4 ms·

I mean, there is already a solution; it's called Photosynthesis. But we don't have any problem destroying the very ecosystems that captures carbon! I guess we'l

by reqo 3y ago

I mean, there is already a solution; it's called Photosynthesis. But we don't have any problem destroying the very ecosystems that captures carbon! I guess we'll jsut destroy the solution that already exists and in the meantime hope for some black magic to happen in distant future.

lazide 3y ago
Photosynthesis won’t really help here without ways to sequester biomass on extremely large scales, which we don’t seem to have. The original biomass was sequestered via methods/means that don’t seem to exist anymore, and we’ve been digging it out/pumping it out and releasing it. Without a means to get it back underground, it will just be rereleased when it rots.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  So, in addition to ignoring the very solution nature gave us, you argue that we must bury the dead plant matter because the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere if we don't. You realize there are bacteria and insects that eat this matter and that it is used as a fertilizer?
  - kragen 3y ago
    the bacteria and the insects release the carbon as carbon dioxide or, worse, as methane
  - lazide 3y ago
    You clearly have no idea how the carbon cycle works, or why fossil fuels are a problem do you? The carbon being released when burning fossil fuels was previously stuck under ground due to various geological processes. Near as we can tell, over 10’s-100’s of millions of years and due to very disruptive (and relatively unique) geological processes. Once released into the air again, it will keep cycling between plants and the atmosphere (increasing total average atmospheric co2) until something sticks it back under the ground. That’s the problem. Trees, photosynthesis, etc. only temporarily change things. Eventually all the living things rot, burn, or get eaten and digested, and it all ends up back up in the atmosphere again. If there are active/current geologic processes putting some of that carbon back underground where it can’t get back into the atmosphere, it appears to be small in effect and slow. Everything we see appears to not be doing that. It’s easy to verify in most cases too. A forest permanently storing carbon would be sitting on hundreds of feet of it. it’s typically 3-6 ft at most. That fossil carbon has to go back under ground or it will go back into the air sooner than later. And continue to be a problem long term. And near as we can tell, those historic geological processes aren’t happening anymore, at least not at any scale we can rely on here, or timeline that helps us at all.
roflmaostc 3y ago
Let's say a tree takes 25m^2 in space. The average tree can bind roughly 50kg of CO2 per year. If a human emits ~10.000kg of CO2 per year, you need to maintain 200 trees for each human. Let's take Germany as reference. You need to plant 80 million (people) times 200 trees. In total this is an area of 4*10^11 m^2=400.000km^2 Funnily, this is roughly the size of Germany! So that Germany is long term CO2 neutral, you need to plant (and keep healthy) a forest as big as Germany. No scale this up for the world, impossible. That's the problem.
- pkphilip 3y ago
  The advantage with photosynthesis is that it also produces side products which are usually edible, tasty .. and perhaps useful for making furniture. Also, it is low maintenance compared to a lot of alternate options
  - roflmaostc 3y ago
    Yes but it seems it is at least an order of magnitude (or more) to slow/small to compensate CO2 emission of humanity. And a lot of plants don't bind CO2 for a long time. Even trees have to be replaced by ~100 years and then if burnt or rotted they release CO2 again. If you wait very long and you apply the right physical conditions, they might turn into oil again which was a good long term storage.

by reqo 3y ago

lazide 3y ago

Photosynthesis won’t really help here without ways to sequester biomass on extremely large scales, which we don’t seem to have. The original biomass was sequestered via methods/means that don’t seem to exist anymore, and we’ve been digging it out/pumping it out and releasing it. Without a means to get it back underground, it will just be rereleased when it rots.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
So, in addition to ignoring the very solution nature gave us, you argue that we must bury the dead plant matter because the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere if we don't. You realize there are bacteria and insects that eat this matter and that it is used as a fertilizer?
- kragen 3y ago
  the bacteria and the insects release the carbon as carbon dioxide or, worse, as methane
- lazide 3y ago
  You clearly have no idea how the carbon cycle works, or why fossil fuels are a problem do you? The carbon being released when burning fossil fuels was previously stuck under ground due to various geological processes. Near as we can tell, over 10’s-100’s of millions of years and due to very disruptive (and relatively unique) geological processes. Once released into the air again, it will keep cycling between plants and the atmosphere (increasing total average atmospheric co2) until something sticks it back under the ground. That’s the problem. Trees, photosynthesis, etc. only temporarily change things. Eventually all the living things rot, burn, or get eaten and digested, and it all ends up back up in the atmosphere again. If there are active/current geologic processes putting some of that carbon back underground where it can’t get back into the atmosphere, it appears to be small in effect and slow. Everything we see appears to not be doing that. It’s easy to verify in most cases too. A forest permanently storing carbon would be sitting on hundreds of feet of it. it’s typically 3-6 ft at most. That fossil carbon has to go back under ground or it will go back into the air sooner than later. And continue to be a problem long term. And near as we can tell, those historic geological processes aren’t happening anymore, at least not at any scale we can rely on here, or timeline that helps us at all.

roflmaostc 3y ago

Let's say a tree takes 25m^2 in space. The average tree can bind roughly 50kg of CO2 per year. If a human emits ~10.000kg of CO2 per year, you need to maintain 200 trees for each human. Let's take Germany as reference. You need to plant 80 million (people) times 200 trees. In total this is an area of 4*10^11 m^2=400.000km^2 Funnily, this is roughly the size of Germany! So that Germany is long term CO2 neutral, you need to plant (and keep healthy) a forest as big as Germany. No scale this up for the world, impossible. That's the problem.

pkphilip 3y ago
The advantage with photosynthesis is that it also produces side products which are usually edible, tasty .. and perhaps useful for making furniture. Also, it is low maintenance compared to a lot of alternate options
- roflmaostc 3y ago
  Yes but it seems it is at least an order of magnitude (or more) to slow/small to compensate CO2 emission of humanity. And a lot of plants don't bind CO2 for a long time. Even trees have to be replaced by ~100 years and then if burnt or rotted they release CO2 again. If you wait very long and you apply the right physical conditions, they might turn into oil again which was a good long term storage.