I feel with fossil fuels there is both too much and too little. On one hand current rates of burning are going to totally hose us. On the other supplies haven't been sufficient to supply the world with enough energy since around 1970.
Which is good. Hydrocarbons need to be in that sweet spot so as to make early-gen renewables somewhat competitive but also not to collapse the market economy which is affording the R&D into the latter.
Not so fast. It is true that trees alone can't take us all the way to net-zero. But they can contribute, and the contribution could be non-negligible.
Right now for example, according to the EPA [1], the US emits about 6.6 GT CO2 equivalent per year, but the land sequesters about 0.8 GT, for a net emissions of 5.8 GT. From the 0.8 GT sequestered, about 0.7 GT come from trees. That's about 10% of the gross CO2 emissions.
If we can double the sequestration by trees, then we can reduce emissions by a further 10%, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
The major issue is everyone wants to preach about climate change but nobody actually does much in their personal lives to help solve the problem.
For instance, I live in a fairly liberal area and a few of my friends bring up climate change from time to time, but they literally all drive gas-powered SUVs... I've jokingly brought it up with one of them and they basically said "I think we should focus on big corporations bc they pollute way more than 1 person"... I drive a tiny gas-powered car but I also don't ride around on my high horse talking about other ppl destroying the planet
I'm at the point where I don't really believe what people say when it comes to this kind of stuff, and judge people based on their actions, because it seems like just about everybody is willing to talk, but not many who are willing to walk. And I only say "judge" bc that's what people are asking me to do when they opine about how they think bad things are bad. Like, cool, you think definitively bad things are bad... if I had a cookie to give.. /rant
At scale, it’d cost roughly a dollar a gallon to recapture the CO2 released by gasoline.
I’ll happily pay that.
Tell me how I can scale down a carbon capture plant to a few hundred dollars a year without losing efficiency, and I’ll happily stop insisting that large organizations step up to address climate change.
Right, but if the article is correct then that dollar per gallon can't actually fix the problem, so you're just tossing money into a pile and being like, "look at how much I'm helping".
How about everyone just takes personal responsibility instead of pointing at someone who pollutes more? Because the big corporation you're pointing at can just point their finger at the next bigger problem and then nothing gets done.
Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the attitude that climate "activists" seem to take though. "If I have to lift a finger more than the minimum amount I need, in order to point it at someone else, then the problem isn't worth my effort to try to solve. Jerry beats his wife more than I do, so maybe he should stop first"
I genuinely don't know if you believe this, or you're just repeating a talking point you've heard that somehow makes "your team", the "this isn't happening" team, the "scientists are conspiring to lie to us" team, the "Chinese hoax" team, seem morally superior.
But on the assumption this isn't just about spewing political catchphrases at people, you're wrong and the person you are replying to is correct.
You've absorbed the subtext of climate change denial propaganda, which says "this isn't happening, if it is happening it's not our fault, if it is our fault then it's not so bad, if it is bad then the alternative is worse, and finally, it was your fault anyway".
Specifically, we're on those last two steps.
Dealing with climate change isn't expensive. Dealing with climate change denial is very expensive. Anyone telling you that we all have to make sacrifices and go back to the stone age because solar, wind, EVs, eating less meat or whatever is impossibly hard, is lying to you.
Just internalize the external costs and we'll have lots of cheaper power. The only real problem is trying to co-ordinate everyone when some people are very prone to believing obvious lies and people can profit from that at the expense of everyone else.
I have no idea what you're on about. Just because I have criticisms of people that doesn't mean I'm taking sides politically.
What "catchphrase" am I even repeating? I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote lol. Like, do you honestly think the only way I could come to that opinion was if I was parroting some talking point? No, I have just met way too many fake activists who clearly only care so long as the only effort they have to put in is criticizing other people, while doing nothing in their personal lives to solve the problem.
I think we do have a pollution problem, I also think we have a hypocrite problem. I take issue with fake people preaching down to people while doing nothing themselves.
You can believe whatever you want about me bc of it, I couldn't care less
The article assumes that the trees will be left in place to rot and release CO2 or be cut down and burnt. It also assumes the forests will be planted atop existing ecosystems. In related news, bailing out a sinking boat by dumping the water back into the boat won’t work.
