5 ms·

the founder of greenpeace (the one that left when it become a money printing machine) advise that we use more wood. even trees growing for paper. the only down

by gcb0 8y ago

the founder of greenpeace (the one that left when it become a money printing machine) advise that we use more wood. even trees growing for paper. the only down side of tree farming, acording to his manifesto, is the disturbance of original wild life and flora. but that can be easily resolved locally. if left alone, a tree will produce over 80% of it's O2 in the first 3 years. even if it lives 1000 years. which is exactly how old they are when farmed. It's the best O2 for the buck you can get.

leereeves 8y ago
Profitable carbon sequestration by making useful products from trees (and eventually storing the carbon in landfills). Makes sense, at least at first glance. How does the energy used to transport and process, say, paper compare to the energy used working with electronic documents?
- NeutronStar 8y ago
  Quebec gets 97$ of it's electricity from hydroelectric plants.
- freeone3000 8y ago
  Given that we're going to have internet regardless of what documents we use, due to the overwhelming advantage of instant long-distance communication, the amount of energy used by electronic documents is negligible.
nonbel 8y ago
Why not store the CO2 in limestone and build ultra-durable buildings with it (eg, the Egyptian/Mayan pyramids) instead?
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Human activities released nearly 37 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. That would yield about 84 billion tons of limestone if it were captured as pure calcium carbonate. Estimated mass of Mt. Everest: 450 billion tons (I went with the answer from the person who used terrain contour data): https://www.quora.com/What-would-the-estimated-weight-of-Mount-Everest-be https://www.quora.com/What-would-the-estimated-weight-of-Mou... It admittedly would be pretty awesome, if impractical, to build two Mount Everests per decade from CO2-captured-as-limestone. Building things out of CO2 captured as minerals, building things out of CO2 captured as wood: they're fine ideas, but they are also grossly inadequate to offset current emission rates. That's why every plan for curbing AGW starts with deep emissions cuts. It's a lot easier to not emit CO2 in the first place than to capture CO2 that has already been emitted. Plans for negative emissions are still necessary but they can't deal with tens of billions of tons of CO2 per year.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"Human activities released nearly 37 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. That would yield about 84 billion tons of limestone if it were captured as pure calcium carbonate." Assuming there is a goal is zero net CO2 added to the atmosphere, that 37 Gt emitted is an upper bound of what needs to be sequestered. Apparently the total amount of construction material used is around 50 Gt per year. https://www.concreteconstruction.net/business/global-demand-for-construction-aggregates-to-exceed-48-billion-metric-tons-in-2015_o https://www.concreteconstruction.net/business/global-demand-... So, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

by gcb0 8y ago

leereeves 8y ago

Profitable carbon sequestration by making useful products from trees (and eventually storing the carbon in landfills). Makes sense, at least at first glance. How does the energy used to transport and process, say, paper compare to the energy used working with electronic documents?

NeutronStar 8y ago
Quebec gets 97$ of it's electricity from hydroelectric plants.
freeone3000 8y ago
Given that we're going to have internet regardless of what documents we use, due to the overwhelming advantage of instant long-distance communication, the amount of energy used by electronic documents is negligible.

nonbel 8y ago

Why not store the CO2 in limestone and build ultra-durable buildings with it (eg, the Egyptian/Mayan pyramids) instead?

philipkglass 8y ago
Human activities released nearly 37 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. That would yield about 84 billion tons of limestone if it were captured as pure calcium carbonate. Estimated mass of Mt. Everest: 450 billion tons (I went with the answer from the person who used terrain contour data): https://www.quora.com/What-would-the-estimated-weight-of-Mount-Everest-be https://www.quora.com/What-would-the-estimated-weight-of-Mou... It admittedly would be pretty awesome, if impractical, to build two Mount Everests per decade from CO2-captured-as-limestone. Building things out of CO2 captured as minerals, building things out of CO2 captured as wood: they're fine ideas, but they are also grossly inadequate to offset current emission rates. That's why every plan for curbing AGW starts with deep emissions cuts. It's a lot easier to not emit CO2 in the first place than to capture CO2 that has already been emitted. Plans for negative emissions are still necessary but they can't deal with tens of billions of tons of CO2 per year.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"Human activities released nearly 37 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. That would yield about 84 billion tons of limestone if it were captured as pure calcium carbonate." Assuming there is a goal is zero net CO2 added to the atmosphere, that 37 Gt emitted is an upper bound of what needs to be sequestered. Apparently the total amount of construction material used is around 50 Gt per year. https://www.concreteconstruction.net/business/global-demand-for-construction-aggregates-to-exceed-48-billion-metric-tons-in-2015_o https://www.concreteconstruction.net/business/global-demand-... So, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.