Noteworthy News

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Which releases methane - which is worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas...

....

If you want trees to keep the carbon long term - bury them deep..... Where over time they' ll form oil.....

I never cease to be impressed by how consistent you are in making ‘perfect’ the enemy of ‘better’.

Boru

 Yes indeed.

Well, it was like this: God, didn't make coal or oil the way he made the other amenities,  indeedly doodly not. He blew all the trees down. He did.  Then gradually, over 3 million years give or take they turned into coal and oil. This process was so gradual that it wasn't noticed by the average passer by.  (or ape like creatures)  Like creatures standing under the trees for example. Instead of grunting "Hooray, coal and oil in three million years" They tended to think " Ah, shit, trees fallin' on us. That's, the last thing we want" In most cases, that was the last thing they got-----***


***with apologies to Dudley Moore and his skit " I could have been a judge"

[onlinebiker]

Storing carbon in trees is a bit like storing water by drinking beer.... It' s nice and enjoyable but it is a short term solution that needs constant upkeep....

Many species of trees have a shorter lifetime than humans. Then - when the tree dies you have two choices - let it rot - producing methane or burn it - releasing CO2.

It gets you nowhere in the long term.

Plus - you have to maintain trees - which takes energy...

If you simply plant trees like crazy - and don' t maintain the undergrowth you get huge piles of accumulated kindling.... It' s a big reason why the Western US has had so many uncontrolled fires.  So what are you going to do with all that dead undergrowth? Burn it or let it rot? Either way the carbon eventually finds it' s way back into circulation....

The idea is not to eliminated atmospheric carbon altogether (which would be disastrous), but to reduce or - ideally - to reverse the rate at which CO2 is added to the atmosphere. The goal is to balance the carbon cycle between releasing and sequestering carbon.

And I really do think that maintaining forests would be a helluva lot cheaper, both in economic and environmental terms, that the absolutely nutty idea of burying trees for tens of millions of years and hope they turn into oil.

Boru

As usual you missed the point entirely.


Trying to sequester carbon in trees is just kicking the can down the road. 

Every gram of carbon in a tree will eventually make it right back into the environment when the tree dies.

Even nonstop planting of trees won' t make a difference - you will just make a bigger pile of dead wood in the future.

Yes burying it is not really a viable option - but it is the only scenario that would actually make a long term difference. In order to reduce environmental carbon you need to capture it in something that won' t biodegrade.
...

Waiting for the " you hate trees" idiots to chime in.

[The Architect Of Fate]

As usual you missed the point entirely.

Nah he always gets your point. Your points are just stupid that's all.

Trying to sequester carbon in trees is just kicking the can down the road. 

Nah it's a good measure to carbon if not a perfect one. Unlike any of the dumb ideas, you come up with.

Every gram of carbon in a tree will eventually make it right back into the environment when the tree dies.

Yeah that's not how that works 

Even nonstop planting of trees won' t make a difference - you will just make a bigger pile of dead wood in the future.

Yeah that's not how that works

Yes burying it is not really a viable option - but it is the only scenario that would actually make a long term difference. In order to reduce environmental carbon you need to capture it in something that won' t biodegrade.

Not even 

Waiting for the " you hate trees" idiots to chime in.

Lol literally no one has said that nob job 


How this actually works not Debbies ignorant opining 

https://creatingtomorrowsforests.co.uk/b...ore-carbon

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24649

https://www.wri.org/insights/forests-abs...-each-year

---

The only real objection to using trees as a carbon sink is that grasslands are better suited to the task.

https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/news/g...han-trees/

[Rev. Rye]

Biker on trees:

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The idea is not to eliminated atmospheric carbon altogether (which would be disastrous), but to reduce or - ideally - to reverse the rate at which CO2 is added to the atmosphere. The goal is to balance the carbon cycle between releasing and sequestering carbon.

And I really do think that maintaining forests would be a helluva lot cheaper, both in economic and environmental terms, that the absolutely nutty idea of burying trees for tens of millions of years and hope they turn into oil.

Boru

As usual you missed the point entirely.


Trying to sequester carbon in trees is just kicking the can down the road. 

