4 ms·
Yeah, this is pretty much the only solution. The only step I'd add is "make charcoal, bury charcoal". That ultimately releases H2O back to the ecosystem and yo
by cogman10 3y ago
Yeah, this is pretty much the only solution. The only step I'd add is "make charcoal, bury charcoal". That ultimately releases H2O back to the ecosystem and you only bury the carbon.
As a bonus, it's an exothermic process, so you could recapture some of that energy to make electricity.
- RecycledEle 3y agoIf you are worried about rising sea levels, why try to release the H2O back into the ecosystem?
- Tostino 3y agoThat's...not how this works at all. Is this a joke?
- RecycledEle 3y agoNo, it's not a joke. Please explain this to me.
- Tostino 3y agoThe rising sea levels aren't about more water being in the environment, it's about more water being in liquid form rather than stored in solid form in glaciers on land. The small amount of water being in a tree trunk vs released back into the atmosphere isn't even close to registering.
- RecycledEle 3y agoBut enough water does matter. By the argument of insignificance, all North American CO2 emissions from 2024 will not matter.
- Tostino 3y agoUse actual evidence for your argument. You claimed ignorance, why should I believe anything you say?
- ben_w 3y agoThe water cycle is much faster than the carbon cycle, so that makes very little difference. But even if it didn't work like that, rising sea levels are only one of many different impacts of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
- parthianshotgun 3y agoCouldn't you just bury the wood? Ala Hugelkultur
- AstralStorm 3y agoYou could but biological processes are liable to turn it partially into outright methane or a peat bog, which can emit methane.
- kragen 3y agonote that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide