8 ms·

How much can forests fight climate change?

107 points by ramraj07 8y ago

hiby007 8y ago
I think from long time scientists are studying the topic of Ocean Seeding and Iron Fertilization. Video on Ocean Seeding - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
agumonkey 8y ago
I rarely, if ever, see people talking about ~bidirectional benefits (think two variables, or force moment). Having people planting and caring more about forest will not only help absorb a bit of CO2 but also make these people do less emitting. Is it useless on a large scale ?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 8y ago
Before jumping into detailed discussion of the points raised in the publication here, including "trees leak methane in the Amazon" -- is it possible that this article is getting promoted because it feeds into a "they dont know what they are talking about" meme of anti-science know-nothing'ness ? There appear to be several sets of weasel-words candidates .. Such as "many scientists applaud X but some urge caution" without naming either side's strengths and weaknesses, notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are... Recently it was discovered that USA oil and gas industry self-reporting of methane emissions on extraction in the Permian Basin might be five times less than actual numbers, and might have doubled in the last two years. This was detected by satellite sensors and NGO analysis. http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Doesn't methane dissolve relatively quickly in the atmosphere so it's not a long term threat like CO2 so once you run the numbers amortize it all a tree that leaks methane but eats carbon is a net win so long as the carbon actually stays out of the atmosphere?
  - the8472 8y ago
    It turns into CO2. So all that happens is an initial spike of a more potent GHG turning into a baseline GHG. And the half-life is a ~decade, with constant replenishment that's enough to have a significant effect that the same carbon emitted as CO2 would not have.
  - ajross 8y ago
    Methane oxidizes in the atmosphere with a half life of about 10 years. CO2's equivalent half life (due to ocean absorption) is 27 via a quick google. So they're really not that different. Neither is a "long term" threat -- if we stopped emissions entirely the climate would be expected to return to a pre-civilization equilibrium on the scale of decades.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      That's pretty different from what I have heard elsewhere. Could you please provide some references so I could read further? Here is a link that argues the opposite side: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
      - acqq 8y ago
        Exactly: "What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2."
    - 8y ago
- ramraj07 8y ago
  OP here. No climate scientist, just someone who's been following climate change for a couple decades. Not a climate change denier by a long shot, if anything I've actually already made a bunch of large life decisions under the assumption that climate change is going to change this world quite a bit in the next few decades. The main accusation you make, that I (and other who are promoting this article) are suggesting that the scientists don't know what they are talking about, I actually plead guilty for that. I really do think we don't know what we're talking about anythign other than the primary assertion that we are warming this planet through our actions. I don't believe we actually have a real handle on the rate (we could be drastically under or overestimating) of climate change, and I definitely don't think we have an inkling on whether geoengineering efforts would work the way we expect it to. The main light bulb for me from this article is it has made me consider even planting trees as a geoengineering effort, as vicarious as other proposals like dumping iron in the ocean or particles into the stratosphere. Right now I would consider any effort at controlling global warming other than actually just reducing emissions as geoengineering. The most apt analogy I have found for geoengineering efforts like this was given by the comedian Bill Burr in a podcast, where he shits on a Ted talk about genetically engineering malaria mosquitos (https://youtu.be/vEZ0z0WSrUA https://youtu.be/vEZ0z0WSrUA ). I have seen similar over-confidence among my fellow scientitsts in biology, in complicated subjects like cancer, immunology and metabolism. Time and again, people will assert they have understood a system, make a drug, and it won't work, and then they will blame the failure on the same complexity they said they had conquered. We have made tremendous progress on all these scientific fronts (biology, climate science, etc) but the systems under study have become so complex, I would consider it a criminal offense if any scientist makes a claim that they really have figured out all the ramifications of their geoengineering plans. Criminal because I am worried that any major geoengineering effort if it goes wrong might be irreversible. Orders of magnitude more studies are needed IMO to make sure we understand these systems, and I don't think we are going to invest that effort until things get far, far worse. Until then I would prefer we err on the side of caution. Btw it's not just methane, they actually talk about a bunch of other potential issues (like VOCs) in that article. Also, this is nature mag, if you think nature mag is anti-science or climate change denying I'm not sure who else you think is your ally.
