Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Still_Difference5461 t1_isw3q8h wrote

Reply to comment by SomberPony in Phantom Forests: Why Ambitious Tree Planting Projects Are Failing by filosoful

We gotta do both frankly. I hear carbon sequestration would work by planting trees and then cutting them down once they reach maturity. Then you burn the trees for energy, capture the carbon from burning, and bury it along with the ash. So we do need to plant the trees. That is definitely an important part of fighting climate change.

2

SomberPony t1_iswfyfj wrote

Nope. We have to stop burning mined hydrocarbons for energy. That is our number one priority period. No sequestration, unless it's part of a plan for eventual elimination. Pipelines leak, wells are improperly sealed, and it hasn't been demonstrated that the CO2 can't leak. In addition, as I have said before, at high temperatures, Rubisco breaks down. That means photosynthesis stops of c3 plants.

EVERYTHING that isn't getting off mined hydrocarbons for energy is a distraction. Planting trees. Whinging about agriculture. Sequestration. ALL of it. It's all a distraction from relentlessly replacing as much of our energy with non-mined hydrocarbon sources. That may mean hydrogen fueled aircraft and cargo ships, and electrifying the land based transportation grid. And yeah, it SUCKS when your native land gets a solar farm dropped down on it or you have windmills in your formerly picturesque ranch view. Know what sucks more? Burning alive in forest fires.

Once again, once you've achieved not burning mined hydrocarbons for power, plant all the damned trees you want. I'll lend you a shovel. But that is step two. It will never fix the problem, only delay it.

2