5 ms·

I first heard if this tech from the Netflix series, Down To Earth. I think sequestering the carbon into the soil through plants is a better idea. The mineraliz

by hosh 6y ago

I first heard if this tech from the Netflix series, Down To Earth. I think sequestering the carbon into the soil through plants is a better idea. The mineralization will not be bioavailable in the ecosystem. It isn’t as if carbon itself is a bad thing so much as its excess amount in the atmosphere. Futhermore, having more plants and fungi and living ecosystems fixes other problems besides greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Or better yet, fix the underlying thing on our global civilization’s obsession with technology that emits all of this in the first place. I am not necessarily talking about the tech so much as why we in our society think we can’t live without it.

ianlevesque 6y ago
It wasn’t bioavailable buried in the ground as oil or coal, so that doesn’t seem like an important concern to me.
- hosh 6y ago
  It may not have been bioavailable as oil or coal, but it is possible to sequester carbon in a way that accumulates fertility in the soil. That not only restores the declining fertility we have in general, by increasing fertility in general, people are better able to feed themselves in general. Furthermore, greater fertility supports a greater diversity of ecosystems, which enhances the resiliency of the overall living system. Greater overall resiliency helps bring basic security to the people and the land (the basic level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), and enables us to develop our own potential (self actualization), and our relationships within our ecosystem. As an example, carbon can be sequestered in the form of biochar. Carbon in that form is not bioavailable to plants so much as bioavailable to fungi. The fungis don’t consume it so much as live in it. It becomes hydrophillic, and allows the soil to hold a lot more water and nutrients. That in turn enables greater fertility. Since it is not consumed, it can act as a long-lasting soil amendment (greater than a thousand years). Human-made biochar is the reason there are some spots in the Amazon that supports and holds a great deal of fertility, enough to support a vast civilization (that only got destroyed by infectious disease from Europe during the colonial period). Without biochar, the frequent rain washes away nutrients, making those part of the jungle fragile.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >by increasing fertility in general, people are better able to feed themselves in general. but if you're using that fertile soil to grow food, wouldn't that mean the carbon is going to be un-sequestered?
    - samatman 6y ago
      Your question is answered in detail, and in the negative, in the very post you're replying to.
bloudermilk 6y ago
The reality of the situation is such that we need to do all of the above. We must decarbonize the global economy. We still have to remove much of the carbon we’ve already emitted. In order to reach the scale required, we need to commercialize both biospheric and mechanical solutions to carbon removal. I would also argue that it’s not society that can’t live without hydrocarbons as much as it is the entrenched industries that profit from them.
- hosh 6y ago
  I also think the entrenched industries profit from them too. More fundamentally, it is a paradigm of value extraction that is deeply embedded as a value within our civilization. The profit motive are driven by individuals who seek to accumulate wealth and control access to them. That same game is played by people who don’t have wealth yet expect the tide to raise all boats. But we also compare ourselves to other people to give ourselves a sense of progress. The general ethical principles do not include a relationship with place, land, communities.
  - megameter 6y ago
    The bright side of it, if there is one, is that the modern industrial pace of extraction has not gone on that long - fewer generations than you can fit on your fingers. So the cultural hole we are in is really just a few hundred years deep, not thousands. It's just not so visible that that is the case, except perhaps to some indigenous cultures, or those who have visited the undeveloped world. This capacity for self-harm was built by forgetting our holistic selves and putting other things first - work, wealth, fame and glory, the national interest. It'll take a little work, but we can remember.
    - bioipbiop 6y ago
      Lovely stuff, our society may be imperfect, but our material well-being is not something to be dismissed. Our secure food supply, sanitation, clean drinking water, medicine, and ability to adjust the climate to a comfortable level are absolutely marvellous achievements and dependent upon resource extraction. I’d hate to think anyone would suggest we should regress a millimetre away from that. We need to find ways to satiate our hunger for resources in a sustainable manner (or find a way to import them from a nearby object in space), but we shouldn’t be ashamed of the progress we’ve made.
neurobashing 6y ago
it's a bit of an intentionally snarky response but any time anyone talks about machines to do it, I always reply: they already exist, they're called _trees_.
- foobar1962 6y ago
  Respectfully ignoring the snark, we have an immediate problem and tress aren't fast enough, take up too much land, and the land needs to be suitable. I've watched the past 30-odd years - and my father for 50-odd years before that - as fertile farmland with good reliable rain (this is not a common combination in Australia) has been built-over with housing. Agriculture has been pushed further out to areas with less fertility and rainfall. Most of the remaining wide open spaces in Australia can support little more than bush and patches of grass. All the good land with rainfall has people living on it.
  - samatman 6y ago
    This is a problem all over. Before it was Silicon Valley, the Peninsula was said to be the best citrus growing land on Earth. It's a nice place to live, don't get me wrong. But I can't help feeling like growing detached single-family homes instead wasn't a good trade.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      You, or anyone else here, can reverse this trade today by buying up homes, demolishing them, and planting citrus trees. You wouldn't make a profit doing so though, which tells you that the collective hivemind that makes up the economy prefers houses over trees.
      - prox 6y ago
        Youcould set up a collective farm, where a neighborhood essentially owns a farm.
        6y ago
rayiner 6y ago
> Or better yet, fix the underlying thing on our global civilization’s obsession with technology that emits all of this in the first place. I am not necessarily talking about the tech so much as why we in our society think we can’t live without it. What a fatalistic view of the future.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by hosh 6y ago

ianlevesque 6y ago

It wasn’t bioavailable buried in the ground as oil or coal, so that doesn’t seem like an important concern to me.