  - 8y ago
- dgjrhgi 8y ago
  'notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are...' - Why does it matter to dig into why one side is right or wrong? Earth atmosphere is complex beyond imagination of any person/society and you should expect science (or anyone else)to be wrong most of this time at what they have to say about this topic. Don't be hell-bent on trying to comprehend mechanics of Earth atmosphere and finding 'scientific' solution to climate change. If you are aware of what has worked well until now for earth's climate then why not just follow it?
- mistermann 8y ago
  > is it possible that this article is getting promoted because it feeds into a "they dont know what they are talking about" meme of anti-science know-nothing'ness ? I would go further and say it's not only possible, it's likely.....similar to how articles from the opposing viewpoint are promoted, also often full of weasel words to some varying degree depending on the specific topic. Much of science discussion in the mainstream is actually a bit of a meme war, but this has probably always been true. Daniel Dennett: Memes 101 | How Cultural Evolution Works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fG-3f4f0hA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fG-3f4f0hA Replace religion with "fundamentalism, of any kind": https://pics.ballmemes.com/the-one-thing-that-i-think-is-really-dangerous-in-18444000.png https://pics.ballmemes.com/the-one-thing-that-i-think-is-rea...
pistoriusp 8y ago
Trees are batteries that store carbon. The carbon is restored into the atmosphere when a tree dies and decays, or is burnt. A long time ago trees didn't decay because the Earth didn't have "fungus" that made them rot and decay. So they just piled on top of each other and turned into coal. Plant more trees. https://onetreeplanted.org/ https://onetreeplanted.org/
- umvi 8y ago
  > Trees are batteries that store carbon. The carbon is restored into the atmosphere when a tree dies and decays, or is burnt. By extension, wooden building materials are carbon batteries as well. Plant more trees and build more things out of wood.
  - cedex12 8y ago
    Beside the reasonable point that building out of wood allows "sequestrating" carbon long(er?) term, are there studies working the maths out and confirming that? It seems the intuitively clear solutions often can be deceiving since there are hidden aspects balancing things out and I'm wondering if it's the case here.
    - strainer 8y ago
      A study is not really required to confirm that wooden constructions contain and retain their carbon. Even over many hundreds of years the wood in Tudor houses is chemically stable (without preservatives - as long as it has correct ventilation) Studies may look into possible mistakes or optimizations that could be made, but the basic material reality is evidenced in plain sight.
      - cedex12 8y ago
        Right, and I asked (or tried to, at least!) about that latter question: stuff like transport, isolation, etc that could make wood less interesting than other construction materials, environmentally.
kaycebasques 8y ago
I read The Hidden Life Of Trees a while back. I believe the author suggests that old growth forests are bigger carbon sinks because they have deeper humus [1]. I don’t know the merits of that idea but it helped me realize that when people talked about forests, I was only thinking about the trees themselves, not taking the soil into consideration, too. If that idea has merit and the research does eventually conclude that forests are a carbon sink strategy, then it suggests that preserving old growth forests might be more effective than planting new ones. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus
- foxhop 8y ago
  It's not just the humus, an aged forest also has at least 7 layers of carbon sequestration. https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-in-the-tropical-rainforest.jpg https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-i...
dicroce 8y ago
You have to cut down the trees at maturity and preserve them and re plant in order to actually reduce carbon in the atmosphere. We should probably be doing this (as long as we're careful not release more co2 than we capture doing all this)... But we should also be putting government money behind scaling climeworks and other direct carbon capture tech... We should also be seriously studying other more drastic measures.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Increasing the total biomass of trees also reduces atmospheric CO2, even if you just let the natural cycle of life go on.
jajag 8y ago
So in that case, rather than seeing forest planting as a complete all-in-one solution to climate change, should we instead see it as just one component of a greater solution? Use trees to solve the carbon sequester problem, look to other technologies for solutions to the albedo and heat absorption problems?