Off the top of my head: Build a nuclear powered desalination plant for LA. Redirect their current water supply to some already-ruined desert or abandoned farm land, and use it to irrigate massive tree farms.
Cut the farms down every ~ 10 years, and bury the wood in a quarry or other decomposition-hostile environment.
This sidesteps all the process bottlenecks mentioned in the article.
There’s a question of whether fertilizer is needed (the article suggests not). We already know how to convert energy to fertilizer at industrial scale, thanks to the Haber-Bosch process.
10 comments
[ 0.16 ms ] story [ 45.8 ms ] threadRight now for example, according to the EPA [1], the US emits about 6.6 GT CO2 equivalent per year, but the land sequesters about 0.8 GT, for a net emissions of 5.8 GT. From the 0.8 GT sequestered, about 0.7 GT come from trees. That's about 10% of the gross CO2 emissions.
If we can double the sequestration by trees, then we can reduce emissions by a further 10%, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas...
For instance, I live in a fairly liberal area and a few of my friends bring up climate change from time to time, but they literally all drive gas-powered SUVs... I've jokingly brought it up with one of them and they basically said "I think we should focus on big corporations bc they pollute way more than 1 person"... I drive a tiny gas-powered car but I also don't ride around on my high horse talking about other ppl destroying the planet
I'm at the point where I don't really believe what people say when it comes to this kind of stuff, and judge people based on their actions, because it seems like just about everybody is willing to talk, but not many who are willing to walk. And I only say "judge" bc that's what people are asking me to do when they opine about how they think bad things are bad. Like, cool, you think definitively bad things are bad... if I had a cookie to give.. /rant
I’ll happily pay that.
Tell me how I can scale down a carbon capture plant to a few hundred dollars a year without losing efficiency, and I’ll happily stop insisting that large organizations step up to address climate change.
How about everyone just takes personal responsibility instead of pointing at someone who pollutes more? Because the big corporation you're pointing at can just point their finger at the next bigger problem and then nothing gets done.
Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the attitude that climate "activists" seem to take though. "If I have to lift a finger more than the minimum amount I need, in order to point it at someone else, then the problem isn't worth my effort to try to solve. Jerry beats his wife more than I do, so maybe he should stop first"
But on the assumption this isn't just about spewing political catchphrases at people, you're wrong and the person you are replying to is correct.
You've absorbed the subtext of climate change denial propaganda, which says "this isn't happening, if it is happening it's not our fault, if it is our fault then it's not so bad, if it is bad then the alternative is worse, and finally, it was your fault anyway".
Specifically, we're on those last two steps.
Dealing with climate change isn't expensive. Dealing with climate change denial is very expensive. Anyone telling you that we all have to make sacrifices and go back to the stone age because solar, wind, EVs, eating less meat or whatever is impossibly hard, is lying to you.
Just internalize the external costs and we'll have lots of cheaper power. The only real problem is trying to co-ordinate everyone when some people are very prone to believing obvious lies and people can profit from that at the expense of everyone else.
What "catchphrase" am I even repeating? I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote lol. Like, do you honestly think the only way I could come to that opinion was if I was parroting some talking point? No, I have just met way too many fake activists who clearly only care so long as the only effort they have to put in is criticizing other people, while doing nothing in their personal lives to solve the problem.
I think we do have a pollution problem, I also think we have a hypocrite problem. I take issue with fake people preaching down to people while doing nothing themselves.
You can believe whatever you want about me bc of it, I couldn't care less
Off the top of my head: Build a nuclear powered desalination plant for LA. Redirect their current water supply to some already-ruined desert or abandoned farm land, and use it to irrigate massive tree farms.
Cut the farms down every ~ 10 years, and bury the wood in a quarry or other decomposition-hostile environment.
This sidesteps all the process bottlenecks mentioned in the article.
There’s a question of whether fertilizer is needed (the article suggests not). We already know how to convert energy to fertilizer at industrial scale, thanks to the Haber-Bosch process.
I have complicated views on regreening as part of climate change abatement, but I guess headlines are not a place for nuance.
Can someone invent a web based abstract format so we can get the point before we click? Or are we short on electrons?