One solution that I feel is regularly overlooked in these discussions is the establishment of kelp forests. Kelp grows at a far quicker rate than trees, requires no fresh water or land and has the added benefits of restoring marine ecosystems.
$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
351–360 of 469 posts
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#352Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 36 gigatons aren't largely a result of consumer behaviors, but industry (which, admittedly, increases as a function of demand) Reducing footprints through innovation will go a ways. Changing "culture" (i.e. coerced minimalism) is a thing, but it's a band-aid solution on a leaking hoover-dam; virtue signaling for the most part. Carbon footprints scale up with population. Everyone eats, wants gadgets, wants a hom…
I actually think all people in the developed world - rich people of course most of all, but “commoners” too - do need to learn to be content with a lot less. Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. And that’s counting like 1) table 2) bowl 3) cup 4) knife. The way people in America and Europe have been taught to live in the last century - even the lower-middle and working class, let…
> Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects.
Life at the advent of the industrial revolution sucked. The Victorian age was also one of high inequality. I'm not sure what that's supposed to inspire.
> inherently unsustainable
What part? You're not addressing that. I did, however: increase in population increases demand for things.
Environmental destruction is scaling with population, not consumer voraciousness.
> “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.
Look at the stuff you have lying around in your domicile. That's somewhere near the average of what people in the West own.
Digital consumption has increased on average, people aren't tripping over things in their ever-shrinking domiciles with ever-shrinking purchasing power owing to stagnant wages.
Not only are you overestimating consumption of "shit", you're failing to make a meaningful connection between consumer habits and lack of sustainability. It's a question of scale.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally agree and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that trees should not be part of a solution. Trees (and other nature based methods) should definitely not be neglected. I merely wanted to try and raise some awareness to those who question the need for technological removal methods as there is a bit of a toxic "trees will save us" attitude when things like this get mentioned.
Trees are nature's best solution after millions of years of evolution. The R&D cost is low as well as the complexity. The problem is that dead trees turn back into CO2 so there will need to be some kind of sequestration like burying lumber.
Trees did not evolve solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration. Similarly, it would be silly to say that mammals are nature's best solution at sequestering oxygen.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. Trees sequester carbon. They also return that carbon to the atmosphere eventually, but as long as they're replaced by new trees, that's fine. That's not what's happening in the Amazon. From a carbon perspective forests for timber are even better becau…
> The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. According to the documentary "One Strange Rock", which I admit I have not fact checked, your statement is absolutely false. The documentary claims 100% of the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest is used up by the animals that live in it. EDIT:…
I find that believable, but we're talking about carbon, not oxygen.
Forests do sequester carbon for a period, although most of it is released again in fires and decomposition (chemically just a slow fire.)
But the point is that a forest locks up a lot of carbon compared to cleared grazing or cropland.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#356Soil. It's soil. Soil, in prodigious quantities. We need to be making it. Using human waste - food and faecal from our cities; Using whatever plant fixes the most CO2 in a useful form that we can turn into charcoal (quick trees? bamboo grass? something genetically modified?), releasing heat energy, and then fixing carbon in a useful matrix, for soil regeneration a la Terra Preta. I sort of made this post elsewhere he…
Sounds great, anything I can do to help you get to work on soil? Consider checking out AirMiners, may have some resources to help you in your quests.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#357There's a few "plant trees" or "terraform the sahara" comments in here. For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0]. Not only that but it would still take a century for the trees to reach maturity. Our use of technology threw nature out of balance and we need to use technology to get the balance back again. [0] https://science.sciencemag.or…
I'm working on agri-forestry and biochar reactors on a hobby farm.
Hybrid poplars mature within a decade, and a biochar reactor is a net-energy producing reaction that produces soil improving char as a byproduct.
It won't save the world on it's own, but trees can be leveraged in powerful ways.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone checked if earths total biomass has increased as co2 increases?
There is more greenery/forestation, and likely more biomass downstream, but I would expect other effects to cancel those effects beyond certain thresholds. For example, even though plankton and algae might benefit from additional carbon and heat, acidification of the ocean might lead to a net decrease in both.
I guess it would be impossible to actually measure.
Heat could also increase biomass since there would be a longer growing season and higher latitudes opening up.
But like you say, it’s a trade off so hard to predict.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#359I have absolutely no knowledge of physics or mechanical engineering. that being said, is it possible to just send up a vacuum into space with two very long and wide hoses and a solar panel into lower earth orbit and just have it literally suck out the carbon and blow it into space?
You know, aside from the challenge of separating the carbon from other useful stuff in the atmosphere, like oxygen before you start sucking ... you'd need to suck those particles out incredibly far to escape earth's gravity. Easier to suck it just far enough to deposit the co2 on the moon and start creating an atmosphere there. But that would be a heck of a powerful vacuum.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#360Soil. It's soil. Soil, in prodigious quantities. We need to be making it. Using human waste - food and faecal from our cities; Using whatever plant fixes the most CO2 in a useful form that we can turn into charcoal (quick trees? bamboo grass? something genetically modified?), releasing heat energy, and then fixing carbon in a useful matrix, for soil regeneration a la Terra Preta. I sort of made this post elsewhere he…
I highly recommend checking out https://twitter.com/BuildSoil if you're interested in learning more about this approach.