mamcx 8y ago
Forest are much more than store carbon. Them affect the local climate, and maybe(??) the global(??). Help the local fauna. Clean the air of more than just pollutants, make the soil more fertile, combat erosion, help the river flow to not get so dry, and that is from the top of my head with my limited understanding of the subject. Combined to NOT deforest so hard, and is a win. Forest are a force multiplier.
mirimir 8y ago
> Unger says she received death threats, and that some colleagues stopped speaking to her. That is totally fucked up. I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet. Maybe against some research on primates, but I'm not sure. Yet another consequence of Eternal September :( > “I have heard scientists say that if we found forest loss cooled the planet, we wouldn’t publish it.” That is also totally fucked up. But I guess that it's not that surprising. I mean, Kuhn and all.
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  > I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet. Galileo? I imagine Darwin had his fair share. And those are obviously just the most famous examples.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    It was the Catholic Church that went after Galileo, not individual haters. And based on some searching, I find nothing about threats against Darwin. Indeed, it seems that he was quite the popular figure, at least in the UK. Even after he declared agnosticism. Recently, of course, Christian and Muslim haters have threatened people who support evolution.
    - lovemenot 8y ago
      I haven't heard of any threats directed against Darwin personally. If this is so, one possible reason is that he was extremely circumspect in the timing of publication, since he was well aware of its likely social and theological impact. Darwin's personal preference to not be an asshole, was one reason On the Origin took twenty years to reach publication. After publication, Darwin was fortunate to acquire celebrity bull-dogs such as Huxley, who would take up the cause and allow Darwin to continue his gentlemanly pursuits, out of the direct firing line.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Maybe he didn't get death threats because the sorts of idiots who make death threats didn't read his stuff. And maybe because pastors were too civilized to encourage their flocks to make death threats.
User23 8y ago
How much can climate change help forests?
bjourne 8y ago
The math doesn't work out. Since the beginning of the Industrial revolution humankind has emitted about 550 GtC (gigatons of carbon) into the atmosphere. All plant life on earth contains about 450 GtC. Assuming all of it is forests (which isn't the case, a lot of it is algae, plankton and weeds) and assuming 100% capture rate (which also isn't the case due to forest fires, rotting and reduced albedo), earth's tree cover would more than double to capture all carbon emitted so far. Clearly, that is not realistic. A more realistic (but still implausibly ambitious) goal would be increasing the earth's forests by 10%, storing 45 GtC for us. Well, it is better than nothing but at the current (increasing!) rate of 10 GtC emissions added per year that nets us another 4.5 years. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/al... https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
- api 8y ago
  I've come to terms with the fact that nothing is going to stop anthropogenic climate change and we'll just have to adapt to it. It's not a technical problem but a political game-theoretic problem. Major CO2 cuts would require a global all-cooperate (in a game theory sense) scenario and that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting. This is because global cuts in fossil fuel use would make fossil fuels incredibly cheap, increasing the economic advantage for nations that use them. This is going to be hugely appealing to developing nations with large populations. We already see this with China and India and pretty soon you're going to see it in Africa. The only way I can see CO2 emission growth halting or reversing is a huge breakthrough in energy generation that results in something dramatically cheaper and easier to deploy and scale than fossil fuel. It would take Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future reference), solar and batteries that are just absolutely dirt cheap, or something equivalently awesome. I don't see anything like this arriving before CO2 hits 800-1000ppm. We are pretty adaptable. A bio professor of mine was fond of saying that humans are like cockroaches and that this was a compliment coming from a biologist. We should be preparing to move Miami.
  - taffer 8y ago
    > that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting. Trade policy (e.g. through the WTO) can be designed in a way that allows countries to internalise the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions by imposing higher tariffs on countries that do not cooperate.
ajuc 8y ago
If the albedo effect is so big can't we just paint the oceans white? How many ping-pong balls would it take to stop global warming? Or maybe empty water battles connected into rafts and painted white?

