4 ms·
> This only works if we are sure that the forest will stay a forest for several hundreds of thousands of year You do realize that carbon sequestrated in a fore
by valw 7y ago
> This only works if we are sure that the forest will stay a forest for several hundreds of thousands of year
You do realize that carbon sequestrated in a forest 100ks of years is prevented from contributed to global warming during all that time period, right?
> Not consuming fossil carbon means it will stay in the earth mantle for a geological time.
Nobody's arguing against that. But it's silly to argue that not consuming fossil fuels is a better solution than carbon sequestration. We urgently need to do BOTH. When your house is burning, you don't choose between calling the firemen and using the extinguisher - you do both.
> So carbon offsets by planting tree is a scam, and we need better than that.
That's naive and simplistic. If carbon offsetting was widely adopted, it would 1) be a fast way to start our transition towards a sustainable economy and 2) encourage reducing fossil fuel consumptions as it gets more and more expensive (as it will inevitably).
When it comes to fighting climate change, what matters is results, not this sort of uninformed rethoric.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoYour extinguisher vs firemen analogy is a good one IMO: We need to do something right now, carbon sequestration fits there. We also need to change our ideology, and our energy resources, if we stick a plaster (ie bandaid) of carbon sequestration on it now and assume that is going to fix it, that's where we going to get to the point where land usage is going to go up against that. We can't simply go on using carbon based fuels and just "plant trees" forever unless we also create a reducing global population ... Sequestration needs to be at greater levels than current use, we shouldn't allow rich people to go on 'using' by only sequestering to counter current usage.