3 ms·
I suspect the best way is algae, but we'd likely destroy the oceans overusing it given humanity's inability to do things in a metered and sensible way.
by NikkiA 7y ago
I suspect the best way is algae, but we'd likely destroy the oceans overusing it given humanity's inability to do things in a metered and sensible way.
- wysifnwyg 7y agoWhy set it lose in the ocean when you could contain it and measure it in a more controlled environment?
- wjn0 7y agoIt's not immediately clear to me that the energy involved in creating a "more controlled environment" would make the investment a net positive.
- wysifnwyg 7y agoIn a contained setting it still will sequester carbon. It is more easily monitored for expected behavior. It minimizes risk to other ecosystems.
- blacksmith_tb 7y agoAlgae are interesting, but I don't see them as being ideal for tying up the carbon for long - we'd need to compress it into bricks and bury them, perhaps?
- firethief 7y agoAren't we already growing algae in the ocean about as fast as we can? Is there more we could be doing than manufacturing fertilizer on a geological scale and letting a lot of it end up washing out to sea? (Honest question, I haven't thought about this avenue of geoengineering before)