3 ms·

I believe the technology we are looking for is called "trees"

• pertymcpert 2y ago
  Trees don't remove much CO2 in the long term because once they die they release all their CO2 back as they decompose.
  • mrkeen 2y ago
    This is true, but I don't think it's that big of a problem, by simple thought experiment: Trees also don't exist in the long term, for the same reason. Once they die, they're not there. Given that forests exist, I think that CO2 can actually be stored there.
  • glial 2y ago
    A forest has more sequestered CO2 than a field, probably. Individual trees die and decompose but new trees replace them.
  • octokatt 2y ago
    A single tree won't, but a forest (aka, a system of trees growing and dying, to be replaced by more trees), will sequester CO2 meaningfully better than an open field. You're missing the forest for the trees, my dude.
    • pertymcpert 2y ago
      Better than an open field yes. How long does it take to burn down a forest? The amount of carbon stored in a forest compared to what we're pumping out from under the ground which has formed over millions of years is laughable. Find your own forest, my dude.
  • hulitu 2y ago
    Then maybe we shall keep the man with an axe away from them.