107 points by ramraj07 8y ago

I think from long time scientists are studying the topic of Ocean Seeding and Iron Fertilization. Video on Ocean Seeding - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

agumonkey 8y ago

I rarely, if ever, see people talking about ~bidirectional benefits (think two variables, or force moment). Having people planting and caring more about forest will not only help absorb a bit of CO2 but also make these people do less emitting. Is it useless on a large scale ?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mistrial9 8y ago

Before jumping into detailed discussion of the points raised in the publication here, including "trees leak methane in the Amazon" -- is it possible that this article is getting promoted because it feeds into a "they dont know what they are talking about" meme of anti-science know-nothing'ness ? There appear to be several sets of weasel-words candidates .. Such as "many scientists applaud X but some urge caution" without naming either side's strengths and weaknesses, notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are... Recently it was discovered that USA oil and gas industry self-reporting of methane emissions on extraction in the Permian Basin might be five times less than actual numbers, and might have doubled in the last two years. This was detected by satellite sensors and NGO analysis. http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Doesn't methane dissolve relatively quickly in the atmosphere so it's not a long term threat like CO2 so once you run the numbers amortize it all a tree that leaks methane but eats carbon is a net win so long as the carbon actually stays out of the atmosphere?
- the8472 8y ago
  It turns into CO2. So all that happens is an initial spike of a more potent GHG turning into a baseline GHG. And the half-life is a ~decade, with constant replenishment that's enough to have a significant effect that the same carbon emitted as CO2 would not have.
- ajross 8y ago
  Methane oxidizes in the atmosphere with a half life of about 10 years. CO2's equivalent half life (due to ocean absorption) is 27 via a quick google. So they're really not that different. Neither is a "long term" threat -- if we stopped emissions entirely the climate would be expected to return to a pre-civilization equilibrium on the scale of decades.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    That's pretty different from what I have heard elsewhere. Could you please provide some references so I could read further? Here is a link that argues the opposite side: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
    - acqq 8y ago
      Exactly: "What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2."
  - 8y ago
ramraj07 8y ago
OP here. No climate scientist, just someone who's been following climate change for a couple decades. Not a climate change denier by a long shot, if anything I've actually already made a bunch of large life decisions under the assumption that climate change is going to change this world quite a bit in the next few decades. The main accusation you make, that I (and other who are promoting this article) are suggesting that the scientists don't know what they are talking about, I actually plead guilty for that. I really do think we don't know what we're talking about anythign other than the primary assertion that we are warming this planet through our actions. I don't believe we actually have a real handle on the rate (we could be drastically under or overestimating) of climate change, and I definitely don't think we have an inkling on whether geoengineering efforts would work the way we expect it to. The main light bulb for me from this article is it has made me consider even planting trees as a geoengineering effort, as vicarious as other proposals like dumping iron in the ocean or particles into the stratosphere. Right now I would consider any effort at controlling global warming other than actually just reducing emissions as geoengineering. The most apt analogy I have found for geoengineering efforts like this was given by the comedian Bill Burr in a podcast, where he shits on a Ted talk about genetically engineering malaria mosquitos (https://youtu.be/vEZ0z0WSrUA https://youtu.be/vEZ0z0WSrUA ). I have seen similar over-confidence among my fellow scientitsts in biology, in complicated subjects like cancer, immunology and metabolism. Time and again, people will assert they have understood a system, make a drug, and it won't work, and then they will blame the failure on the same complexity they said they had conquered. We have made tremendous progress on all these scientific fronts (biology, climate science, etc) but the systems under study have become so complex, I would consider it a criminal offense if any scientist makes a claim that they really have figured out all the ramifications of their geoengineering plans. Criminal because I am worried that any major geoengineering effort if it goes wrong might be irreversible. Orders of magnitude more studies are needed IMO to make sure we understand these systems, and I don't think we are going to invest that effort until things get far, far worse. Until then I would prefer we err on the side of caution. Btw it's not just methane, they actually talk about a bunch of other potential issues (like VOCs) in that article. Also, this is nature mag, if you think nature mag is anti-science or climate change denying I'm not sure who else you think is your ally.
- 8y ago
dgjrhgi 8y ago
'notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are...' - Why does it matter to dig into why one side is right or wrong? Earth atmosphere is complex beyond imagination of any person/society and you should expect science (or anyone else)to be wrong most of this time at what they have to say about this topic. Don't be hell-bent on trying to comprehend mechanics of Earth atmosphere and finding 'scientific' solution to climate change. If you are aware of what has worked well until now for earth's climate then why not just follow it?
mistermann 8y ago
> is it possible that this article is getting promoted because it feeds into a "they dont know what they are talking about" meme of anti-science know-nothing'ness ? I would go further and say it's not only possible, it's likely.....similar to how articles from the opposing viewpoint are promoted, also often full of weasel words to some varying degree depending on the specific topic. Much of science discussion in the mainstream is actually a bit of a meme war, but this has probably always been true. Daniel Dennett: Memes 101 | How Cultural Evolution Works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fG-3f4f0hA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fG-3f4f0hA Replace religion with "fundamentalism, of any kind": https://pics.ballmemes.com/the-one-thing-that-i-think-is-really-dangerous-in-18444000.png https://pics.ballmemes.com/the-one-thing-that-i-think-is-rea...

