4 ms·

why not simply let trees do it? maybe trees aren't as cool as whatever they're doing???

wkat4242 3y ago
Well trees don't do it at night. But yeah they don't require energy to build them, can be made with simple seeds, integrate really well with local ecosystems (much better than anything man-made), don't need maintenance, self-propagate and cause more benefits like ecosystem diversity, limiting floods and wind. They do have some drawbacks too though like serious flammability. And we can't burn them afterwards or we'll get all the CO2 back.
- abakker 3y ago
  I think the work Livingcarbon is doing is very cool here, actually. at least genetically engineering better photosynthesis seems like a plausible approach and their demos so far seem like they are working.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  The industrial approach to trees is not a good one though. You end up with plantations of tree monoculture. Japan actually has an issue now where former tree plantations have overgrown and cause extremely high levels of pollen during allergy season, the forest floors of these plantations are dead due to the overgrowth blocking sun, etc. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VC4gRGPbTqE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VC4gRGPbTqE
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    You only get monoculture if you plant only one type of trees. The whole planet used to be covered in them and it was not a problem.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      That took many years. And as far as I am aware that would be the exception in the history of modern reforestation. The needs of industry and government (which is what you’re targeting if you want to replace construction materials) are optimizing for speed to grow (and hit arbitrary targets), and suitable properties for building, and generally that means they pick a very limited selection of trees that grow fast, sometimes as few as one type of tree.
exabrial 3y ago
Which is also a good plan! However, most people don't understand the complex care that forest's require. Most forests in North America evolved millions of years ago to deal with fire to reproduce and keep invasive species culled. Humans interfere with these process in several ways (::grunt::, logging bad, ::grunt::, fire bad, ::grunt scratch::). Studies need to be conducted where we could substitute fire for logging without impacting wildlife. Certain forests would be better candidates for this, but it's also important to make sure slow-growth forests have adequate fire protection to prevent runaway fires. There's already a lot of momentum with sustainable logging in North America, but it is something that needs to be done in South America and Asia as well. Logging creates _a lot_ of useful products for people to use, but it requires continuous monitoring and research to keep it green.
DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187573 Because it doesn't scale, at least for the purposes of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> why not simply let trees do it? You’d have to sequester them such that they don’t biodegrade. This involves deep burial, difficult for a solid, or submersion, which means ruining a deep-sea habitat (and creating a carbon time bomb).
- chongli 3y ago
  Deep burial? We have a housing crisis! We should be using them to build houses!
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    The cost of raw wood is not a big contributor to the cost of housing. The shortage of land where people want to live and are legally allowed to build is the biggest problem. Behind that, cost of construction labor.
  - sdflhasjd 3y ago
    The carbon in the wood used to build houses will slowly (or rapidly in the most unfortunate cases) release back into the atmosphere by various mechanisms.
kadoban 3y ago
Planting a forest is carbon neutral after it reaches maturity, in a ~few years. It reaches an equilibrium and stops net removal of CO2. If you want nature to do it you need to engineer some way for the carbon to disappear basically forever.
- chongli 3y ago
  You missed the last stages in the cycle: cut down the trees, build stuff with the wood, and plant new trees. If you can use the wood as a construction material that lasts a long time then you’ve succeeded at carbon sequestration.
  - kadoban 3y ago
    Building things is already happening. You're not going to affect that really at all by planting more trees, that's a big complex system.
psadri 3y ago
How about something much faster growing like algae? Then harvest the algae, seal it in a plastic wrapper and sink it to the bottom of the ocean?
yetanother12345 3y ago
> why not simply let trees do it? because money

Well trees don't do it at night. But yeah they don't require energy to build them, can be made with simple seeds, integrate really well with local ecosystems (much better than anything man-made), don't need maintenance, self-propagate and cause more benefits like ecosystem diversity, limiting floods and wind. They do have some drawbacks too though like serious flammability. And we can't burn them afterwards or we'll get all the CO2 back.

abakker 3y ago
I think the work Livingcarbon is doing is very cool here, actually. at least genetically engineering better photosynthesis seems like a plausible approach and their demos so far seem like they are working.
bobthepanda 3y ago
The industrial approach to trees is not a good one though. You end up with plantations of tree monoculture. Japan actually has an issue now where former tree plantations have overgrown and cause extremely high levels of pollen during allergy season, the forest floors of these plantations are dead due to the overgrowth blocking sun, etc. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VC4gRGPbTqE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VC4gRGPbTqE
- wkat4242 3y ago
  You only get monoculture if you plant only one type of trees. The whole planet used to be covered in them and it was not a problem.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    That took many years. And as far as I am aware that would be the exception in the history of modern reforestation. The needs of industry and government (which is what you’re targeting if you want to replace construction materials) are optimizing for speed to grow (and hit arbitrary targets), and suitable properties for building, and generally that means they pick a very limited selection of trees that grow fast, sometimes as few as one type of tree.

exabrial 3y ago

Which is also a good plan! However, most people don't understand the complex care that forest's require. Most forests in North America evolved millions of years ago to deal with fire to reproduce and keep invasive species culled. Humans interfere with these process in several ways (::grunt::, logging bad, ::grunt::, fire bad, ::grunt scratch::). Studies need to be conducted where we could substitute fire for logging without impacting wildlife. Certain forests would be better candidates for this, but it's also important to make sure slow-growth forests have adequate fire protection to prevent runaway fires. There's already a lot of momentum with sustainable logging in North America, but it is something that needs to be done in South America and Asia as well. Logging creates _a lot_ of useful products for people to use, but it requires continuous monitoring and research to keep it green.

DarmokJalad1701 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187573 Because it doesn't scale, at least for the purposes of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> why not simply let trees do it? You’d have to sequester them such that they don’t biodegrade. This involves deep burial, difficult for a solid, or submersion, which means ruining a deep-sea habitat (and creating a carbon time bomb).

chongli 3y ago
Deep burial? We have a housing crisis! We should be using them to build houses!
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  The cost of raw wood is not a big contributor to the cost of housing. The shortage of land where people want to live and are legally allowed to build is the biggest problem. Behind that, cost of construction labor.
- sdflhasjd 3y ago
  The carbon in the wood used to build houses will slowly (or rapidly in the most unfortunate cases) release back into the atmosphere by various mechanisms.

kadoban 3y ago

Planting a forest is carbon neutral after it reaches maturity, in a ~few years. It reaches an equilibrium and stops net removal of CO2. If you want nature to do it you need to engineer some way for the carbon to disappear basically forever.

chongli 3y ago
You missed the last stages in the cycle: cut down the trees, build stuff with the wood, and plant new trees. If you can use the wood as a construction material that lasts a long time then you’ve succeeded at carbon sequestration.
- kadoban 3y ago
  Building things is already happening. You're not going to affect that really at all by planting more trees, that's a big complex system.

psadri 3y ago

How about something much faster growing like algae? Then harvest the algae, seal it in a plastic wrapper and sink it to the bottom of the ocean?

yetanother12345 3y ago

> why not simply let trees do it? because money