5 ms·

One technology is called “TREES”, actually scratch that a more advanced version is called “RAINFOREST” (that one sequesters far more CO2 per square meter than T

One technology is called “TREES”, actually scratch that a more advanced version is called “RAINFOREST” (that one sequesters far more CO2 per square meter than TREES alone). Unfortunately people have cut down a significant portion of both TREES and RAINFOREST because they are economically incentivized to do so.

DesiLurker 7y ago
one way to effect that directly is to eat less beef, I wonder how many are willing to make that sacrifice?
asah 7y ago
JFYI this "tree" technology of which you speak, can only be deployed at the earth's surface. AFAICT, OP was asking about upper atmosphere, which doesn't mix much with the lower atmosphere. Perhaps trees plus some way to mix the atmosphere? Also, I believe we were talking about methane - and while these nifty "tree" things appear to sequester CO2, I believe these produce some amount of methane. Again, perhaps pair Trees(tm) with something to address the methane? For example, I've heard about "fire" but unsure if it can be deployed in the upper atmosphere, requires unrealistic concentrations of methane, or whether its outputs and side effects are acceptable. :-)
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  The thing missing from upper atmosphere that destroys methane is water. Unfortunately, it's a greenhouse gas too, and relatively long-lived there too. It's very likely best to focus in CO2 and let CH4 follow its short lived natural course.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Along with all the other carbon sinks we've drained, developed or heated to start emitting - peat bogs, wetlands, mangroves, permafrost etc.
xyzzyz 7y ago
Mature forests are at best net carbon neutral, and at worst net carbon emitters. Comparing our current emissions with amount sequestered per hectare of forest immediately gives that we don’t have nearly enough suitable unused land to plant new forests to make up for our current emissions. The only viable way to use forests to sequester carbon is to cut down immense numbers of trees and bury them underground. I don’t see anyone going to seriously propose this.
- jonnycomputer 7y ago
  Actually, I wonder if that is true. https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2008/sep/old-growth-forests-are-valuable-carbon-sinks https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2008/sep/old-growth-f... I'm sure tree-farmers would sale their trees to governments interested in sequestering carbon. Probably could just dump them in the oceanic trenches...
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Clearly, if government is going to buy the lumber at market prices, the owners of the forests won’t complain or ask the purpose. However, the rest of us who would pay for the scheme would see the idea of burying the trees in order to offset the carbon we keep digging up as quite ridiculous.
    - jonnycomputer 7y ago
      If there were no alternatives to fossil fuels it wouldn't be ridiculous. Its just an offset (though, honestly, I suspect not an optimal one--carbon is not the only environmental concern we have, and mono-cultured tree farms are probably not a solution to those.. But we do have alternatives. In fact, I think that fossil fuels are preciously energy dense, that they should be kept in reserve for when truly needed. Let renewables be the solution for every-day needs.

DesiLurker 7y ago

one way to effect that directly is to eat less beef, I wonder how many are willing to make that sacrifice?

asah 7y ago

JFYI this "tree" technology of which you speak, can only be deployed at the earth's surface. AFAICT, OP was asking about upper atmosphere, which doesn't mix much with the lower atmosphere. Perhaps trees plus some way to mix the atmosphere? Also, I believe we were talking about methane - and while these nifty "tree" things appear to sequester CO2, I believe these produce some amount of methane. Again, perhaps pair Trees(tm) with something to address the methane? For example, I've heard about "fire" but unsure if it can be deployed in the upper atmosphere, requires unrealistic concentrations of methane, or whether its outputs and side effects are acceptable. :-)

marcosdumay 7y ago
The thing missing from upper atmosphere that destroys methane is water. Unfortunately, it's a greenhouse gas too, and relatively long-lived there too. It's very likely best to focus in CO2 and let CH4 follow its short lived natural course.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Along with all the other carbon sinks we've drained, developed or heated to start emitting - peat bogs, wetlands, mangroves, permafrost etc.

xyzzyz 7y ago

Mature forests are at best net carbon neutral, and at worst net carbon emitters. Comparing our current emissions with amount sequestered per hectare of forest immediately gives that we don’t have nearly enough suitable unused land to plant new forests to make up for our current emissions. The only viable way to use forests to sequester carbon is to cut down immense numbers of trees and bury them underground. I don’t see anyone going to seriously propose this.

jonnycomputer 7y ago
Actually, I wonder if that is true. https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2008/sep/old-growth-forests-are-valuable-carbon-sinks https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2008/sep/old-growth-f... I'm sure tree-farmers would sale their trees to governments interested in sequestering carbon. Probably could just dump them in the oceanic trenches...
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Clearly, if government is going to buy the lumber at market prices, the owners of the forests won’t complain or ask the purpose. However, the rest of us who would pay for the scheme would see the idea of burying the trees in order to offset the carbon we keep digging up as quite ridiculous.
  - jonnycomputer 7y ago
    If there were no alternatives to fossil fuels it wouldn't be ridiculous. Its just an offset (though, honestly, I suspect not an optimal one--carbon is not the only environmental concern we have, and mono-cultured tree farms are probably not a solution to those.. But we do have alternatives. In fact, I think that fossil fuels are preciously energy dense, that they should be kept in reserve for when truly needed. Let renewables be the solution for every-day needs.