4 ms·
> #2 seems your goal, because you did mention "slow decay", but slow decay is still decay, it doesn't matter whether a tree takes 25 or 50 years to decay, all t
by memling 5y ago
> #2 seems your goal, because you did mention "slow decay", but slow decay is still decay, it doesn't matter whether a tree takes 25 or 50 years to decay, all the CO2 it absorbs will eventually release back to atmosphere, which makes 0 net change. Could you elaborate on that? Thanks.
Not OP, generally skeptical, but will point out that delay is actually not a Bad Thing. It gives us time to consider what to do and look at other technologies that could make a more permanent dent in CO2 production/consumption cycles. Time is apparently a Big Deal for the fate of the planet and human race, and having a little more to see if there are other ways to mitigate damage seems good.
- freemint 5y agoIn the future carbon capture will be cheaper. By delaying the release of carbon after the maximum CO2 concentration it doesn't increase top temperature but instead just slows the recovery to the CO2 concentration our childrens children will decide they want. Also temperature increase is roughly proportional to the integral of excess CO2 emission (actually more like a convolution with the life time curve of CO2 in the atmosphere) meaning delaying CO2 release means total peak excess energy will be lowered resulting in less worse ecosystem damage and maybe less feedback loops triggered.