4 ms·

Also, planting trees sequesters co2 into the biosphere. That is not good enough, we need to be sequestering co2 into the geosphere if we want to remove it from

Also, planting trees sequesters co2 into the biosphere. That is not good enough, we need to be sequestering co2 into the geosphere if we want to remove it from the equation

detritus 5y ago
I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere here already by someone, but I've always thought that converting felled 'sequestration stock' to bio-char and making terra preta out of it would be win-win-win, as it could then be used to improve desertified land. As much as CO2 emissions befear me, so too does increasingly poor topsoil, globally. - ed I'm not even sure we'd need to wait for trees to mature either - we just need work with whatever plant absorbs the most CO2. Perhaps algae, even?
- simon_000666 5y ago
  So I’m thinking the same. Soil + Terra preta(charcoal + food waste) is the best way. There needs to be some kind of inverse Bitcoin - something where we incentivize large number of people to claim areas of land and terra Preta it up. The reward is some kind of token that can be exchanged for value. We can maybe use satellite imagery to identify which land has been converted. Someone has to be forming a team on this for the prize.
- kmtrowbr 5y ago
  This is definitely a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_... In theory it's energy positive: burning the crop can produce energy.
kisamoto 5y ago
Naturally (without human influence) a combination of biosphere (decades) and geosphere (millenia) would keep CO₂ levels in check. We (humans) have accelerated emissions (by burning, thus reversing, geosphere capture via oil) and destroyed the biosphere through deforestation. This has also been accelerated as raising temperatures thaw permafrost & destroy ocean life (among others). Anything we can do to reverse this is beneficial.
mrfusion 5y ago
Has anyone checked if earths total biomass has increased as co2 increases?
- ralusek 5y ago
  There is more greenery/forestation, and likely more biomass downstream, but I would expect other effects to cancel those effects beyond certain thresholds. For example, even though plankton and algae might benefit from additional carbon and heat, acidification of the ocean might lead to a net decrease in both.
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    I guess it would be impossible to actually measure. Heat could also increase biomass since there would be a longer growing season and higher latitudes opening up. But like you say, it’s a trade off so hard to predict.
- hedora 5y ago
  We’ve pumped a lot of nitrogen into the biosphere. I wonder how much that’s increased the total biomass.
BurningFrog 5y ago
That assumes a lot about the world in 50-100 years when trees planned today are full grown!

Also, planting trees sequesters co2 into the biosphere. That is not good enough, we need to be sequestering co2 into the geosphere if we want to remove it from the equation

detritus 5y ago

I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere here already by someone, but I've always thought that converting felled 'sequestration stock' to bio-char and making terra preta out of it would be win-win-win, as it could then be used to improve desertified land. As much as CO2 emissions befear me, so too does increasingly poor topsoil, globally. - ed I'm not even sure we'd need to wait for trees to mature either - we just need work with whatever plant absorbs the most CO2. Perhaps algae, even?

simon_000666 5y ago
So I’m thinking the same. Soil + Terra preta(charcoal + food waste) is the best way. There needs to be some kind of inverse Bitcoin - something where we incentivize large number of people to claim areas of land and terra Preta it up. The reward is some kind of token that can be exchanged for value. We can maybe use satellite imagery to identify which land has been converted. Someone has to be forming a team on this for the prize.
kmtrowbr 5y ago
This is definitely a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_... In theory it's energy positive: burning the crop can produce energy.

kisamoto 5y ago

Naturally (without human influence) a combination of biosphere (decades) and geosphere (millenia) would keep CO₂ levels in check. We (humans) have accelerated emissions (by burning, thus reversing, geosphere capture via oil) and destroyed the biosphere through deforestation. This has also been accelerated as raising temperatures thaw permafrost & destroy ocean life (among others). Anything we can do to reverse this is beneficial.

mrfusion 5y ago

Has anyone checked if earths total biomass has increased as co2 increases?

ralusek 5y ago
There is more greenery/forestation, and likely more biomass downstream, but I would expect other effects to cancel those effects beyond certain thresholds. For example, even though plankton and algae might benefit from additional carbon and heat, acidification of the ocean might lead to a net decrease in both.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  I guess it would be impossible to actually measure. Heat could also increase biomass since there would be a longer growing season and higher latitudes opening up. But like you say, it’s a trade off so hard to predict.
hedora 5y ago
We’ve pumped a lot of nitrogen into the biosphere. I wonder how much that’s increased the total biomass.

BurningFrog 5y ago

That assumes a lot about the world in 50-100 years when trees planned today are full grown!