4 ms·

I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees". All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.

by lez 2y ago

jncfhnb 2y ago
Old trees don’t capture much CO2. It’s only young, growing trees that have a meaningful impact. Need a lot more than fewer corps
- acc_297 2y ago
  And any operation of planting and cutting to drawdown CO2 must bury or properly process the biomass to actually put co2 somewhere Else it is an open cycle where co2 in == co2 out
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    Great thing about wood is you can build almost-permanent structures with it? And the remaining biomass (leaves, bark, etc.) is fine to compost and re-enter the carbon cycle. Also it's clearly not an open cycle, not in temperate climates. The accumulation of carbon in top soils etc. is one of the things that kept CO2 in balance for millions of years prior to us pulling it out of the ground. Peat bogs being another key one. Yes, it can't keep up with us. But it's not an open cycle. (It is in the tropics, though)
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      You can build permanent structures from wood, but consider the sheer volume of wood that would be needed to counter current CO2 increase.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Best thing we can do is stop pulling it out of the ground. Best way we can do that is to build out renewables. Best way to do that is to create a profit incentive for an oversupply of power that sucks up carbon.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  It's crazy how fast poplars grow in temperate climates. And absorb excess nutrients and contaminants. Would love to see huge fields of them grown, then harvested, and the product turned to lumber and other longer-term carbon storage. Even composted or biocharred and the carbon amended into top soils (yes it won't stay there forever, but...) Assuming the process can be done without emitting more CO2 than is captured.
- edhelas 2y ago
  2/3 of the CO2 is stored in the soil, cutting "old trees" is the best way to release all that CO2.
pfdietz 2y ago
Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels. Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates. If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed. The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      > Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired
travisporter 2y ago
Albedo & moisture

I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees". All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.

by lez 2y ago

I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees". All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.

jncfhnb 2y ago

Old trees don’t capture much CO2. It’s only young, growing trees that have a meaningful impact. Need a lot more than fewer corps

acc_297 2y ago
And any operation of planting and cutting to drawdown CO2 must bury or properly process the biomass to actually put co2 somewhere Else it is an open cycle where co2 in == co2 out
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Great thing about wood is you can build almost-permanent structures with it? And the remaining biomass (leaves, bark, etc.) is fine to compost and re-enter the carbon cycle. Also it's clearly not an open cycle, not in temperate climates. The accumulation of carbon in top soils etc. is one of the things that kept CO2 in balance for millions of years prior to us pulling it out of the ground. Peat bogs being another key one. Yes, it can't keep up with us. But it's not an open cycle. (It is in the tropics, though)
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    You can build permanent structures from wood, but consider the sheer volume of wood that would be needed to counter current CO2 increase.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Best thing we can do is stop pulling it out of the ground. Best way we can do that is to build out renewables. Best way to do that is to create a profit incentive for an oversupply of power that sucks up carbon.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
It's crazy how fast poplars grow in temperate climates. And absorb excess nutrients and contaminants. Would love to see huge fields of them grown, then harvested, and the product turned to lumber and other longer-term carbon storage. Even composted or biocharred and the carbon amended into top soils (yes it won't stay there forever, but...) Assuming the process can be done without emitting more CO2 than is captured.
edhelas 2y ago
2/3 of the CO2 is stored in the soil, cutting "old trees" is the best way to release all that CO2.

pfdietz 2y ago

Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels. Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.

lm28469 2y ago
> Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates. If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed. The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired

travisporter 2y ago

Albedo & moisture