destroying all life on earth. 9 Destroying earth.
- mr_overalls 9y agoThe sad thing is that scientists have understood the risks of global warming for decades, and yet our civilization (maybe I'm just speaking for the US here) seems impotent to effectively coordinate a response to this slow-motion threat. It could be our own Great Filter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
- hanniabu 9y agoand yet our governments
- dredmorbius 9y agoThis isn't solely the purview of governments, there are other institutions involved, including many corporations, and the specific individuals behind them. Arguably the financial world, various inter-national rivalries, media, public opinion, religions, and more. On the one hand, if it succeeds in offing some element of, take your pick: modernity, liberal democracy, advanced civilisation, humanity, life on earth, terrifying as all get out. On the other, a maddeningly fascinating systems dysfunction at work. Though on the whole, I'd prefer the tuition bill for this course were lower.
- GuB-42 9y agoIn all countries that matter, governments are elected. And they do what they need to do to be elected for the next term. Assuming they really swept global warming under the rug, they did it because accounting for it was unpopular. We prefer to vote for a candidate that won't reduce our comfort rather than one who decides to tackle a problem most people don't really understand. We are the ones to blame, governments just gave us what we wanted.
- craftyguy 9y ago> In all countries that matter, governments are elected. Well, except China, and Russia, two very large industrial nations that certainly matter in terms of global impact. You're kidding yourself if you believe those governments are elected. > We are the ones to blame, governments just gave us what we wanted. No, governments are giving their sponsors what they want. The electorate is led to believe they want it too.
- sbov 9y agoThe one with the most money usually wins. Until that is fixed the popularity of views seems meaningless.
- cryptoz 9y ago> decades More than a century, in some cases. Capitalism needs additional constraints or it will end all civilization. Simply, the cost of creating greenhouse gasses has never been priced in to the market since Exxon and the likes have lobbied hard for decades to not let the truth gain any traction. They should all be in jail and there should be no profits in destroying ecosystems. Otherwise there seems no hope.
- nerdponx 9y agoIn a socialized system you'd have the same thing, except perpetuated by bureaucrats instead of businessmen. If anything, capitalism has an advantage in that it's at least theoretically possible to mitigate the effect of greed on politics. Throwing all your eggs into the government basket gives you no such recourse.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bad-joke 9y agoThe Volkswagen emissions scandal demonstrated that mitigating effects will be circumvented given the presence of a profit motive. Rather than construct an elaborate and exploitable maze of incentives, perhaps it would be simpler to remove the profit motive.
- nerdponx 9y agoThat's my point. Capitalism or socialism, greed is greed. There is always a profit motive.
- michaelmrose 9y agoThe general population controls so little of the economic might that this just isn't true. We could pool our votes to change the course of politics. If we pooled our dollars nobody would care.
- 9y ago
- jjoonathan 9y agoAre there credible models that suggest Earth will turn into Venus or something? It would take a hell of a lot more to end humanity than it would take to "merely" hurt/kill the most vulnerable segments of our population (which is what I thought the stakes were).
- cryptoz 9y ago> Are there credible models that suggest Earth will turn into Venus or something? Yes, the model is called Venus. > (which is what I thought the stakes were). You were misinformed. The stakes are significantly higher than that.
- jjoonathan 9y agoVenus is a shit model for Earth. Try again.
- matte_black 9y agoI’m sorry, but it has long been shown Earth cannot simply turn into Venus given the current climate models.
- skrowl 9y agoThere is definitely no shortage of doomsday climate models. CREDIBLE models is a different story. Look back at ones from 20+ years ago to see what they predicted would be happening by now. It's pretty funny actually.
- jjoonathan 9y agoThe models from 20 years ago overshot by several confidence intervals because they underestimated mixing the deep ocean. "The barrel is bigger than we expected" doesn't make the rising water in the barrel any less concerning, but it's not the triumph of foresight that you seem to imply.
- Banthum 9y ago
- trs80 9y agoScience isn't perfectly absolved after all many of us including computer "scientists" work closely with industry that affects global warming.
- pacala 9y agoUS emissions have plateaued two decades ago [0]. Emissions are growing unchecked elsewhere, a combination of population explosion and rapid industrialization. [0] http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/ http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emis...
- evanlivingston 9y agoI'm curious if the various ways American's and America spends it's money and consumes its good is factored into U.S. emissions. Does the carbon it takes to produce an iphone and then ship it here count? What about all the fuel/power used by military bases abroad? Does our purchasing of Foreign cars count?