Every gram of carbon in a tree will eventually make it right back into the environment when the tree dies.

Even nonstop planting of trees won' t make a difference - you will just make a bigger pile of dead wood in the future.

Yes burying it is not really a viable option - but it is the only scenario that would actually make a long term difference. In order to reduce environmental carbon you need to capture it in something that won' t biodegrade.
...

Waiting for the " you hate trees" idiots to chime in.

What part of ‘cycle’ is giving you trouble? It’s perfectly ok that the carbon stored in trees will eventually be released.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

As usual you missed the point entirely.


Trying to sequester carbon in trees is just kicking the can down the road. 

Every gram of carbon in a tree will eventually make it right back into the environment when the tree dies.

Even nonstop planting of trees won' t make a difference - you will just make a bigger pile of dead wood in the future.

Yes burying it is not really a viable option - but it is the only scenario that would actually make a long term difference. In order to reduce environmental carbon you need to capture it in something that won' t biodegrade.
...

Waiting for the " you hate trees" idiots to chime in.

What part of ‘cycle’ is giving you trouble? It’s perfectly ok that the carbon stored in trees will eventually be released.

Boru

What he doesn't get is release is a gradual one that the planet can handle and even in a forest fire the amount released will be easy to handle

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The only real objection to using trees as a carbon sink is that grasslands are better suited to the task.

No reason we can’t do both. In areas not suited to forestation, plant grasses. In areas not suitable for grasslands, plant trees (but trees also have the advantage that you can turn them into houses).

Boru

[onlinebiker]

As usual you missed the point entirely.


Trying to sequester carbon in trees is just kicking the can down the road. 

Every gram of carbon in a tree will eventually make it right back into the environment when the tree dies.

Even nonstop planting of trees won' t make a difference - you will just make a bigger pile of dead wood in the future.

Yes burying it is not really a viable option - but it is the only scenario that would actually make a long term difference. In order to reduce environmental carbon you need to capture it in something that won' t biodegrade.
...

Waiting for the " you hate trees" idiots to chime in.

What part of ‘cycle’ is giving you trouble? It’s perfectly ok that the carbon stored in trees will eventually be released.

Boru

What part of " futile" is giving YOU trouble?

Problem - burning of hydrocarbons had put a higher amount of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of (mainly) CO2 - thus elevating temperature.

Proposed solution - remove carbon from atmosphere and store it.

Your method - store it in a sieve.

[Spongebob]

The idea is not to eliminated atmospheric carbon altogether (which would be disastrous), but to reduce or - ideally - to reverse the rate at which CO2 is added to the atmosphere. The goal is to balance the carbon cycle between releasing and sequestering carbon.

And I really do think that maintaining forests would be a helluva lot cheaper, both in economic and environmental terms, that the absolutely nutty idea of burying trees for tens of millions of years and hope they turn into oil.

Boru

As usual you missed the point entirely.


Trying to sequester carbon in trees is just kicking the can down the road. 

Every gram of carbon in a tree will eventually make it right back into the environment when the tree dies.

Even nonstop planting of trees won' t make a difference - you will just make a bigger pile of dead wood in the future.

Yes burying it is not really a viable option - but it is the only scenario that would actually make a long term difference. In order to reduce environmental carbon you need to capture it in something that won' t biodegrade.
...

Waiting for the " you hate trees" idiots to chime in.

This isn't true at all.  Not all plants that die rapidly degraded and return their carbon to the atmosphere.  A good many have been buried in the past and this is where fossil fuels come from.  All of that oil and gas are ancient plants buried deep underground.  And if you are talking about trees, many specie of trees can live for hundreds of years and, once felled, may last for decades more depending on conditions.  Increasing forestland increases the carbon stored.  And if humans harvest the trees and build things with it, most of that carbon stays locked in the wood for as long as it is in use.  Think about all of that wonderful peat in Britain, that's stored carbon but of course we can't help but dig it up to make awesome whiskey.  Permafrost also contains a huge amount of biomass.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmn, more trees and houses and plants? Can't see how that would help choking homeless starving humanity. Terrible idea, next!