151–160 of 201 posts
If it's the best commerically viable tree use it. Cheap products is what will help this religious CO2 is Armageddon cause because people will actually use them.
Else plant natives if you're planting wide spread trees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for putting project Vesta into perspective. As a layman in this field I can only observe, that topics regarding climate change and carbon sequestration appear alot more frequently here than a year before. I can only guess, that more people are realizing that there's a need for change. But there's no clear path forward. So every project providing even a small chance for success gets into the news. I don't kn…
Same here, I'm having a hard time telling which one will actually help. The one that seems most promising to me is Climeworks. I wrote a bit more about what they told me in another comment last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20544179
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A lot of people hate them though, for the same reason outlined in the article: you can't kill them. Many consider them weeds. I reread the article and I see no mention of it?
They mention it’s “easy to regrow from the stump” what that means is cutting it down doesn’t kill it. Additionally many trees that easily regrow from a cut stump also regrow/produce new tree from their roots. Seems like a recipe for an invasive plant (much like those awful pear trees the were used for landscaping)
[1] I dug up the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/how-we-tur...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The carbon stored in a tree is proportional to its weight, about half its dry weight is carbon [ https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-conte... ]. Also in all those discussions of processes(!) I find people even here seem to be looking at points in time only, and usually at the start of the process. That also includes the issue of looking at just one tree instead of a forest. When you look at the who…
You don't bury the trees underground to store their carbon. You bury them in buildings. As lumber. Replace concrete (which produces CO2) in new buildings with wood (which sequesters it) and you've tackled quite a bit of carbon emissions.
Unless you add additional options by having two different items (tress + buildings), e.g. the option to stack them on top of one another, it does not matter if the carbon is stored in a tree or a building made from it. They all share the same limited surface space and you could just replace all buildings with trees in the model, or vice versa and it does not change the total storage capacity here on the surface. I refer back to everything I wrote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a misunderstanding how how government works. You need to have some kind of institution in order to get anything enforced. Building up institutions full of competent people with a mandate to craft and enforce carefully designed regulations and respond to changing circumstances is the way to attack these kinds of big problems. (Of course, institutions can only be so effective when their leadership is unlawfully…
you misunderstand how enforcement works. It's done via law enforcement agencies that exist already. It doesn't need a special new "bureau" for each type of rule. If you don't believe me that there are law enforcement agencies, I can show you how to summon them very easily. Now, the question is, why don't these agencies enforce the same laws against corporations? That's the premise of my initial comment, which you als…
Many of the ones commonly considered to be “law enforcement agencies” per se are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the... but there are many other federal agencies which might also be considered “law enforcement” under a broader interpretation of that term.
Different agencies have different focus, different mandate, different institutional powers, etc.
Arguably the functions established for the CFPB to perform could be undertaken by some other institution. But the point of the legislation and its implementation (which Warren and others worked very carefully on) was creating a semi-autonomous institution solely focused on consumer financial protection.
During the Obama years the CFPB was pretty effective, despite unified and extreme opposition from GOP politicians. (Its effectiveness explains why some folks were eager to see it defanged.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or burning for energy production Doesn't that just release the C02 again? Construction purposes might help, or any other way of sequestering.
Yes, but its net-zero carbon, so still an improvement over using fossil fuels.
Probably other factors are small, but hard to predict (particulates, volatile chemicals, other effects of growth). Might be positive or negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every year. Given the article's assertion of the 103 tons per acre per year, your Alaska of Empress trees would do it until they all die and presumably those forests will be maintained into perpetuity.
The carbon stored in a tree is proportional to its weight, about half its dry weight is carbon [ https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-conte... ]. Also in all those discussions of processes(!) I find people even here seem to be looking at points in time only, and usually at the start of the process. That also includes the issue of looking at just one tree instead of a forest. When you look at the who…
A unique carbon capture solution I don't hear much about is kelp. The key is that you want the carbon captured to stay out of the air, and the deep sea is a great place for it to end up. https://carboninstitute.org/kelp-and-carbon-sequestration-br...
A unique carbon capture solution I don't hear much about is kelp. The key is that you want the carbon captured to stay out of the air, and the deep sea is a great place for it to end up. https://carboninstitute.org/kelp-and-carbon-sequestration-br...
Offsetting current carbon emissions would require some 50 trillion trees. An alternative offset would be to cultivate kelp forests. Kelp can grow at 2 feet per day, 30 times faster than terrestrial plants. Planting kelp across 9% of the oceans (4.5 x the area of Australia) could provide the same offset. Additionally, the kelp would support a fish harvest of 2 megatons per year and reduce ocean acidification. Large scale open ocean forestry would require engineered substrate and added nutrients.