4 ms·

Natural cycles are approximately carbon neutral; that is why Earth has not become an iceball yet [0]. Over the very long terms, some carbon can get sequestered,

Natural cycles are approximately carbon neutral; that is why Earth has not become an iceball yet [0]. Over the very long terms, some carbon can get sequestered, which is how we got fossil fuels in the first place. But consider how long it took nature to sequester all of that carbon. Now that we have reintroduced it into the system, there is no natural mechanism to just take it back out again. We could change the steady state slightly by increasing biomass; but that would only offset the carbon added by the destruction of said biomass, and cannot scale beyond the available space (and all other natural limitations on how much life can be put in one spot). If we did come up with a way for Earth to just "soak it back up again" that was based on seeding some type of organic and letting it work for us, I would be extremly concerned about a global cooling catastrophe. There is no natural stop point at the carbon concentrations we want, and if we overshoot the amount we pull out, we are in for a very bad time. (Not to mention the other environmental effects that the resource sink we introduce will have. I doubt carbon would be the only resource it hogs.) [0] It did come close with the emergence of photosynthesis. At the time, photosynthesis was decidedly not carbon neutral, as there was no counter force to consume oxygen until the emergence of aerobic organisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

astazangasta 8y ago
Much of our carbon contribution comes from deforestation, soil erosion, etc. In other words, habitat loss and conversion. For example, there used to be forestation across much of the "Fertile Crescent" before we had our way. Manhattan was a thousand year growth forest before Europeans showed up. Removing the dead hand of man from the scale can do much to reverse this process; actively fostering reforestation (see: Dune) can do more. We are over budget here - putting 1000 gigatons of C back is going to be tough. But putting a good chunk of that away is probably the result of something like: humanity stops eating meat and reduces its agricultural footprint, commits most of the earth to nature preserves.
- 205guy 8y ago
  I wonder why you're being downvoted, maybe people don't want to face the consequences of their actions. Though I think we don't need to be so absolute in terms of "stops eating meat," that's hard for people to handle. It would be easier to convince people and still extremely effective to reducing meat consumption to once a week and on holidays, like in the old days.

astazangasta 8y ago

Much of our carbon contribution comes from deforestation, soil erosion, etc. In other words, habitat loss and conversion. For example, there used to be forestation across much of the "Fertile Crescent" before we had our way. Manhattan was a thousand year growth forest before Europeans showed up. Removing the dead hand of man from the scale can do much to reverse this process; actively fostering reforestation (see: Dune) can do more. We are over budget here - putting 1000 gigatons of C back is going to be tough. But putting a good chunk of that away is probably the result of something like: humanity stops eating meat and reduces its agricultural footprint, commits most of the earth to nature preserves.

205guy 8y ago
I wonder why you're being downvoted, maybe people don't want to face the consequences of their actions. Though I think we don't need to be so absolute in terms of "stops eating meat," that's hard for people to handle. It would be easier to convince people and still extremely effective to reducing meat consumption to once a week and on holidays, like in the old days.