3 ms·
> unless you can bury the plants. Maybe this is a naive question: but why not bury plants? We got into this mess by digging up long-buried plants, so why not l
by boplicity 5y ago
> unless you can bury the plants.
Maybe this is a naive question: but why not bury plants? We got into this mess by digging up long-buried plants, so why not literally reverse the process? With intentional effort, maybe this could be a viable solution? (Probably not -- but I'm curious why.)
- worik 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_agriculture#Carbon_Sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_agriculture#Carbo... Possible. Practical. Increases productivity.
- throwaway41597 5y agoNo need to. Trees bury about half their biomass as roots. Then leaves and branches fall on the ground and bury older leaves and branches. Of course it's long and inefficient (because of fungus, bugs...) but plants do it without our input so we need to let them do their thing. Calling this process net neutral is a falsehood. Of course it's not enough to balance human emissions. Sequestering carbon in fields, as pointed out, is a win-win solution which may do a large part in canceling emissions.