4 ms·

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 ca

by 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.”

by cowpig 4y ago

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.”