hosh 6y ago
It may not have been bioavailable as oil or coal, but it is possible to sequester carbon in a way that accumulates fertility in the soil. That not only restores the declining fertility we have in general, by increasing fertility in general, people are better able to feed themselves in general. Furthermore, greater fertility supports a greater diversity of ecosystems, which enhances the resiliency of the overall living system. Greater overall resiliency helps bring basic security to the people and the land (the basic level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), and enables us to develop our own potential (self actualization), and our relationships within our ecosystem. As an example, carbon can be sequestered in the form of biochar. Carbon in that form is not bioavailable to plants so much as bioavailable to fungi. The fungis don’t consume it so much as live in it. It becomes hydrophillic, and allows the soil to hold a lot more water and nutrients. That in turn enables greater fertility. Since it is not consumed, it can act as a long-lasting soil amendment (greater than a thousand years). Human-made biochar is the reason there are some spots in the Amazon that supports and holds a great deal of fertility, enough to support a vast civilization (that only got destroyed by infectious disease from Europe during the colonial period). Without biochar, the frequent rain washes away nutrients, making those part of the jungle fragile.
- gruez 6y ago
  >by increasing fertility in general, people are better able to feed themselves in general. but if you're using that fertile soil to grow food, wouldn't that mean the carbon is going to be un-sequestered?
  - samatman 6y ago
    Your question is answered in detail, and in the negative, in the very post you're replying to.

bloudermilk 6y ago

The reality of the situation is such that we need to do all of the above. We must decarbonize the global economy. We still have to remove much of the carbon we’ve already emitted. In order to reach the scale required, we need to commercialize both biospheric and mechanical solutions to carbon removal. I would also argue that it’s not society that can’t live without hydrocarbons as much as it is the entrenched industries that profit from them.

hosh 6y ago
I also think the entrenched industries profit from them too. More fundamentally, it is a paradigm of value extraction that is deeply embedded as a value within our civilization. The profit motive are driven by individuals who seek to accumulate wealth and control access to them. That same game is played by people who don’t have wealth yet expect the tide to raise all boats. But we also compare ourselves to other people to give ourselves a sense of progress. The general ethical principles do not include a relationship with place, land, communities.
- megameter 6y ago
  The bright side of it, if there is one, is that the modern industrial pace of extraction has not gone on that long - fewer generations than you can fit on your fingers. So the cultural hole we are in is really just a few hundred years deep, not thousands. It's just not so visible that that is the case, except perhaps to some indigenous cultures, or those who have visited the undeveloped world. This capacity for self-harm was built by forgetting our holistic selves and putting other things first - work, wealth, fame and glory, the national interest. It'll take a little work, but we can remember.
  - bioipbiop 6y ago
    Lovely stuff, our society may be imperfect, but our material well-being is not something to be dismissed. Our secure food supply, sanitation, clean drinking water, medicine, and ability to adjust the climate to a comfortable level are absolutely marvellous achievements and dependent upon resource extraction. I’d hate to think anyone would suggest we should regress a millimetre away from that. We need to find ways to satiate our hunger for resources in a sustainable manner (or find a way to import them from a nearby object in space), but we shouldn’t be ashamed of the progress we’ve made.

neurobashing 6y ago

it's a bit of an intentionally snarky response but any time anyone talks about machines to do it, I always reply: they already exist, they're called _trees_.

foobar1962 6y ago
Respectfully ignoring the snark, we have an immediate problem and tress aren't fast enough, take up too much land, and the land needs to be suitable. I've watched the past 30-odd years - and my father for 50-odd years before that - as fertile farmland with good reliable rain (this is not a common combination in Australia) has been built-over with housing. Agriculture has been pushed further out to areas with less fertility and rainfall. Most of the remaining wide open spaces in Australia can support little more than bush and patches of grass. All the good land with rainfall has people living on it.
- samatman 6y ago
  This is a problem all over. Before it was Silicon Valley, the Peninsula was said to be the best citrus growing land on Earth. It's a nice place to live, don't get me wrong. But I can't help feeling like growing detached single-family homes instead wasn't a good trade.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    You, or anyone else here, can reverse this trade today by buying up homes, demolishing them, and planting citrus trees. You wouldn't make a profit doing so though, which tells you that the collective hivemind that makes up the economy prefers houses over trees.
    - prox 6y ago
      Youcould set up a collective farm, where a neighborhood essentially owns a farm.
      - 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

> Or better yet, fix the underlying thing on our global civilization’s obsession with technology that emits all of this in the first place. I am not necessarily talking about the tech so much as why we in our society think we can’t live without it. What a fatalistic view of the future.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]