3 ms·

How exactly will burying gigatons of CO2 from growing gigatons of trees after pulling up gigatons of CO2 from the same earth not constitute massive control over

How exactly will burying gigatons of CO2 from growing gigatons of trees after pulling up gigatons of CO2 from the same earth not constitute massive control over the economy? One billion hectares?!! That's 10,000,000 km^2. That is more half the 19,824,000 km^2 of total arable land! There isn't enough arable land for food! You'd have to take it from lands far less fertile. And where? What you are suggesting is a massive 'carbon cycling' economy, digging up CO2 from fossil fuels, burning it, recovering that CO2 from trees, and then burying it. Over long, long timescales, this is the same process by which the fossil fuels were synthesized. It should be least plausible that this is not the most efficient thing we can come up with!

mynameishere 18y ago
The "billion" figure equals the total amount of CO2 produced, which is not the amount that would actually have to be planted and buried. I'm not sure why they quoted that figure, as the actual figure would be much less. It wouldn't involve arable land anyway, but more-or-less useless land in Siberia and Canada. The primary difference here is that it isn't pre-emptive. If it turns out that global warming is an actual problem, then and only then, it can be countered by burying trees. If it turns out that global warming was all a ruse (probable enough) then nothing needs to be done.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  What's the actual figure? That one billion figure corresponds to all the carbon dioxide released in a year. Think of it. To counteract our carbon emissions, you have to cut down and bury 10,000,000 km^2 of forest per year! Even if we do 1% of that, that corresponds with the average deforestation over the past century. That's an industry larger than the forestry industry, because we need to grow all of those trees, and then bury them. Regarding global warming, it may not be catastrophic, but it's... absurd to call it a hoax. Average temperatures are rising. Do you have another explanation for the receding ice caps, then? Do you have a different prediction for the greenland glacier? If the north pole is free of ice in the summer, ice must be melting in Greenland, too. If it's melting in the summer faster than accretion in the winter, the Greenland ice is melting. If the Greenland ice is melting then unless Antarctica is growing, the sea level will rise. According the geological record, the ice caps grow and retreat in a nonlinear way; suddenly, in other words. According to the wikipedia: "If small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea-level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise. The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m." Additionally, it is estimated that a sea level rise of just 20cm could create 740,000 homeless people in Nigeria. and already there is evidence that diseases from warmer climates, such as malaria, are growing in extent. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/report-climate.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/report-climate.html A 2004 World Health Organization study estimates that climatic changes that have been occurring since the mid-1970s caused more than 150K deaths by 2000 through increasing incidences of diseases such as diarrhea, malaria and malnutrition, primarily in developing countries. The study projects a potential doubling of climate-related deaths by 2030. Are you claiming that these aren't happening, or that they aren't problems?

mynameishere 18y ago

The "billion" figure equals the total amount of CO2 produced, which is not the amount that would actually have to be planted and buried. I'm not sure why they quoted that figure, as the actual figure would be much less. It wouldn't involve arable land anyway, but more-or-less useless land in Siberia and Canada. The primary difference here is that it isn't pre-emptive. If it turns out that global warming is an actual problem, then and only then, it can be countered by burying trees. If it turns out that global warming was all a ruse (probable enough) then nothing needs to be done.

DaniFong 18y ago
What's the actual figure? That one billion figure corresponds to all the carbon dioxide released in a year. Think of it. To counteract our carbon emissions, you have to cut down and bury 10,000,000 km^2 of forest per year! Even if we do 1% of that, that corresponds with the average deforestation over the past century. That's an industry larger than the forestry industry, because we need to grow all of those trees, and then bury them. Regarding global warming, it may not be catastrophic, but it's... absurd to call it a hoax. Average temperatures are rising. Do you have another explanation for the receding ice caps, then? Do you have a different prediction for the greenland glacier? If the north pole is free of ice in the summer, ice must be melting in Greenland, too. If it's melting in the summer faster than accretion in the winter, the Greenland ice is melting. If the Greenland ice is melting then unless Antarctica is growing, the sea level will rise. According the geological record, the ice caps grow and retreat in a nonlinear way; suddenly, in other words. According to the wikipedia: "If small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea-level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise. The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m." Additionally, it is estimated that a sea level rise of just 20cm could create 740,000 homeless people in Nigeria. and already there is evidence that diseases from warmer climates, such as malaria, are growing in extent. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/report-climate.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/report-climate.html A 2004 World Health Organization study estimates that climatic changes that have been occurring since the mid-1970s caused more than 150K deaths by 2000 through increasing incidences of diseases such as diarrhea, malaria and malnutrition, primarily in developing countries. The study projects a potential doubling of climate-related deaths by 2030. Are you claiming that these aren't happening, or that they aren't problems?