6 ms·

Re-Engineering the Earth

27 points by robg 17y ago

ph0rque 17y ago
The article fails to mention one low-risk, high side-benefit idea: plant more trees.
- geuis 17y ago
  Unfortunately trees don't largely suck as much carbon dioxide out of the air as people used to think. In some studies, its being found that forests produce more co2 than they absorb through growth. With that said, I completely agree that we should plant more forests. They have many benefits to the environment even if the co2 argument is out. Decreased erosion, increased rainfall, and increased animal habitats.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - greengirl512 17y ago
    They also remove pollutants from the soil. Trees rock!
- amalcon 17y ago
  The article did mention this. The problem is that, while trees absorb a lot of CO2 in the spring, they emit most of it in the fall. Freeman Dyson had proposed a solution whereby we breed a special kind of tree that stores most of the CO2 in its roots, rather than emitting it in the fall. For what it's worth, that is the most pleasant method the article mentioned.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    That might turn out to be a feature - more carbon in the winter and less in the summer could = smoothing out seasonal variation, if my wild speculation is correct. At any rate, I don't see how you could turn a desert or a field into a high biomass forest without sucking up lots of CO2. Of course, once it's full-grown it will be in equilibrium, losing carbon as fast as it gains it.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
The amount of global warming we're experiencing is still a matter of debate, and certainly the specific climatic responses are mostly unknown. One day it's "we'll see increased hurricane activity due to global warming", and then it's 180 degrees around to saying that hurricane activity will decrease. My point isn't to deny global warming, but to show that we don't really understand very well how climate works. We may be on a deadend path right now. But people who want a radical change -- whether it's one of the suggestions in this article, or simply an enormous decline in CO2 emissions -- may turn us off that dead end, but they do so by closing their eyes and hitting the gas pedal simultaneously. Nobody really knows where we'd wind up. The article points out that the effects may be uneven. But I think it's worse than that. Returning CO2 levels to historic lows, or blocking solar radiation, might not be able to return the system to its original state: these reactions may not be reversible. Our environment has many factors that keep us at equilibrium, and many of these things have been working diligently to take up slack. Why should we think that these things will simply unwind back to their original state?
- anamax 17y ago
  > Returning CO2 levels to historic lows, or blocking solar radiation, might not be able to return the system to its original state: these reactions may not be reversible. I thought that it was generally agreed that CO2 levels had been much higher in prehistoric times. If so, it's unclear why recovering from lower levels in the future would be irreversible when we got here from there before.
  - encoderer 17y ago
    As I understand it, the oldest record we have of past CO2 levels is glacial ice cores that go back about 600k years. In those, at least, CO2 has never been higher than today.
    - jibiki 17y ago
      It is hypothesized that Earth's atmosphere initially contained much higher % C02. "Based on today's volcanic evidence, this atmosphere would have contained 80% water vapor, 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen-sulfur, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and inert gases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Earliest_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Earliest_a...
dylanz 17y ago
We could turn the major deserts into forests if we wanted to. Geoff Lawton did this in the lowest, saltiest place in the Dead Sea, on 10 acres, with nothing but passive water harvesting earthworks, and selective planting. Now, that 10 acres is completely green, and produces enough food for quite a few families, and neighbors. Imagine the rainforest, and 90% of it being edible. Seasonal and successional plantings, so when you walk through it, you can't help but stepping on food. Cassava, Potato, etc, all underneath the ground where you can't see as well.
- GavinB 17y ago
  Thanks for the tip, Dylan. Google reveals this excellent video: http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf Very cool stuff, worth checking out. And much better than pumping sulfur into the atmosphere . . .
greengirl512 17y ago
Umm...sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. Why would anyone seriously think that pumping it into the atmosphere in mass amounts could even be an option? Seriously..is there something I'm missing here?

27 points by robg 17y ago

ph0rque 17y ago

The article fails to mention one low-risk, high side-benefit idea: plant more trees.

geuis 17y ago
Unfortunately trees don't largely suck as much carbon dioxide out of the air as people used to think. In some studies, its being found that forests produce more co2 than they absorb through growth. With that said, I completely agree that we should plant more forests. They have many benefits to the environment even if the co2 argument is out. Decreased erosion, increased rainfall, and increased animal habitats.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- greengirl512 17y ago
  They also remove pollutants from the soil. Trees rock!
amalcon 17y ago
The article did mention this. The problem is that, while trees absorb a lot of CO2 in the spring, they emit most of it in the fall. Freeman Dyson had proposed a solution whereby we breed a special kind of tree that stores most of the CO2 in its roots, rather than emitting it in the fall. For what it's worth, that is the most pleasant method the article mentioned.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  That might turn out to be a feature - more carbon in the winter and less in the summer could = smoothing out seasonal variation, if my wild speculation is correct. At any rate, I don't see how you could turn a desert or a field into a high biomass forest without sucking up lots of CO2. Of course, once it's full-grown it will be in equilibrium, losing carbon as fast as it gains it.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

The amount of global warming we're experiencing is still a matter of debate, and certainly the specific climatic responses are mostly unknown. One day it's "we'll see increased hurricane activity due to global warming", and then it's 180 degrees around to saying that hurricane activity will decrease. My point isn't to deny global warming, but to show that we don't really understand very well how climate works. We may be on a deadend path right now. But people who want a radical change -- whether it's one of the suggestions in this article, or simply an enormous decline in CO2 emissions -- may turn us off that dead end, but they do so by closing their eyes and hitting the gas pedal simultaneously. Nobody really knows where we'd wind up. The article points out that the effects may be uneven. But I think it's worse than that. Returning CO2 levels to historic lows, or blocking solar radiation, might not be able to return the system to its original state: these reactions may not be reversible. Our environment has many factors that keep us at equilibrium, and many of these things have been working diligently to take up slack. Why should we think that these things will simply unwind back to their original state?

anamax 17y ago
> Returning CO2 levels to historic lows, or blocking solar radiation, might not be able to return the system to its original state: these reactions may not be reversible. I thought that it was generally agreed that CO2 levels had been much higher in prehistoric times. If so, it's unclear why recovering from lower levels in the future would be irreversible when we got here from there before.
- encoderer 17y ago
  As I understand it, the oldest record we have of past CO2 levels is glacial ice cores that go back about 600k years. In those, at least, CO2 has never been higher than today.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    It is hypothesized that Earth's atmosphere initially contained much higher % C02. "Based on today's volcanic evidence, this atmosphere would have contained 80% water vapor, 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen-sulfur, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and inert gases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Earliest_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Earliest_a...

dylanz 17y ago

We could turn the major deserts into forests if we wanted to. Geoff Lawton did this in the lowest, saltiest place in the Dead Sea, on 10 acres, with nothing but passive water harvesting earthworks, and selective planting. Now, that 10 acres is completely green, and produces enough food for quite a few families, and neighbors. Imagine the rainforest, and 90% of it being edible. Seasonal and successional plantings, so when you walk through it, you can't help but stepping on food. Cassava, Potato, etc, all underneath the ground where you can't see as well.

GavinB 17y ago
Thanks for the tip, Dylan. Google reveals this excellent video: http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf Very cool stuff, worth checking out. And much better than pumping sulfur into the atmosphere . . .

greengirl512 17y ago

Umm...sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. Why would anyone seriously think that pumping it into the atmosphere in mass amounts could even be an option? Seriously..is there something I'm missing here?