3 ms·
More plant grow more CO2 captured. It’s a natural stabilisation cycle and a positive side effect. But we shouldn’t talk about it because we should be so so afra
by alfor 3y ago
More plant grow more CO2 captured.
It’s a natural stabilisation cycle and a positive side effect.
But we shouldn’t talk about it because we should be so so afraid all the time of the green apocalypse.
- croes 3y agoThis natural stabilisation cycle leads to a different flora and fauna, some species adapt, some don't and go extinct. So life as such isn't in danger but life as we know it, because we could be the one to go extinct. Just look how it seems that fungus adapt to higher temperatures so they now survive in humans too.
- monero-xmr 3y agoNothing is static in nature. We were in an ice age a blink-of-an-eye ago in geologic terms. Animals migrate. Something may or may not be caused by a warming temperature, but immediately assuming all changes are caused by co2, or that all changes are inherently bad, is an unnatural understanding of natural processes.
- notfish 3y ago1. “Climate scientists are claiming that all changes from climate change will be bad!” is quite the strawman. No scientist really believes this, but almost all agree that the average change will be very bad for humans. 2. Climate change does not mean “increasing CO2”. It means changes in global climate as a result of human activity - things like dumping waste in the ocean count too. CO2 isn’t causing the Anthropocene, Humans are. 3. Arguing in poor faith against climate change because the idea of global catastrophes scares you is a poor evolutionary strategy and you should reconsider your outlook.
- alfor 3y agoI agree with you on that one. It will change the plants and animals equilibrium and at a fast pace compared to most normal process. It’s not a good experiment. I just think that it’s not the panic for global warming. We will be fine on that front with the log scale of renewable growth.
- stouset 3y agoMore CO2 captured is meaningless if that CO2 is shortly released as the dead plant decays.
- 11235813213455 3y agobut you eat a part of that plant, which itself grew by capturing carbon, but then you poop and breath out CO2. Yea in reality CO2 just keeps increasing until we stop extracting hydrocarbures
- slibhb 3y agoIt's not meaningless if there's consistently more plant biomass (which there is, see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...). Leaving aside its magnitude, it seems clear that CO2 -> more plants is a negative feedback loop.
- stouset 3y agoThe amount of living plant biomass is trivial compared to the amount of excess carbon we’re putting into the atmosphere. Consider that we’re unearthing millions of years worth of sequestered carbon. The planet could be covered pole to pole in lush forest and it wouldn’t account for what we burn today. The only realistic answer here is permanent sequestration by e.g., repeatedly growing and burying entire forests’ worth of dead trees.
- slibhb 3y agoGoogle says that about 25% of global CO2 emissions are captured by plants. That's not trivial.
- stouset 3y agoWhat, exactly, do you think plants did before we started burning massive amount of oil and natural gas? The Earth was in rough equilibrium before this. The only way this factoid is even remotely plausible as a permanent store is if Earth’s total plant biomass is growing at rate proportional to our CO2 emissions. Do you genuinely believe that to be the case?
- mrguyorama 3y agoFood crops do not sequester carbon. They will either be eaten and exhaled as CO2, or decompose into CO2. Unless you have a link to someone planning on growing fields of corn just to bury it in an anaerobic environment?
- bequanna 3y agoTrees have entered the chat. Living trees will grow faster and harvested lumber successfully sequesters carbon indefinitely. Even crops we consume have non-negligible amounts of carbon sequestered in soil as they decompose.