3 ms·

Seems like this could be done much simpler and in harmony with nature by reserving more land for forests and planting trees? Technology is not a solution to eve

Seems like this could be done much simpler and in harmony with nature by reserving more land for forests and planting trees? Technology is not a solution to every problem.

avmich 3y ago
Didn't calculations show that trees aren't fast enough to help us with this problem?
tito 3y ago
Yes, those types of things are part of the solution. Climate models say we need to be removing about 10 billion tons per year of carbon dioxide from the air by 2050, in addition to massive decarbonization. So we need trees, this stuff, and a lot more. A new $1T industry in the next 27 years.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  One big one is weathering rocks. Some rocks need to be crushed to absorb CO2, some need to be crushed and dumped into the sea. The advantage is that it uses technology we already have. It can also be scaled easily. And can run off cheap electricity when needed.
  - herewulf 3y ago
    I wanted to read more and found this. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65648361 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65648361 I wonder about energy used in the weathering capture process. Obviously it's all fossil fuel powered at this point.
seltzered_ 3y ago
There's debate about that, I think it boils down to: - How afforestation efforts are done and what the cultural and labor dynamics are. There's plenty of stories of doing things wrong in the course of carbon afforestation per earlier REDD standards ( see 'REDD alert' - https://youtu.be/FPFPUhsWMaQ https://youtu.be/FPFPUhsWMaQ ) - What kinds of risks there are in sustaining a nature-based effort, from labor to simply whether an event wipes out the forest and expected carbon storage. - Realizing afforestation depends a lot on the biome and such and in some cases can make the climate worse - there's a lot of debate about this but this thread from Forrest Fleischman comes to mind ( https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1306221474802532354 https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/13062214748025323... ) - How there's systems-theory perspectives (while possibly a bit reductionistic) arguing afforestation won't be enough to deal with carbon sequestration & storage. See https://archive.is/rNJTE https://archive.is/rNJTE which references John Sterman and En-Roads. Theres a bigger debate around forms of conservation (e.g. 'preserving' or 'rewilding' forests a la John Muir conservation vs. a more participation with nature framework of biocultural restoration as well)
- otterley 3y ago
  Considering that we once had significantly more forested area within just the past few generations, these risks seem overblown to me.
tito 3y ago
This system proposes removing 30 millions tons per year. A tree captures about 20 tons of carbon dioxide per year. So this is the equivalent to 1.5 million trees. Trees grow at about 800 trees per acre. This effectively matches the space of 1,875 acres, around 3 square miles. So in a way one could think of this as opening up more land for other things.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Someone else mentioned needing to remove 10 billion tons by 2050. That is 1000 sq mi, which is size of Luxembourg. That is doable but have to do every year. My guess is that we’ll run out of good forest spots. Or climate change will kill all the trees.
  - otterley 3y ago
    I think that's the wrong comparison. Sure, 1000 sq mi is the size of Luxemberg, but the entire earth's land surface is over 57 million square miles (yes, I realize only a fraction of that is usable for tree planting). If we assume the planting density is correct, that's around 0.0000175% of surface area needed. Not much at all, proportionately speaking.
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      It makes me suspect that the numbers are off. I found estimate that tree absorbs 20-30kg of CO2 per year. Each cubic meter absorbs 1 ton of CO2. I can't think of any tree grows fast enough for 20 tons. I bet it was originally 20kg not 20 tons. Which means my estimate is 1000 times small. 1 million sq mi is Argentina. Which means we can absorb some CO2 with trees but there isn't enough land for what is needed.
      - otterley 3y ago
        > I bet it was originally 20kg not 20 tons. I think you're right. Oof, that's a lot of trees. Still worth doing IMO. Keep in mind we can divide by 10 since each tree would absorb approximately 250 kg of CO2 over that period of time. That brings us to about 78,000 square miles or 20M hectares, which seems a lot more feasible.

Seems like this could be done much simpler and in harmony with nature by reserving more land for forests and planting trees? Technology is not a solution to every problem.

avmich 3y ago

Didn't calculations show that trees aren't fast enough to help us with this problem?

tito 3y ago

Yes, those types of things are part of the solution. Climate models say we need to be removing about 10 billion tons per year of carbon dioxide from the air by 2050, in addition to massive decarbonization. So we need trees, this stuff, and a lot more. A new $1T industry in the next 27 years.

ianburrell 3y ago
One big one is weathering rocks. Some rocks need to be crushed to absorb CO2, some need to be crushed and dumped into the sea. The advantage is that it uses technology we already have. It can also be scaled easily. And can run off cheap electricity when needed.
- herewulf 3y ago
  I wanted to read more and found this. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65648361 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65648361 I wonder about energy used in the weathering capture process. Obviously it's all fossil fuel powered at this point.

seltzered_ 3y ago

There's debate about that, I think it boils down to: - How afforestation efforts are done and what the cultural and labor dynamics are. There's plenty of stories of doing things wrong in the course of carbon afforestation per earlier REDD standards ( see 'REDD alert' - https://youtu.be/FPFPUhsWMaQ https://youtu.be/FPFPUhsWMaQ ) - What kinds of risks there are in sustaining a nature-based effort, from labor to simply whether an event wipes out the forest and expected carbon storage. - Realizing afforestation depends a lot on the biome and such and in some cases can make the climate worse - there's a lot of debate about this but this thread from Forrest Fleischman comes to mind ( https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1306221474802532354 https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/13062214748025323... ) - How there's systems-theory perspectives (while possibly a bit reductionistic) arguing afforestation won't be enough to deal with carbon sequestration & storage. See https://archive.is/rNJTE https://archive.is/rNJTE which references John Sterman and En-Roads. Theres a bigger debate around forms of conservation (e.g. 'preserving' or 'rewilding' forests a la John Muir conservation vs. a more participation with nature framework of biocultural restoration as well)

otterley 3y ago
Considering that we once had significantly more forested area within just the past few generations, these risks seem overblown to me.

tito 3y ago

This system proposes removing 30 millions tons per year. A tree captures about 20 tons of carbon dioxide per year. So this is the equivalent to 1.5 million trees. Trees grow at about 800 trees per acre. This effectively matches the space of 1,875 acres, around 3 square miles. So in a way one could think of this as opening up more land for other things.

ianburrell 3y ago
Someone else mentioned needing to remove 10 billion tons by 2050. That is 1000 sq mi, which is size of Luxembourg. That is doable but have to do every year. My guess is that we’ll run out of good forest spots. Or climate change will kill all the trees.
- otterley 3y ago
  I think that's the wrong comparison. Sure, 1000 sq mi is the size of Luxemberg, but the entire earth's land surface is over 57 million square miles (yes, I realize only a fraction of that is usable for tree planting). If we assume the planting density is correct, that's around 0.0000175% of surface area needed. Not much at all, proportionately speaking.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    It makes me suspect that the numbers are off. I found estimate that tree absorbs 20-30kg of CO2 per year. Each cubic meter absorbs 1 ton of CO2. I can't think of any tree grows fast enough for 20 tons. I bet it was originally 20kg not 20 tons. Which means my estimate is 1000 times small. 1 million sq mi is Argentina. Which means we can absorb some CO2 with trees but there isn't enough land for what is needed.
    - otterley 3y ago
      > I bet it was originally 20kg not 20 tons. I think you're right. Oof, that's a lot of trees. Still worth doing IMO. Keep in mind we can divide by 10 since each tree would absorb approximately 250 kg of CO2 over that period of time. That brings us to about 78,000 square miles or 20M hectares, which seems a lot more feasible.