- lozenge 9y agoUnder most measures it isn't counted. What you are looking for is called consumption-based emissions accounting and unsurprisingly it shows US emissions are still going up. Moving to consumption based accounting aligns closely with the generally accepted best economic solution for reducing emissions - a global carbon tax, which would be pushed onto developing countries as a requirement when they want to export to developed countries. Incidentally, the US military has been exempt from all climate agreements since Kyoto, and so are international flights.
- vkou 9y agoEmission growth has stopped, but what we need to do is hit net zero. We are no closer to that today then we were 20 years ago. There isn't even a vague plan for the United States to get there.
- lozenge 9y agoI don't know why you're downvoted. The RCPs that show us respecting the goal of the 2C limit all show emissions need to shrink globally and reach zero around 2050 or even earlier. The fact emissions have stopped growing is not really much progress. It is like we are cruising to disaster rather than accelerating towards it.
- ioioio8908 9y agoLet's not kid ourselves either; Ycombinator and the startup fetish culture, and gadget fetishism, help fuel our approach to the edge. The more neoliberalism continues to induce dopamine addiction, under some ridiculous premise everyone wants to be a celebrity, startup wunderkind, or hoodie wearing, macbook carrying hipster, the sooner the env is gonna fly right off the edge. The global economy cannot keep fueling itself on disposable consumerism
- sologoub 9y agoUS and EU are doing a lot about reducing their output of CO2, but unfortunately that’s completely dwarfed by new output elsewhere: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... Without global actors taking full responsibility, we are basically screwed.
- mgbmtl 9y agoI agree, but the US (and Canada, Australia, etc), still pollute twice more per capita than China. There's still a lot we can do. The EU, however, has lower per capita emissions than China. And that's ignoring that most manufactured goods we consume are made in China.
- graeme 9y agoIt's like whack a mole. The economy is a global system, and so is the atmosphere. Shifting production of carbon between the parts isn't per se useful. We can no more blame other countries for increasing CO2 output than we can blame a grocery store down the block from opening when another closes (or, refuses to cater to new demand, to make a better analogy). We'll only stop if we come up with an unambiguously better alternative, or something forces us. A acute problem is that if we stopped using carbon, people would die. (And the economy would contract, of course, but death is a stronger motivator). We're above our carrying capacity without carbon use. But if we keep using it, we die, later. I think the most no brainer approach is to push for a global carbon tax to prod development of renewables. Income taxes could be cut to offset, so at a low level this wouldn't hurt a country. This seems not very popular however, and no one has pushed for an international agreement on this point, instead pushing for whack a mole emissions reductions in single countries. My most optimistic scenario is we do figure out an unambiguously better alternative, switch to it, and then also figure out some way to use the energy to suck carbon from the atmosphere (which has its own challenges).
- mirimir 9y agoIt's all about discount rate for stuff in the future. If you spend money to mitigate future damage, that's money that you can't invest productively. So basically, in economic terms, the distant future is worthless.
- knodi123 9y ago"all human civilization"? Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? destructive, sure. It would certainly lead to a lot of death, and a lot of hardship. Human civilization will certainly be changed- perhaps significantly. But I haven't see any evidence that it will cease to exist.
- notsofastbuddy 9y agoNo. There's a pretty clear path: rising temperatures->food supply disruption->regional war->nuclear war->there are maybe a few people left in bunkers.
- sgt101 9y agoI agree but I think the chain can shorten to nuclear war->there are maybe a few people left in bunkers. If we were to get rid of the nuclear option then both your chain and my chain would not be viable. Nukes before greenhouses?
- jjoonathan 9y agoThere's a pretty substantial gap between "poor people starving" and "people with nukes care," but it's still plausible enough to be chilling, that's for sure.
- dogma1138 9y agoThe people with nukes would be the last to starve. Also for anyone to go nuclear there would have to be a strategic goal for that Russia nuking the US won’t really help their food shortage and vice versa.
- ProAm 9y ago99.9% of all creatures to exist on earth are now extinct. [1] We're not special. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
- stickfigure 9y agoWe're not special With big brains and tools, humans can live in a much broader set of environmental conditions than any other species. While it doesn't make us extinction-proof, it makes us pretty hardy. It is hard to imagine what would destroy all the ecological niches that humans could survive in. I would bet on the humans.
- matte_black 9y agoThere is something we can do. We can enjoy what we have here and now, for as long as it lasts, for as long as we can.
