4 ms·

I have to say that I'm a little bit turned off by the fact that this comment went negative. Not to pull "authority" on all of you, but I'm a graduate student w

by araneae 17y ago

I have to say that I'm a little bit turned off by the fact that this comment went negative. Not to pull "authority" on all of you, but I'm a graduate student who teaches introductory classes on ecology. This week we're actually teaching this material, and part of what we're teaching is exactly what I said in this comment. The burning of fossil fuels is especially problematic because fossils are a long term sink. Sequestering it in organic material is an extremely temporary (by comparison) solution. I could have gone off on how planting trees barely deals with the quantity, but the essential difference between long term storage in fossils and short term storage in organic material is often missed, and I thought it might be interesting to call this to the attention of HNers. However, apparently I lose karma points for this instead.

skolor 17y ago
Its not the content, but the ways its presented that got the downvotes (I would assume). The presentation borders on saying "Don't plant trees, it doesn't help the environment (in the long run)". Yes, you're right, but it is similar to saying: Sadly, using solar power does little to help with the global warming problem. The Sun is only a temporary power source; as soon as the hydrogen runs out it will stop supplying energy to the Earth. Since we use energy, what we really need to do to stop using as much energy. Sadly, this takes a really long time, and is really hard. Hell, you even mention "what we really need to do to restore the carbon cycle is put the carbon back into fossils". How exactly do you propose doing that, other than creating something which fossilizes, like trees?
- araneae 17y ago
  I don't know how to do it. But if we know it's a problem, then perhaps people will think of ways to do it. Maybe you could bury the tree at the bottom of a mountain somewhere. We should be thinking of ways of perhaps compressing or sequestering organic material to prevent it from reentering the carbon cycle.
  - skolor 17y ago
    Right-o. That requires, first, for you to plant a tree first, to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it into a short term storage. Now, IANAE, but from what I know the threat of global warming is that it comes with a cascade effect, that as it becomes more of a problem, the natural systems in place start giving way, making it become more of a problem faster (For example, as glaciers and ice fields melt, they release carbon and other gasses that had been locked in the ice, causing more warming). Doing something, anything to put that on hold sounds like a good idea to me. Planting trees may not be the end-all solution to global warming, but it is the best Phase-1 of a long term reduction of carbon in the atmosphere that we have right now. You agree there isn't a current way to go from carbon in atmosphere-> carbon in long term storage (except for the "fake tree" thing, which simply shoves it into depleted oil deposits, which I think is a terrible idea).

by araneae 17y ago

skolor 17y ago

Its not the content, but the ways its presented that got the downvotes (I would assume). The presentation borders on saying "Don't plant trees, it doesn't help the environment (in the long run)". Yes, you're right, but it is similar to saying: Sadly, using solar power does little to help with the global warming problem. The Sun is only a temporary power source; as soon as the hydrogen runs out it will stop supplying energy to the Earth. Since we use energy, what we really need to do to stop using as much energy. Sadly, this takes a really long time, and is really hard. Hell, you even mention "what we really need to do to restore the carbon cycle is put the carbon back into fossils". How exactly do you propose doing that, other than creating something which fossilizes, like trees?

araneae 17y ago
I don't know how to do it. But if we know it's a problem, then perhaps people will think of ways to do it. Maybe you could bury the tree at the bottom of a mountain somewhere. We should be thinking of ways of perhaps compressing or sequestering organic material to prevent it from reentering the carbon cycle.
- skolor 17y ago
  Right-o. That requires, first, for you to plant a tree first, to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it into a short term storage. Now, IANAE, but from what I know the threat of global warming is that it comes with a cascade effect, that as it becomes more of a problem, the natural systems in place start giving way, making it become more of a problem faster (For example, as glaciers and ice fields melt, they release carbon and other gasses that had been locked in the ice, causing more warming). Doing something, anything to put that on hold sounds like a good idea to me. Planting trees may not be the end-all solution to global warming, but it is the best Phase-1 of a long term reduction of carbon in the atmosphere that we have right now. You agree there isn't a current way to go from carbon in atmosphere-> carbon in long term storage (except for the "fake tree" thing, which simply shoves it into depleted oil deposits, which I think is a terrible idea).