5 ms·

Everytime I hear the word 'carbon capture' I just think of trees. This is literally what trees do, they capture carbon.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
And then release a large majority of it when they die and are eaten by fungus and bacteria. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dead https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dea...
- enriquto 6y ago
  Thus, growing a tree and burning the wood (or disposing of it) is 100% carbon neutral. What's the problem, then?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    The problem is that it's useless for sequestering carbon that's already in air, that we sourced from deep underground.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      Yes, the obvious step would be to stop burning fossil carbon, it seems like a much more pressing issue than sequestering the one that is already in the atmosphere.
      - kaybe 6y ago
        By now we need to do both, there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere. If you look at the IPCC projections, 1.5°C is only achievable with carbon capture of some sorts [0] (if at all). Research and development for this has to be pushed yesterday. Though word is in the air that the previous assessments might have been very optimistic.. although that will probably only be discussed in 2022 when the 6th assessment report is to be published. Which presses the issue only further. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b-724x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
  - fastball 6y ago
    People probably aren't going to be flying around in wood-powered passenger jets any time soon.
- ognarb 6y ago
  I mean sure, but a forest will still capture more carbon than a plain. And it provides many more advantages than just capturing carbon for the diversity of our ecosystem.
usrusr 6y ago
Yes, but to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. I dare claim that this won't happen (it would be far cheaper/more efficient to leave those fossils and synthesize something from those trees up here) Sometimes I wonder, as a mind experiment, how close we could get to practical carbon burial with a process based on sinking polymer blocks in the ocean: the specifics of the polymer blocks wouldn't matter at all as long as the surface doesn't degrade into spreading microplastics and total density would be high enough to sink, and they could be shaped like standard containers for easy logistics. The result of the mind experiment is always the same, even that could not possibly compete with leaving fossils underground.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. Why? What is wrong with capturing carbon the way trees naturally do? (Honest question)
  - detritus 6y ago
    I think they mean 'after the tree has been cut down or otherwise reached the end of its life'.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Trees are part of a closed cycle: eventually they burn or are decomposed biologically (fungi and animals). As far as I know, all the high quality fossil reservoirs we excavate have been accumulated in an exceptional era when the biological defense mechanisms of trees happened to have so much of an upper hand over all potential decompositors that their corpses basically stayed around forever. Imagine a C heap when for a while free() is a noop... (it has been fixed for quite a while now). The closest thing we have today to those "eternal tree corpses" are peat bogs were decomposition is kind of broken even today (and guess who discovered that dried up peat can burn, even if it's a very dirty fire? Humans. We just love oxydating carbons).
- gandalfian 6y ago

And then release a large majority of it when they die and are eaten by fungus and bacteria. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dead https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dea...

enriquto 6y ago
Thus, growing a tree and burning the wood (or disposing of it) is 100% carbon neutral. What's the problem, then?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  The problem is that it's useless for sequestering carbon that's already in air, that we sourced from deep underground.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    Yes, the obvious step would be to stop burning fossil carbon, it seems like a much more pressing issue than sequestering the one that is already in the atmosphere.
    - kaybe 6y ago
      By now we need to do both, there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere. If you look at the IPCC projections, 1.5°C is only achievable with carbon capture of some sorts [0] (if at all). Research and development for this has to be pushed yesterday. Though word is in the air that the previous assessments might have been very optimistic.. although that will probably only be discussed in 2022 when the 6th assessment report is to be published. Which presses the issue only further. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b-724x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
- fastball 6y ago
  People probably aren't going to be flying around in wood-powered passenger jets any time soon.
ognarb 6y ago
I mean sure, but a forest will still capture more carbon than a plain. And it provides many more advantages than just capturing carbon for the diversity of our ecosystem.

usrusr 6y ago

Yes, but to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. I dare claim that this won't happen (it would be far cheaper/more efficient to leave those fossils and synthesize something from those trees up here) Sometimes I wonder, as a mind experiment, how close we could get to practical carbon burial with a process based on sinking polymer blocks in the ocean: the specifics of the polymer blocks wouldn't matter at all as long as the surface doesn't degrade into spreading microplastics and total density would be high enough to sink, and they could be shaped like standard containers for easy logistics. The result of the mind experiment is always the same, even that could not possibly compete with leaving fossils underground.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. Why? What is wrong with capturing carbon the way trees naturally do? (Honest question)
- detritus 6y ago
  I think they mean 'after the tree has been cut down or otherwise reached the end of its life'.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Trees are part of a closed cycle: eventually they burn or are decomposed biologically (fungi and animals). As far as I know, all the high quality fossil reservoirs we excavate have been accumulated in an exceptional era when the biological defense mechanisms of trees happened to have so much of an upper hand over all potential decompositors that their corpses basically stayed around forever. Imagine a C heap when for a while free() is a noop... (it has been fixed for quite a while now). The closest thing we have today to those "eternal tree corpses" are peat bogs were decomposition is kind of broken even today (and guess who discovered that dried up peat can burn, even if it's a very dirty fire? Humans. We just love oxydating carbons).
gandalfian 6y ago