3 ms·

Rather than immediately sequestering the carbon, it seems to me that it would make economic sense to use fibrous plant materials in products. By taxing competi

by gnode 7y ago

Rather than immediately sequestering the carbon, it seems to me that it would make economic sense to use fibrous plant materials in products. By taxing competing non ecologically friendly alternatives like fossil oil-based plastics, and sending carbon-containing products to landfill, a greater financial incentive is created for growers, and carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere rapidly and long-term.

DanBC 7y ago
Is the carbon sequestered when the paper bags are sent to landfil, or do the bags rot releasing a mix of co2 and methane, making this a negative result because of the extra warming effects of methane?
- gnode 7y ago
  Properly managed landfill is given a cover to prevent gas release, and gas harvested via wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas Anaerobic decay of carboniferous matter produces much less carbon loss as gas than aerobic decay. Captured methane is destructively utilised, reducing its greenhouse gas concerns. Processing fibre crops into particular bioplastics can also reduce potential for gaseous decay. This seems favourable when compared to trees which produce large quantities of openly decaying matter (e.g. fallen leaves) throughout their lives, and unless lumbered, will almost entirely decay when they die.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
Processing and transport requires energy which is unlikely to be renewable. To maximize impact I think we need to find some efficient system, perhaps algae or GMO plants or weeds, that sinks carbon straight into the earth. Perhaps very verdant places like Minnesota, residents could be encouraged to collect deciduous leaves each year and round them up for sequestration (which again requires energy). Or renewable and nuclear power plants could use all of their excess power toward some kind of machine that scrubs co2, which becomes a solid at relatively high temperature of -75C (compared to liquid o2 or n2).
- gnode 7y ago
  We could artificially capture arbitrary amounts of carbon using nuclear and renewable power, but I think it's important to consider how such activities would be paid for. It seems more politically feasible to me, to incentivise ecologically healthy consumption through taxation (e.g. carbon tax; fuel duties; severance taxes), than to fund grand reparative projects.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    > how such activities would be paid for. they should be paid for by the industries that caused the pollution: oil and gas, automobile, manufacturing. I don't think there is any dichotomy regarding encouraging healthy consumption. Even if we were carbon neutral today, how are we going to siphon back the excess carbon that has been released over the last century?

by gnode 7y ago

DanBC 7y ago

Is the carbon sequestered when the paper bags are sent to landfil, or do the bags rot releasing a mix of co2 and methane, making this a negative result because of the extra warming effects of methane?

gnode 7y ago
Properly managed landfill is given a cover to prevent gas release, and gas harvested via wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas Anaerobic decay of carboniferous matter produces much less carbon loss as gas than aerobic decay. Captured methane is destructively utilised, reducing its greenhouse gas concerns. Processing fibre crops into particular bioplastics can also reduce potential for gaseous decay. This seems favourable when compared to trees which produce large quantities of openly decaying matter (e.g. fallen leaves) throughout their lives, and unless lumbered, will almost entirely decay when they die.

JudgeWapner 7y ago

Processing and transport requires energy which is unlikely to be renewable. To maximize impact I think we need to find some efficient system, perhaps algae or GMO plants or weeds, that sinks carbon straight into the earth. Perhaps very verdant places like Minnesota, residents could be encouraged to collect deciduous leaves each year and round them up for sequestration (which again requires energy). Or renewable and nuclear power plants could use all of their excess power toward some kind of machine that scrubs co2, which becomes a solid at relatively high temperature of -75C (compared to liquid o2 or n2).

gnode 7y ago
We could artificially capture arbitrary amounts of carbon using nuclear and renewable power, but I think it's important to consider how such activities would be paid for. It seems more politically feasible to me, to incentivise ecologically healthy consumption through taxation (e.g. carbon tax; fuel duties; severance taxes), than to fund grand reparative projects.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  > how such activities would be paid for. they should be paid for by the industries that caused the pollution: oil and gas, automobile, manufacturing. I don't think there is any dichotomy regarding encouraging healthy consumption. Even if we were carbon neutral today, how are we going to siphon back the excess carbon that has been released over the last century?