pistoriusp 8y ago

Trees are batteries that store carbon. The carbon is restored into the atmosphere when a tree dies and decays, or is burnt. A long time ago trees didn't decay because the Earth didn't have "fungus" that made them rot and decay. So they just piled on top of each other and turned into coal. Plant more trees. https://onetreeplanted.org/ https://onetreeplanted.org/

umvi 8y ago
> Trees are batteries that store carbon. The carbon is restored into the atmosphere when a tree dies and decays, or is burnt. By extension, wooden building materials are carbon batteries as well. Plant more trees and build more things out of wood.
- cedex12 8y ago
  Beside the reasonable point that building out of wood allows "sequestrating" carbon long(er?) term, are there studies working the maths out and confirming that? It seems the intuitively clear solutions often can be deceiving since there are hidden aspects balancing things out and I'm wondering if it's the case here.
  - strainer 8y ago
    A study is not really required to confirm that wooden constructions contain and retain their carbon. Even over many hundreds of years the wood in Tudor houses is chemically stable (without preservatives - as long as it has correct ventilation) Studies may look into possible mistakes or optimizations that could be made, but the basic material reality is evidenced in plain sight.
    - cedex12 8y ago
      Right, and I asked (or tried to, at least!) about that latter question: stuff like transport, isolation, etc that could make wood less interesting than other construction materials, environmentally.

kaycebasques 8y ago

I read The Hidden Life Of Trees a while back. I believe the author suggests that old growth forests are bigger carbon sinks because they have deeper humus [1]. I don’t know the merits of that idea but it helped me realize that when people talked about forests, I was only thinking about the trees themselves, not taking the soil into consideration, too. If that idea has merit and the research does eventually conclude that forests are a carbon sink strategy, then it suggests that preserving old growth forests might be more effective than planting new ones. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus

foxhop 8y ago
It's not just the humus, an aged forest also has at least 7 layers of carbon sequestration. https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-in-the-tropical-rainforest.jpg https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-i...

dicroce 8y ago

You have to cut down the trees at maturity and preserve them and re plant in order to actually reduce carbon in the atmosphere. We should probably be doing this (as long as we're careful not release more co2 than we capture doing all this)... But we should also be putting government money behind scaling climeworks and other direct carbon capture tech... We should also be seriously studying other more drastic measures.

