4 ms·
It may slow down for a maybe short while the emission of greenhouse gases originated by permafrost thawing. But that won't solve that we keep adding big amount
by gmuslera 5y ago
It may slow down for a maybe short while the emission of greenhouse gases originated by permafrost thawing.
But that won't solve that we keep adding big amounts of fossil carbon to the atmosphere, nor the amount of fossil carbon that we managed to add to the cycle so far that is what is driving climate change now.
To stop global warming net zero plus massive carbon capture is needed, moving pieces in a mostly closed (or at least with stable enough inputs) system won't do the trick.
- Chris2048 5y agoPerhaps cultivation of reclaimed land could capture some carbon? And it says something about re-greening the Sahara too..
- kibwen 5y agoCarbon capture from re-greening the Sahara would be countered by de-greening the Amazon, since the latter is fertilized by the former as winds blow dust over the Atlantic. These systems are complex, and just doing what intuitively feels right can just as easily be counterproductive.
- Chris2048 5y agoHmm, but why does the Amazon need to be constantly re-fertilised? Where does it lose that phosphorus? EDIT: ah, rain seems to leach it away from the amazon basin over time. Still wonder where it all goes though, into the sea?
- genewitch 5y agoForest ecosystem soil is fragile, because the soil is very loose due to animals, vegetation, insects, mushrooms. A large, old forest only produces on the order of a foot of topsoil in 50 years. It is possible to produce more artificially with rainwater mitigation and drainage paths that are engineered rather than left to chaos. As a side effect, growing in the Sahara would also potentially drastically reduce Atlantic hurricanes. So we have to decide what's more important, trees (move them to Sahara! Or at least replant equal numbers in Sahara and elsewhere) or human lives and infra.