(October 31, 2021 at 10:16 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:(October 31, 2021 at 4:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