- grinsekatze 9y agoCompletely agree. It’s all natural cycles, transformations ... but accepting this is not really easy as long as one fears death. There is so much eternal beauty that we are part of and that we could focus on instead of wars and Desasters.
- matte_black 9y agoPersonally, I think dying by something as unique as climate change would be a spectacular way to go. Think of all the other mundane ways people die everyday: disease, a bullet, or even just tripping off a sidewalk wrong and hitting your head on the curb. Is that really any better of a fate?
- Retra 9y agoI don't know why you think dead people care how they got that way. I've never met one that did.
- thrillgore 9y agoAs long as I have a guarantee we can preserve our culture, I can care less about my future. Even if we lose our species, we should leave something behind that indicates we mattered.
- matte_black 9y agoIf our species doesn't survive, then we likely didn't matter to anyone. The human race will have only existed for nothing more than a blink of the universe's eye.
- cr0sh 9y agoI think we have - between the Pioneer and Voyager probes, plus the various probes on Mars and Earth's moon.
- maxxxxx 9y ago" It can destroy all human civilization." I think saying stuff like this should be avoided. There is almost no chance that civilization will be destroyed. There will be major problems but the world won't go under. By making up total doom scenarios credibility of climate change proponents goes down a lot in my view.
- rexaliquid 9y agoOur systems of civil society are fairly robust, but at some point those major problems become greater than our ability to cope. Unfortunately, "almost no chance" and "no chance" are not the same thing.
- maxxxxx 9y agoIt just seems highly unlikely to me. Even if 90% of the world becomes uninhabitable there is still plenty of space left for a lot of people. You can lose 90% or even 99% of world population and will still have a lot of people left. Not saying this is a good thing but I just don't believe civilization will get totally wiped out. Emphasis is on "totally".
- rexaliquid 9y agoI think you are equating "human civilization" with "humanity". I agree that some people are likely to survive a catastrophe, but I don't think that what we think of as civilization is likely to survive a 90% or 99% population reduction. Or as lifeformed put it elsewhere: "Destroying all civilization doesn't mean destroying all humans, but just the structures that hold society together. A runaway heating scenario may be a pretty effective way of doing that - all crops die, wars for food, nukes get used."
- maxxxxx 9y agoLet's say temps rise by 10 degrees and sea levels rise a lot. I would think there will still be a lot of areas that will be inhabitable. I don't think that the atmosphere will become unbreathable. I think you can have a pretty sophisticated civilization with 100 million or even 10 million people. Again, I am not saying these things are OK. We should worry about displacing millions of people and probably wars but civilization dying seems overblown and damaging to the argument that we should be doing something.
- legohead 9y agoI don't get their test case. They took it to the lab, and thawed it up to room temperature? That's not going to happen. It's going to get warmer, maybe just warm enough for the bacteria to thaw, and then immediately die. Did they do any realistic tests?
- robotsonic 9y agoAt first, I agreed, but then realized there's two issues with the argument I can think of: 1) to get to the warmer temperatures, you need to pass through the room temperature stage first. Things might change quickly, but not THAT quickly, meaning whatever is lurking in the soil can cause havoc/mutate/etc. before hitting it's upper temperature limits. 2) The areas where permafrost is generally found see summer temperatures generally at or below 'room temperature' now. I do agree, that their tests could have been more thorough and included future scenario temperatures, but may underestimate the problem by not allowing mutation time.
- sulam 9y agoHow warm do you really think things are going to get? There's no support for temperatures going up more than 20C. Bacteria will do just fine.
- GlennS 9y agoI think you've misunderstood the comment you were replying to. I think they mean that the bacteria will not reach room temperature (20℃), but will get just warm enough to thaw out (1℃ or 2℃). The reason they could die is probably not heat, but lack of anything to eat.
- DaniFong 9y agoNo no, we've still got this. We can do it.
- golemiprague 9y agoAll those things can and did happen from various other reasons. I don't see why I should be worried about those things just because some human actions might lead to it. They might not, it might happen by nature with no relation to people, I refuse to worry about it, it is stupid.
- Flozzin 9y agoDoes anyone have any good resources on why humans do this. Some christians love to talk about the book of revelations. There's a huge segment of the population in the US that loves the idea of a zombie apocalypse. What is the human fascination with the world ending? Directly to corpMav's post. Settle down buddy. 8 and 9 won't happen unlesss the earth get's hit by an asteroid of epic proportions or is finally consumed by an ever expanding sun. And 6 and 7 are also extremely unlikely, to a point of being laughable.
