6 ms·

> But basically 100% of algae's mass is consumable. I'm not sure it helps at all regarding co2, you'll shit it and breath it out in a matter of days... co2 is

> But basically 100% of algae's mass is consumable. I'm not sure it helps at all regarding co2, you'll shit it and breath it out in a matter of days... co2 is only a problem when you burn fossil fuels, because you reintroduce millions years of deposit back in the atmosphere in a very short period of time. That's why things like burning wood aren't a big deal other than localised pollution

RealityVoid 1y ago
Shitting it will not release it into the air. Maybe a small percentage, depending on it's circuit in nature. But yes, your point about the CO2 circuit stands.
- maeln 1y ago
  Turns out, we were the carbon captor all along
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago
  Most (85-90%) of the carbon in the food we eat is breathed out, not excreted
  - ljf 1y ago
    Side note - it always amazes me (and people when I tell them) that when you lose fat from your body, they main way for that fat to leave your system, is to burn it then breathe the co2 out - that is one of the limits on how much fat you can burn a day. You do lose some of the results of the burning, and a little through sweat, but the vast majority is down to co2 leaving your system. (Note you can temporarily also lose weight through water loss - but that isn't the loss of actual fat from your system.)
    - CGMthrowaway 1y ago
      Yes it's the inverse of Feyman's comments how a tree's mass comes from what is pulled out of the air, not the ground
- lisbbb 1y ago
  We need to figure out how to make 8 billion humans act as carbon sinks!
  - RobRivera 1y ago
    Splice tree dna, make groot a thing irl
api 1y ago
Over time it would gradually remove CO2 since not all of it goes back, but stuff like this isn't even a rounding error compared to the amount of CO2 we'd need to remove. Planting billions and billions of trees would pull a lot more, but still would only make a small dent. Greening large desert regions with large scale water and local climate engineering projects, ocean seeding, etc. would also pull more but still only make a dent.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Tell that to the anti-cow people, they will have a cow
- Faelon 1y ago
  Unfortunately this pithy comment is inconsistent with the science. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Most of the emissions from beef comes from negative land-use change, that is the loss of carbon-sequestering life that existed in the land for both the cows and the tons of agricultural food they eat, and methane, which is released directly to our atmosphere and is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Fortunately, if we were to phase out cattle, this methane has a half-life much shorter than CO2 and would provide important early gains in restabilizing our climate.
  - CGMthrowaway 1y ago
    That link shows that twice as many emissions are attributed to farm stage vs land use change. And fta: "Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers and the production of methane in the stomachs of cattle." So not sure there is much for me to respond to you given that.
    - seec 1y ago
      They always start with a false equivalency anyway, comparing stuff like cane sugar with cow meat, that's just extra dumb. I don't have proper calculation, but when you add up all the processing and extra requirement to grow high protein crops, you are actually not very far from meat cost. Which makes sense because if meat was so inefficient, then vegetal protein replacement should be much cheaper, but they are not.
  - graemep 1y ago
    Cos can be grass fed. Most of the beef I have ever eaten is predominantly grass fed. In many places cows are a natural part of the ecosystem. So much so that in rewilding parts of Scotland they have ended up releasing cattle into the wild. Its perfectly possible for grass plus grazing animals to be carbon sink, and a provide a rich ecosystem.
forgotoldacc 1y ago
There are countless carbon sinks within the ocean. It finds its way into the shells of creatures (calcium carbonate) and hangs around for a very long time in solid form. And lots of creatures die/defecate, that sinks to the bottom of the sea, and much of the carbon there doesn't rise back up since not all of it is consumed. And when you're spreading seaweed over a fish farm, a good chunk of that is flowing back out into the ocean and contributing to the cycle of carbon deposits. https://animatingcarbon.earth/fish-the-excretion-effect-boosts-the-oceanic-carbon-pump/ https://animatingcarbon.earth/fish-the-excretion-effect-boos...
mattlutze 1y ago
By avoiding fishing, you stop damaging many of the carbon sink systems in the ocean, and so as a second-order effect improve the sinks we used to have.

RealityVoid 1y ago

Shitting it will not release it into the air. Maybe a small percentage, depending on it's circuit in nature. But yes, your point about the CO2 circuit stands.

maeln 1y ago
Turns out, we were the carbon captor all along
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Most (85-90%) of the carbon in the food we eat is breathed out, not excreted
- ljf 1y ago
  Side note - it always amazes me (and people when I tell them) that when you lose fat from your body, they main way for that fat to leave your system, is to burn it then breathe the co2 out - that is one of the limits on how much fat you can burn a day. You do lose some of the results of the burning, and a little through sweat, but the vast majority is down to co2 leaving your system. (Note you can temporarily also lose weight through water loss - but that isn't the loss of actual fat from your system.)
  - CGMthrowaway 1y ago
    Yes it's the inverse of Feyman's comments how a tree's mass comes from what is pulled out of the air, not the ground
lisbbb 1y ago
We need to figure out how to make 8 billion humans act as carbon sinks!
- RobRivera 1y ago
  Splice tree dna, make groot a thing irl

api 1y ago

Over time it would gradually remove CO2 since not all of it goes back, but stuff like this isn't even a rounding error compared to the amount of CO2 we'd need to remove. Planting billions and billions of trees would pull a lot more, but still would only make a small dent. Greening large desert regions with large scale water and local climate engineering projects, ocean seeding, etc. would also pull more but still only make a dent.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

Tell that to the anti-cow people, they will have a cow

Faelon 1y ago
Unfortunately this pithy comment is inconsistent with the science. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Most of the emissions from beef comes from negative land-use change, that is the loss of carbon-sequestering life that existed in the land for both the cows and the tons of agricultural food they eat, and methane, which is released directly to our atmosphere and is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Fortunately, if we were to phase out cattle, this methane has a half-life much shorter than CO2 and would provide important early gains in restabilizing our climate.
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago
  That link shows that twice as many emissions are attributed to farm stage vs land use change. And fta: "Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers and the production of methane in the stomachs of cattle." So not sure there is much for me to respond to you given that.
  - seec 1y ago
    They always start with a false equivalency anyway, comparing stuff like cane sugar with cow meat, that's just extra dumb. I don't have proper calculation, but when you add up all the processing and extra requirement to grow high protein crops, you are actually not very far from meat cost. Which makes sense because if meat was so inefficient, then vegetal protein replacement should be much cheaper, but they are not.
- graemep 1y ago
  Cos can be grass fed. Most of the beef I have ever eaten is predominantly grass fed. In many places cows are a natural part of the ecosystem. So much so that in rewilding parts of Scotland they have ended up releasing cattle into the wild. Its perfectly possible for grass plus grazing animals to be carbon sink, and a provide a rich ecosystem.

forgotoldacc 1y ago

There are countless carbon sinks within the ocean. It finds its way into the shells of creatures (calcium carbonate) and hangs around for a very long time in solid form. And lots of creatures die/defecate, that sinks to the bottom of the sea, and much of the carbon there doesn't rise back up since not all of it is consumed. And when you're spreading seaweed over a fish farm, a good chunk of that is flowing back out into the ocean and contributing to the cycle of carbon deposits. https://animatingcarbon.earth/fish-the-excretion-effect-boosts-the-oceanic-carbon-pump/ https://animatingcarbon.earth/fish-the-excretion-effect-boos...

mattlutze 1y ago

By avoiding fishing, you stop damaging many of the carbon sink systems in the ocean, and so as a second-order effect improve the sinks we used to have.