4 ms·

I find the whole framing of "stopping emissions" odd. Where burning charcoal and burning hard coal are treated the same. But in fact, they are different: charco

I find the whole framing of "stopping emissions" odd. Where burning charcoal and burning hard coal are treated the same. But in fact, they are different: charcoal is made from plants, who captured the carbon recently from the air. If the plants are given enough time and space to recapture, burning charcoal is carbon neutral. Hard coal, to the contrary, was isolated from the carbon cycles for like, 300 million years, thus re-adding it to the cycle is going to make a dent that plants probably cannot offset. Stopping digging out carbon (hard coal, oil, liquid gas, limestone) would be like the first thing to do, but it seems the focus was shifted elsewhere...

cowpig 4y ago
This argument could make some sense if we were talking about designing a sustainable system in the abstract, but the climate issue is an emergency leading to catastrophic outcomes in the present, and so decreasing emissions by any means necessary in the short-term is what matters.
- blueflow 4y ago
  Continuing to dig out carbon and inserting it into the carbon cycle is guaranteed to exceed what we can offset with plants. What you describe is still a trajectory to doom or whatever awaits us.
  - btilly 4y ago
    With plants that remain part of the life cycle? Sure. But growing plants can lock away carbon more permanently depending how it is disposed of. Consider https://charmindustrial.com/ https://charmindustrial.com/. They take bio waste products (for example corn husks and cobs), turn it into oil, then put that back into wells. So growing plants (in this specific case, food) winds up permanently locking waste away.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      > They take bio waste products [...], turn it into oil I was about to call bullshit because of the first law of thermodynamics, but their FAQ states: > Unlike crude oil, bio-oil cannot sustain a flame, bio-oil has much lower energy density Good! > are heated up to about 500°C in a few seconds without burning I wonder where that heat comes from.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    That’s a great point. We had the carboniferous period in ancient history and all that carbon had been locked up. We’re not going to be able to put it back with plants. Our plants aren’t the same and mushrooms exist. “The Carboniferous trees made extensive use of lignin. They had bark to wood ratios of 8 to 1, and even as high as 20 to 1. This compares to modern values less than 1 to 4. This bark, which must have been used as support as well as protection, probably had 38% to 58% lignin.[citation needed] Lignin is insoluble, too large to pass through cell walls, too heterogeneous for specific enzymes, and toxic, so that few organisms other than Basidiomycetes fungi can degrade it.”
TSiege 4y ago
Not really aware of anyone against charcoal other than the industry where we destroy american forests to make charcoal that we ship to europe to burn. Which 1) wastes energy from shipping that almost certainly isn't green and 2) destroys ecosystems that we need to begin rejuvenating in order to stabilize the climate system

cowpig 4y ago

This argument could make some sense if we were talking about designing a sustainable system in the abstract, but the climate issue is an emergency leading to catastrophic outcomes in the present, and so decreasing emissions by any means necessary in the short-term is what matters.

blueflow 4y ago
Continuing to dig out carbon and inserting it into the carbon cycle is guaranteed to exceed what we can offset with plants. What you describe is still a trajectory to doom or whatever awaits us.
- btilly 4y ago
  With plants that remain part of the life cycle? Sure. But growing plants can lock away carbon more permanently depending how it is disposed of. Consider https://charmindustrial.com/ https://charmindustrial.com/. They take bio waste products (for example corn husks and cobs), turn it into oil, then put that back into wells. So growing plants (in this specific case, food) winds up permanently locking waste away.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    > They take bio waste products [...], turn it into oil I was about to call bullshit because of the first law of thermodynamics, but their FAQ states: > Unlike crude oil, bio-oil cannot sustain a flame, bio-oil has much lower energy density Good! > are heated up to about 500°C in a few seconds without burning I wonder where that heat comes from.
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  That’s a great point. We had the carboniferous period in ancient history and all that carbon had been locked up. We’re not going to be able to put it back with plants. Our plants aren’t the same and mushrooms exist. “The Carboniferous trees made extensive use of lignin. They had bark to wood ratios of 8 to 1, and even as high as 20 to 1. This compares to modern values less than 1 to 4. This bark, which must have been used as support as well as protection, probably had 38% to 58% lignin.[citation needed] Lignin is insoluble, too large to pass through cell walls, too heterogeneous for specific enzymes, and toxic, so that few organisms other than Basidiomycetes fungi can degrade it.”

TSiege 4y ago

Not really aware of anyone against charcoal other than the industry where we destroy american forests to make charcoal that we ship to europe to burn. Which 1) wastes energy from shipping that almost certainly isn't green and 2) destroys ecosystems that we need to begin rejuvenating in order to stabilize the climate system