4 ms·

If planting tree's mitigation potential is "large", then they're saying nothing on this list will make a dent. The math simply doesn't work because there aren'

by hedora 2y ago

If planting tree's mitigation potential is "large", then they're saying nothing on this list will make a dent. The math simply doesn't work because there aren't enough acres on earth to use trees to reverse global warming.

antisthenes 2y ago
> The math simply doesn't work because there aren't enough acres on earth to use trees to reverse global warming. It depends. The evidence is that Earth obviously reversed global warming in the past several times with vegetation alone. But it probably isn't helpful for the timeline that we humans need it on, e.g. in the next 20 years (and in the next century, if we're being very generous)
- zdragnar 2y ago
  We will be lucky if we manage to stop accelerating the rate at which we add CO2 in that 20 year time span. Actually decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be the work of many generations. There's a lot of things to do, but planting trees then tossing their carbon into deep holes and starting over won't hurt. For reference, https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/during-year-of-extremes-carbon-dioxide-levels-surge-faster-than-ever https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/during-year-of-extremes-ca...
  - Retric 2y ago
    Global CO2 emissions actually look to be peaking sometime in the next 5 years. IEA estimates 2025, but it’s dependent on several factors. How much Coal China is using is a major one and they are adding renewables at a crazy fast pace. Even at China’s fairly abysmal capacity factors, when we are talking about 217 GW of solar in 2023 and their on pace to increase that by 35% in 2024, it adds up quickly.
  - dalyons 2y ago
    We’re actually at or past the peak of co2 from power generation. 2024 is likely lower and we’ll keep going down from there https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electricity-review-2024/the-big-picture/#past-the-peak-a-new-era-of-falling-power-emissions https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...
    - tchvil 2y ago
      How to appreciate these feel good figures when you see this? https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        Well for one thing, that's Primary energy which is 75% waste. If you combine that with looking at progress in the last decades or so, it allows for some optimism.
  - buu700 2y ago
    I'm personally pretty optimistic about direct air capture. Right now, we just need to stop the bleeding and get to global net ~zero emissions with the tools we have (renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, etc.). It seems like we're on track to accomplish that at least some time this century. By the time we've gotten there, direct air capture should be a relatively mature technology, and energy should be much more abundant between continued advancement on renewables and early iterations of commercial fusion. With any luck, we'll even have highly automated and scalable AI-driven manufacturing and infrastructure deployment capabilities to make a mass rollout of DAC relatively cheap. As long as we survive long enough with no major societal upheaval, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to restore the planet to preindustrial CO2 levels by some time next century, or (very optimistically) around the turn of this century. It's not going to solve itself overnight, and climate change will get worse before it gets better, but I think we're basically doing the right things. Maybe in the meantime someone will figure out how to process landfills into fuel and mass produce microorganisms that feed on microplastics.
- timbit42 2y ago
  Just replace all the trees with that bamboo that grows three feet every day. /s
jellicle 2y ago
Besides and beyond that, every tree has been duplicate counted about 20 times for global warming mitigation, AND they're all going to burn in fires, AND they're all going to die from beetles, AND they're all going to die from drought, AND they're all going to get cut down for wood or fuel. Carbon removal is a combination of several different scams on the public.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >AND they're all going to get cut down for wood That is actually a good thing. Cut trees that turn into lumber sequester carbon dioxide in the form of building frames.
  - parski 2y ago
    A forest is not just trees. Lots of carbon storage happens between them, not to mention how important they are for biodiversity.
    - schiffern 2y ago
      This. It's crazy to me how "we're going to destroy ~all the forests" is viewed as a problem only because of its effect on global warming, and not as a huge existential environmental catastrophe (one that we must avert or perish) in its own right.
      - Log_out_ 2y ago
        Nobody beyond the most brutal maoist futurist argues for that. Its a strawman, bit planting forrests is afailing strategy and if you take away the pure scammers and those who just know it wont work out and plant anyway, its lots of money wasted. Same money could buy a algea farm that sinks huge vertical undeewaterforrests info a abyss from whicg the oil once came.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2y ago
ratg13 2y ago
I used to think this too, and then I ran the numbers doing some napkin math, and realized that trees are a completely practical, reasonable solution. Perhaps it's getting overlooked because it's too obvious or sounds too easy to work?

