Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 332 posts

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#321

Post by _ph_ »

Radim wrote: post #311
_ph_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current vegetation is adapted well to the CO2 levels before industrialisation, that is about 300ppm CO2. The change in CO2-content is actually detrimental to some plants. Furthermore, the quick temperature change is going to wipe out large eco systems. The question isn't, what is the optimal CO2 concentration for single species, but about the health of the eco systems we are living in. We are about to wipe out la…

I actually agree with you. Perhaps the confusion stems from my too-vague use of "we". Your "we" (understandably) refers to humans, who indeed stand much to lose by dramatic CO₂ swings. At least on a suitably mayfly time scale. My "we" meant more "life on this planet", without as much anthropomorphic bias. Periods of increased warmth and easy access to carbon — the two are historically highly correlated, though not sy…

The topic of the article discussed is an approach reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, to fight the current and ongoing climate change. This sets the context for the discussion. Yes, in geological times, we had much higher CO2-content and some of the plants are still rather optimized for that. This is interesting information, but is an entirely different topic - though it is an argument often used to deny the harmful impact of CO2 onto the climate.

Also, the sole concern of the human species is the survival of the species. Of course we should try to ensure this survival in the most ethical way. Protecting the environment comes from those concerns. Climate change is a very big danger to our civilisation right now.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#322

Post by maxhille »

cure wrote: post #117
11235813213455 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nuclear power is significantly more (space-, energy-, ..) efficient and clean than solar farms https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...

Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).

the mining is also a disaster for the affected region AFAIK

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#323

Post by Haga »

lvs wrote: post #310
Haga wrote: post #309

So, to plant this many trees, you need Gene modification. The tree sapplings have to be toxic to sheep, heat & dry resistant, and they need to be non harvest able. You need to engieer a plant that is economically uninteresting for humans. Then distribute it via drones to the post human desolation.

You can't engineer anything to be immune to exploitation except for laws. Genetic modification is absolutely the wrong message to send for this purpose anyway, if you want to get it done fast. We only have a decade or two in which to do this. We go to war with the trees we have. Genetic modification for this purpose will make clonal populations that are more susceptible to disease, requires much more research and reg…

Bad news the native lands are gone. Gone is the little layer of topsoil, gone the biome. And your laws fix it only where poverty is not so bad it constantly subverts all laws. In other words your approach is a reality blind first world approach, destined to fail the moment it runs out of money support fashion and sb pulls the ic-plug on the project. Mine is about rolling with the punshes, fast forwarding inevitable evolution. Bamboo comes to mind. Now that is a forrest which will survive us.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#324

Post by kasey_junk »

weberc2 wrote: post #254
kasey_junk wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago at least has many _urban_ coyotes. I see them at least once a month walking my dog & I live in a pretty dense area.

Which neighborhood? I'm downtown and I only ever see rats. I've never seen a coyote anywhere in the metro area.

Hyde Park

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#325

Post by strainer »

Johnny555 wrote: post #302
strainer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just comparing them with coal to sound great. The three major nuclear accidents do not represent the worst which nuclear plants are capable of. For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD its a real vulnerably of the technology and is a reason why they incur constant exceptional security as well as safety costs. They consume alot of water resource as well, fo…

Thankfully its an academic debate now anyway, because solar and wind prices are already much cheaper with no end to their continued improvement in sight. Has large scale energy storage been solved? I know there are a number of ways to do grid-scale storage, but are any of them scalable enough to power the entire country from solar and wind? Especially if another "storm of the century" (which seem to be happening more…

> Has large scale energy storage been solved?

There are numerous technologies which can currently provide large scale energy storage at cost which is currently competitive in many situations and due to drop rapidly once they are actually required and built in quantity. To mention a few: flow batteries, hydrogen production and generation, carbon neutral biomass fuel, heat storage and conversion batteries including molten salt, enhancement of existing hydro schemes, online EV fleet, active geothermal... besides you know if pushed, even the occasional emergency fossil fuel burn if unprepared. Nuclear plants are not known for their uptime during storms either.

Current prices are detailed here, been dropping every year : https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#326

Post by creatornator »

kijin wrote: post #285
jedberg wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few other neighbors who were maliciously caring for their lawn I think you meant meticulously, but it works either way. :)

It gets malicious real quick when they invoke the power of the HOA to force you to tame the wilderness in your back yard. :(

The next part is "have done the same as I have and we've got a much larger wild area now" so I suspect it was not "malicious"

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#328

Post by zitterbewegung »

CydeWeys wrote: post #208
zitterbewegung wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, so to sequester the carbon either build something out of it or dump it into the ocean. Maybe build a boat?

Rather than sequestering all this carbon into wood and then trying to figure out what to do with the wood so that it doesn't decompose over time and release the CO2 back into the air, it'd make more sense to stop digging up lots of carbon from underground (where it's been stable for hundreds of millions of years in the form of coal and oil) and burning it to release the CO2 into the air. We already have amazing reser…

Why can’t we do both ?

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#329

Post by CydeWeys »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #328
CydeWeys wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than sequestering all this carbon into wood and then trying to figure out what to do with the wood so that it doesn't decompose over time and release the CO2 back into the air, it'd make more sense to stop digging up lots of carbon from underground (where it's been stable for hundreds of millions of years in the form of coal and oil) and burning it to release the CO2 into the air. We already have amazing reser…

Why can’t we do both ?

We can and should, but there's more impact to be had from ceasing to dig up the buried carbon and burning it. That's the equivalent of not punching holes in the hull, whereas planting trees is like bailing out the boat -- you'd rather it just didn't leak!

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#330

Post by nojvek »

After reading a ton about genetics I wonder if it’s possible to modify one of our existing tree species to make them a better store of carbon without destroying wildlife habitats.

Entertain my thoughts: Suppose you could have a tree X. It grows fast, is very water efficient and better at trapping sunlight and C02 than existing specifies. It’s wood grows straight and makes a great building material. We could plant billions of it in semi-deserts and it would terraform the land into a livable habitat.

Basically the promise is rather than planting trillions of trees, can we plant billions of 1000x efficient trees in places where current trees don’t exist.

Post reply on HN