81–90 of 113 posts
I wonder if anyone is researching genetically modified trees that specialize in carbon sequestration. Sort of like Golden Rice but for climate change.
I wonder how much more CO2 can be captured by rapidly growing plants such as hemp or corn? I've also heard that algae is really good at it too.
A glimmer of hope? Waiting for the other shoe to drop in terms of "it will cost too much", "politically it's not possible", or some such...
I think part of the appeal of this plan, aside from its theorized effectiveness, is that it doesn't require any political buy-in. People can plant trees all on their own. That said, a trillion is a quantity larger than any human has the ability to intuitively grasp. It really depends if by "planting trees" they mean "scattering seeds by aircraft" or if they mean "hand-planting saplings".
FWIW, There are startups doing this idea like BioCarbon Engineering https://www.biocarbonengineering.com/services (found via video by one of it's investors Tom Chi https://vimeo.com/294975140 (at 11 minute mark) )
The concept of seed drops / seedballs seemingly goes back to the 'zero budget farming' ideas of Masanobu Fukuoka (an older video that goes into seedball making - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4-bwW8PWI0 )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change That is true, and does not conflict with the findings of the article. I think the difference here is that we can start planting trees right now. Carbon taxation is something people still pretend doesn't have to be done. It's also worth noting, that given the accelerating pace of the climate crisis, the time to start planting…
Most people are overestimating the value in planting trees. Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. Areas that don’t quickly turn into forests are generally poorly suited to growing trees. Further, not all trees are equivalent with marginal areas generally resulting in small and often very slowly growing trees.
We're at a point where passively going with "let nature take its course" is not a prudent action. We need to nudge things where and when we can. There's multiple documented instances of forests being replanted, so this is not idle speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some kind of beetle (or was it a fungus?) has killed off a mind boggling number of trees which may be a side-effect of fighting forest fires and the campaign against logging. higher tree density == easier for fungus to spread. this is why I don't automatically believe anything from the "enlightened" progressive camp. back in the 80's, it was "Stop the Big Bad Loggers! Save the Forest!". Now, had they responsibly th…
I get the premise of thinning, but nature seemed to do just fine for quite some time before humans brought their theories on how to maintain forests. Man comes up with a theory on how to use the land, but then has to come up with new theories to undo the effect the preceding theory caused. Looking at how nature has coped with out humans in Chernobyl is a good example of nature not needing man's help.
I wonder if anyone is researching genetically modified trees that specialize in carbon sequestration. Sort of like Golden Rice but for climate change.
I wonder that too. Also, how much concrete construction could be replaced with engineered wood construction so that less concrete was manufactured (thus reducing a primary source of CO2 output) and more CO2 could be sequestered in buildings? i.e. can we genetically engineer a tree that grows fast and is well suited for construction uses?
We are already lucky to have trees that grow fast enough and are well suited for construction uses. We are lucky to have sun and wind strong enough replace our unsustainable power sources. We're even lucky we didn't wipe out the ozone layer a few decades ago - only a chance of chemistry gave us enough time to respond.
The global climate and ecological crisis should be a wake up call to appreciate the vulnerability and suitability of the web of life that evolved us, not a mandate for ever more bold experiments on it.
A glimmer of hope? Waiting for the other shoe to drop in terms of "it will cost too much", "politically it's not possible", or some such...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really interesting. According to this [1], a 10 years old `Calliandra calothyrsus` such as the ones they (trees.org) plant captures about 170 kg / 380 lbs of CO2. According to the World Bank [2], the average European citizen produces 6 tons of CO2 while the average American produces about 16 tons. That would mean that they can offset the yearly CO2 emissions of an European or American person by planting 35 ($3…
That's true but only half the picture: every time one of these trees dies it is cut down it needs to be buried or otherwise prevented from releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The tree you mentioned is described on Wikipedia as follows: "...This tree grows to about 6 m and has pinnate compound leaves and flowers with a boss of prominent reddish-purple stamens. It is not very drought-tolerant and the above-grou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may be no need to genetically engineer trees for construction at this point, at least not in north america. Some kind of beetle (or was it a fungus?) has killed off a mind boggling number of trees which can be used as engineered wood in construction. As CLT and maybe Brettstapel.
> Some kind of beetle (or was it a fungus?) has killed off a mind boggling number of trees which may be a side-effect of fighting forest fires and the campaign against logging. higher tree density == easier for fungus to spread. this is why I don't automatically believe anything from the "enlightened" progressive camp. back in the 80's, it was "Stop the Big Bad Loggers! Save the Forest!". Now, had they responsibly th…
Lack of evolved resistance and predators are the key factors.
Related: A Toyota engineer grows forests: https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really-real...
The cool thing is that you can order your own dense, self-sustaining forest from https://www.afforestt.com — and it doesn't have to be big (100 square meters), and it doesn't take a hundred years, either.