Noteworthy News

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Elon Musk is offering a $100 million prize for a way to extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it durably and sustainably.

Trees, Elon. That’s what trees do. How do I collect?

Boru

Heard of forest fires?

And...?

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Elon Musk is offering a $100 million prize for a way to extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it durably and sustainably.

Trees, Elon. That’s what trees do. How do I collect?

Boru

and.. wood rots!

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.....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

and.. wood rots!

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

[The Architect Of Fate]

hich 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.....

The amount of methane from rotting trees is blown away by the amount of carbon trees absorb

---

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

Because his only solution to climate change is something we know doesn't work because it's based on the fallacy that fewer people means less consumption.

[onlinebiker]

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

And it never fails to amaze me that you just beeeleeeve whatever is popular on the left........

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Boru

And it never fails to amaze me that you just beeeleeeve whatever is popular on the left........

What, that trees make excellent carbon sinks? Yeah, sure went down THAT rabbit hole, didn’t I ?

Boru

[onlinebiker]

And it never fails to amaze me that you just beeeleeeve whatever is popular on the left........

What, that trees make excellent carbon sinks? Yeah, sure went down THAT rabbit hole, didn’t I ?

Boru

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 Architect Of Fate]

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....

Yup and the upkeep can be done

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.

Again the amount of methane or CO2 produced is insignificant to the amount absorbed 

It gets you nowhere in the long term.

Further then suggestions

---

And it never fails to amaze me that you just beeeleeeve whatever is popular on the left........

Or whatever is backed by science unlike any of your idea's

---

And it never fails to amaze me that you just beeeleeeve whatever is popular on the left........

What, that trees make excellent carbon sinks? Yeah, sure went down THAT rabbit hole, didn’t I ?

Boru

Damn science and it's fact-based approach to problems we should just trust OLBs "commonsense"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What, that trees make excellent carbon sinks? Yeah, sure went down THAT rabbit hole, didn’t I ?

Boru

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

[The Architect Of Fate]

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

Or the nutty idea having fewer people will reduce greenhouse gases