- jpadkins 9y agoBetteridge's law of headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
- happycube 9y agoIt'd be nice if this wasn't an exception...
- mr_overalls 9y agoExcept in this case, the scientific consensus is "yes". The IPCC report for policy-makers: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FI...
- erentz 9y agoThis is not a “time bomb”, which implies something being inflicted on us by a malevolent agent. It’s a temperature bomb. And we can easily prevent the explosion by simply not making the planet too hot.
- bbctol 9y agoEasy peasy lemon squeezy.
- minikites 9y ago>And we can easily prevent the explosion by simply not making the planet too hot. Great, you should call up the U.N., they'll be excited to hear about this.
- choward 9y agoGlad you cleared that up. I feel better now.
- nkoren 9y agoIn all probability, that ship sailed ten years ago. "So doing bad stuff" is no longer a viable strategy by itself. Sure we should do that, but at this point, without adaptation and mitigation strategies, we're fucked.
- Cofike 9y agowell lets do this
- kregasaurusrex 9y agoThere could be anything underneath all the permafrost, including new biodiversity which we haven't catalogued yet. NPR ran a story[0] where Russian animals such as reindeer infected with Anthrax had thawed out, and caused outbreaks where people had to get preventative treatments against it. As a future threat model, what if there's new viruses or bacterium contained under previously frozen earth for which modern medicine isn't prepared for? [0]https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/08/03/488400947/anthrax-outbreak-in-russia-thought-to-be-result-of-thawing-permafrost https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/08/03/4884009...
- bsaul 9y agoOr, what if every of those bacteries whose evolution stopped thousands of years ago are simply completely inapt to compete with the ones we've got today, because those had much more time to evolve ?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tzahola 9y agoThat’s not how evolution works. That’s like saying that a dog could easily kill a velociraptor because dogs are 65 million years “more evolved”.
- FeteCommuniste 9y agoI would bet on a medium-sized to big, healthy dog against a velociraptor. Raptors were around the size of a turkey. Might not be an easy fight, though.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- SEJeff 9y agoVelociraptors have two rows of teeth in addition to a 2.5" retractable middle claw theorized to be used for slashing or stabbing attacks. Many dogs would have a size advantage, but all would have fewer teeth and generally soft padded paws with no serious claws. Even with the smaller size, the Velociraptors seemingly have the advantage. The "Fighting Dinosaurs" fossils give some credence to the claw being used to pierce the neck of a prey animal: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fighting-dinos/the-fighting-dinosaurs/ https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fighting-dinos/the-fighting... Something like maybe a Rodesian Ridgeback (lion hunting dogs) might stand a good chance however.
- pmilla1606 9y agoI was expecting this to be mentioned somewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
- rexaliquid 9y agoThe Clathrate gun hypothesis and the thawing of the Arctic ecosystem are two of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" that the US government investigates. These are possible scenarios for abrupt climate change (aka tipping points). The other two involve antarctic ice sheet instability and megadroughts in North America. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2008/09/17/impacts-on-the-threshold-of-abrupt-climate-changes/ http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2008/09/17/impacts-on-the-threshol...
- dmix 9y agoSounds very similar... Or at least variations of the same idea.
- sulam 9y agoIt's definitely not the same problem. Clathrates are methane, for one thing, and the permafrost issue will cause CO2 emissions. Clathrates are in the water, permafrost is soil. They are both associated with historically cold environments that are now warming up, but each has its own mechanism and likely impacts (clathrates may be worse, since methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but the permafrost melting is going to be with us for 1000's of years whereas methane will be with us for "only" a decade. Also permafrost is likely to be a potent methane producer as well while it thaws out.
- ByThyGrace 9y agoWhat does "be with us" mean in the case of methane?
- freehunter 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- iamcasen 9y agoIt seems the only way to combat the thawing permafrost problem is to deploy world-scale carbon capturing schemes of some sort. Here's to hoping that we can develop something like that in time.
- bcaulfield 9y agoOr set off a few hundred nukes.
- corpMaverick 9y agoHow would this be helpful?
- chaoticmass 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
- 013a 9y agoSuddenly: Snowpiercer.
- jonny_eh 9y agoWas that peer-reviewed?
