4 ms·

That plant would pull in more CO2 and increase its own biomass based on it. When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets ba

That plant would pull in more CO2 and increase its own biomass based on it. When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. >If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all. The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. Otherwise, the plant life returns on its own. Chernobyl is overrun by plants.

lazyjones 7y ago
> When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. No. If it fully decomposes at some point, arguably. But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. > The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. No. Plants can also become extinct (= no seeds survive) or stop growing in some places due to more aggressive competition.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. That organism will soon die and decompose as well. Fossilization is rather uncommon nowadays. The only one of those where we could and do put a lot of carbon is buildings. However, even those end up rotting over time. Most of the coal formed at a time where lignin didn't break down. We don't live in such a time. We can't repeat the same process. It doesn't really matter whether the carbon is released back into the atmosphere in 2, 5, 50, 100 years. It'll still be released and contribute. Stashing carbon into those forms is not a solution.

4 ms·

That plant would pull in more CO2 and increase its own biomass based on it. When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets ba

by Mirioron 7y ago

lazyjones 7y ago
> When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. No. If it fully decomposes at some point, arguably. But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. > The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. No. Plants can also become extinct (= no seeds survive) or stop growing in some places due to more aggressive competition.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. That organism will soon die and decompose as well. Fossilization is rather uncommon nowadays. The only one of those where we could and do put a lot of carbon is buildings. However, even those end up rotting over time. Most of the coal formed at a time where lignin didn't break down. We don't live in such a time. We can't repeat the same process. It doesn't really matter whether the carbon is released back into the atmosphere in 2, 5, 50, 100 years. It'll still be released and contribute. Stashing carbon into those forms is not a solution.