Consultant32452 8y ago
Increasing the total biomass of trees also reduces atmospheric CO2, even if you just let the natural cycle of life go on.

jajag 8y ago

So in that case, rather than seeing forest planting as a complete all-in-one solution to climate change, should we instead see it as just one component of a greater solution? Use trees to solve the carbon sequester problem, look to other technologies for solutions to the albedo and heat absorption problems?

mamcx 8y ago

Forest are much more than store carbon. Them affect the local climate, and maybe(??) the global(??). Help the local fauna. Clean the air of more than just pollutants, make the soil more fertile, combat erosion, help the river flow to not get so dry, and that is from the top of my head with my limited understanding of the subject. Combined to NOT deforest so hard, and is a win. Forest are a force multiplier.

mirimir 8y ago

> Unger says she received death threats, and that some colleagues stopped speaking to her. That is totally fucked up. I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet. Maybe against some research on primates, but I'm not sure. Yet another consequence of Eternal September :( > “I have heard scientists say that if we found forest loss cooled the planet, we wouldn’t publish it.” That is also totally fucked up. But I guess that it's not that surprising. I mean, Kuhn and all.

lukeschlather 8y ago
> I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet. Galileo? I imagine Darwin had his fair share. And those are obviously just the most famous examples.
- mirimir 8y ago
  It was the Catholic Church that went after Galileo, not individual haters. And based on some searching, I find nothing about threats against Darwin. Indeed, it seems that he was quite the popular figure, at least in the UK. Even after he declared agnosticism. Recently, of course, Christian and Muslim haters have threatened people who support evolution.
  - lovemenot 8y ago
    I haven't heard of any threats directed against Darwin personally. If this is so, one possible reason is that he was extremely circumspect in the timing of publication, since he was well aware of its likely social and theological impact. Darwin's personal preference to not be an asshole, was one reason On the Origin took twenty years to reach publication. After publication, Darwin was fortunate to acquire celebrity bull-dogs such as Huxley, who would take up the cause and allow Darwin to continue his gentlemanly pursuits, out of the direct firing line.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Maybe he didn't get death threats because the sorts of idiots who make death threats didn't read his stuff. And maybe because pastors were too civilized to encourage their flocks to make death threats.

User23 8y ago

How much can climate change help forests?

bjourne 8y ago

The math doesn't work out. Since the beginning of the Industrial revolution humankind has emitted about 550 GtC (gigatons of carbon) into the atmosphere. All plant life on earth contains about 450 GtC. Assuming all of it is forests (which isn't the case, a lot of it is algae, plankton and weeds) and assuming 100% capture rate (which also isn't the case due to forest fires, rotting and reduced albedo), earth's tree cover would more than double to capture all carbon emitted so far. Clearly, that is not realistic. A more realistic (but still implausibly ambitious) goal would be increasing the earth's forests by 10%, storing 45 GtC for us. Well, it is better than nothing but at the current (increasing!) rate of 10 GtC emissions added per year that nets us another 4.5 years. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/al... https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

api 8y ago
I've come to terms with the fact that nothing is going to stop anthropogenic climate change and we'll just have to adapt to it. It's not a technical problem but a political game-theoretic problem. Major CO2 cuts would require a global all-cooperate (in a game theory sense) scenario and that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting. This is because global cuts in fossil fuel use would make fossil fuels incredibly cheap, increasing the economic advantage for nations that use them. This is going to be hugely appealing to developing nations with large populations. We already see this with China and India and pretty soon you're going to see it in Africa. The only way I can see CO2 emission growth halting or reversing is a huge breakthrough in energy generation that results in something dramatically cheaper and easier to deploy and scale than fossil fuel. It would take Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future reference), solar and batteries that are just absolutely dirt cheap, or something equivalently awesome. I don't see anything like this arriving before CO2 hits 800-1000ppm. We are pretty adaptable. A bio professor of mine was fond of saying that humans are like cockroaches and that this was a compliment coming from a biologist. We should be preparing to move Miami.
- taffer 8y ago
  > that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting. Trade policy (e.g. through the WTO) can be designed in a way that allows countries to internalise the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions by imposing higher tariffs on countries that do not cooperate.

ajuc 8y ago

If the albedo effect is so big can't we just paint the oceans white? How many ping-pong balls would it take to stop global warming? Or maybe empty water battles connected into rafts and painted white?