- js8 9y ago> the only way to combat the thawing permafrost problem is to deploy world-scale carbon capturing schemes of some sort I think this is a big misunderstanding. The world-scale carbon capturing schemes were deployed already. The problem isn't the capture, the problem is how to prevent them to leak the stored carbon back to the atmosphere.
- perseusprime11 9y agoThe setting makes for a good sci-fi movie where we will thaw out an Alien.
- twostoned 9y agoI loved that one! He can take the form of other people but is hive-like or something so if you heat his blood the host goes nuts? Something like that anyway. Kurt Russel. The claymation was excellent: cult classic.
- stevenwoo 9y agoThat's mostly from John Carpenter's The Thing, the blood reacted to heat as our protagonist's test for detecting infected hosts, not causing the host that was tied up to react, that was just the thing transmogrifying. There's also a Pournelle novel where a research team lands on a green, human inhabitable planet and a native species looks something like a monitor lizard but can engage a hyper mode that speeds up it's metabolism so it generates a lot of heat, this is to enable it to run like a cheetah with the strength of a gorilla or something like that IIRC.
- carapace 9y ago"The Legacy of Heorot" It was a first human colony story. The creature is called "Grendel". No more spoilers... If there was ever a sci-fi novel that should be made into a movie it's that one, IMHO.
- stcredzero 9y agoFor good overviews on what the climate change research actually says, I recommend the potholer54 YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- txsh 9y ago> In fact, there's more carbon in the permafrost, Douglas says, than all the carbon humans have spewed into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution — first with steam trains, then with coal plants, cars and planes. > Scientists don't know yet how much carbon will get released from thawing permafrost or how fast it will happen. In a nutshell why not accepting anthropogenic global warming is scientific and accepting it is anti-science, not the other way around.
- llamataboot 9y agohuh? This has to do with how bad and how quick the feedback loops created by anthropogenic global warming will be and has nothing do with whether it exists or not.
- txsh 9y agoThink about what you wrote. If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
- throwawayjava 9y ago> If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop. > No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source. You are not a loop. You are a person. I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop. Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy: let A = λx.xx Does the program diverge? NO. However, the program let A = λx.xx; AA does diverge. This is analogous to llamataboot's point: if anthropogenic warming triggers a feedback loop, then the effects of that feedback loop are attributable to anthropogenic warming. A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop. The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.
- pier25 9y ago> But once carbon begins to percolate up through the thawing soil, it could form a feedback loop What? This has been happening for years.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoYes, but there's a point where the rate hits a critical level that dumps it in a runaway feedback loop. Have we hit that rate already? We don't know enough to say, but it's fairly likely that we'll hit it within the 21st century.
- mike741 9y ago"Scientists say New York will be Underwater by 2015"
- thrillgore 9y agoI thought this was about methane clathrates. Hasn't there been carbon leaking from permafrost into the atmosphere already? To what degree does the production in the arctic affect that?
- chiefalchemist 9y agoDespite the cliche title...frozen up to 1,000 feet down. That caught my eye. Plenty can be hidden in a vault that deep. Perhaps the next ebola? Or worse? Add this to the list: Climate Change and the Things We're Unprepared For.
- mirimir 9y agoIt seems like global climate has low-CO2/low-temperature and high-CO2/high-temperature clusters of attractors. And that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have pushed global climate toward high-CO2/high-temperature. But at least, it seems that there's enough of a barrier from the Venus extreme.
- stmfreak 9y agoSo if it all melts, we could see 1200ppm? That doesn't sound that scary.
- 8bitsrule 9y agoMaybe the neglected catastrophists of the 1940s are about to see their day. At any rate, the following article cites -many- sources as regards the 'Alaskan muck'. https://steemit.com/velikovsky/@harlotscurse/in-alaska https://steemit.com/velikovsky/@harlotscurse/in-alaska
- asdffdsa321 9y agoWasn't this in An Inconvenient Truth? Old news
- partycoder 9y agoThere is also the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which is already thawing and releasing methane at an increasing pace.
- baxtr 9y agoMeanwhile, earthers get crazy mining crypto currencies...
- KozmoNau7 9y agoIt really is crazy. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-energy-consumption-explained/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-...
- nanis 9y agoOn the other hand, the first season of Fortitude[1,2] was quite fun. [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498622/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498622/ [2]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S1VFB36 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S1VFB36
- webXL 9y agoWe should be investigating ways to sequester that CO2 as quickly as possible, via photosynthesis or industrial uses: https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co2-removal-than-photosynthesis-is-now-active/ https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co...