Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
1–10 of 153 posts
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#2Yes you need to build ecosystems not just plant trees. Monoculture tree stands are often mostly empty of other life.
You need to plant a variety of native species keeping track of keystone species and year round food production so that your forest supports other life.
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#3Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#4"Hemp twice as effective at capturing carbon as trees, UK researcher says" (2021) https://hempindustrydaily.com/hemp-twice-as-effective-at-cap... :
> “Industrial hemp absorbs between 8 to 15 tonnes of CO2 per hectare (3 to 6 tonnes per acre) of cultivation.”
> Comparatively, forests capture 2 to 6 tonnes of carbon per hectare (0.8 to 2.4 tonnes per acre), depending on the region, number of years of growth, type of trees and other factors, Shah said.
> Shah, who studies engineered wood, bamboo, natural fiber composites and hemp [at Cambridge, UK], said hemp “offers an incredible scope to grow a better future” while producing fewer emissions than conventional crops and more usable fibers per hectare than forestry.
"Cities of the future may be built with algae-grown limestone" (2022) https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/06/23/cities-future-may-... :
> And limestone isn’t the only product microalgae can create: microalgae’s lipids, proteins, sugars and carbohydrates can be used to produce biofuels, food and cosmetics, meaning these microalgae could also be a source of other, more expensive co-products—helping to offset the costs of limestone production.
Carbon sequestration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#5Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?
This is an area of active research but at the moment essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol.
The ocean is 70% of the planet’s surface and, I think, is where a lot of the work should go on.
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#6Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?
This is an area of active research but at the moment essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol. The ocean is 70% of the planet’s surface and, I think, is where a lot of the work should go on.
> essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol.
Interesting, why? Plankton != dumping, right? Could there be contained plankton "farms" that are similar to fish farms?
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#7Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?
There's been talk of dumping iron particles into the ocean to to spur phytoplankton growth [0].
[0]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocea...
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#8Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?
This is known as the "Geritol solution" and was an idea that was debated back in the early 90s.
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#9This looks like an article that wanted to give a particular outcome (that trees are not enough) and backed into that out with a study that “proved” it.
However I can’t find a link to the actual study in the article.
Has there ever been a study that linked the increase in CO2 to the increased logging efforts in places around the world?
Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide
#10Yes you need to build ecosystems not just plant trees. Monoculture tree stands are often mostly empty of other life. You need to plant a variety of native species keeping track of keystone species and year round food production so that your forest supports other life.
Absolutely. Our ways of thinking about the environment are trapped in the past. Where we focus on one variable and miss the importance and resilience that comes from a holistic approach. We need to be encouraging the right ecosystems for the right environment. For example, we need to be encouraging native grassland ecosystems in the great plains, not forests. Native grasses can have root systems 8 feet deep to deal with droughts and erosion, a forest just doesn't make sense there