by hedora 2y ago

antisthenes 2y ago

> The math simply doesn't work because there aren't enough acres on earth to use trees to reverse global warming. It depends. The evidence is that Earth obviously reversed global warming in the past several times with vegetation alone. But it probably isn't helpful for the timeline that we humans need it on, e.g. in the next 20 years (and in the next century, if we're being very generous)

zdragnar 2y ago
We will be lucky if we manage to stop accelerating the rate at which we add CO2 in that 20 year time span. Actually decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be the work of many generations. There's a lot of things to do, but planting trees then tossing their carbon into deep holes and starting over won't hurt. For reference, https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/during-year-of-extremes-carbon-dioxide-levels-surge-faster-than-ever https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/during-year-of-extremes-ca...
- Retric 2y ago
  Global CO2 emissions actually look to be peaking sometime in the next 5 years. IEA estimates 2025, but it’s dependent on several factors. How much Coal China is using is a major one and they are adding renewables at a crazy fast pace. Even at China’s fairly abysmal capacity factors, when we are talking about 217 GW of solar in 2023 and their on pace to increase that by 35% in 2024, it adds up quickly.
- dalyons 2y ago
  We’re actually at or past the peak of co2 from power generation. 2024 is likely lower and we’ll keep going down from there https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electricity-review-2024/the-big-picture/#past-the-peak-a-new-era-of-falling-power-emissions https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...
  - tchvil 2y ago
    How to appreciate these feel good figures when you see this? https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Well for one thing, that's Primary energy which is 75% waste. If you combine that with looking at progress in the last decades or so, it allows for some optimism.
- buu700 2y ago
  I'm personally pretty optimistic about direct air capture. Right now, we just need to stop the bleeding and get to global net ~zero emissions with the tools we have (renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, etc.). It seems like we're on track to accomplish that at least some time this century. By the time we've gotten there, direct air capture should be a relatively mature technology, and energy should be much more abundant between continued advancement on renewables and early iterations of commercial fusion. With any luck, we'll even have highly automated and scalable AI-driven manufacturing and infrastructure deployment capabilities to make a mass rollout of DAC relatively cheap. As long as we survive long enough with no major societal upheaval, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to restore the planet to preindustrial CO2 levels by some time next century, or (very optimistically) around the turn of this century. It's not going to solve itself overnight, and climate change will get worse before it gets better, but I think we're basically doing the right things. Maybe in the meantime someone will figure out how to process landfills into fuel and mass produce microorganisms that feed on microplastics.
timbit42 2y ago
Just replace all the trees with that bamboo that grows three feet every day. /s

jellicle 2y ago

Besides and beyond that, every tree has been duplicate counted about 20 times for global warming mitigation, AND they're all going to burn in fires, AND they're all going to die from beetles, AND they're all going to die from drought, AND they're all going to get cut down for wood or fuel. Carbon removal is a combination of several different scams on the public.

anonfordays 2y ago
>AND they're all going to get cut down for wood That is actually a good thing. Cut trees that turn into lumber sequester carbon dioxide in the form of building frames.
- parski 2y ago
  A forest is not just trees. Lots of carbon storage happens between them, not to mention how important they are for biodiversity.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    This. It's crazy to me how "we're going to destroy ~all the forests" is viewed as a problem only because of its effect on global warming, and not as a huge existential environmental catastrophe (one that we must avert or perish) in its own right.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      Nobody beyond the most brutal maoist futurist argues for that. Its a strawman, bit planting forrests is afailing strategy and if you take away the pure scammers and those who just know it wont work out and plant anyway, its lots of money wasted. Same money could buy a algea farm that sinks huge vertical undeewaterforrests info a abyss from whicg the oil once came.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2y ago

ratg13 2y ago

I used to think this too, and then I ran the numbers doing some napkin math, and realized that trees are a completely practical, reasonable solution. Perhaps it's getting overlooked because it's too obvious or sounds too easy to work?