If only there were a Kingdom whom we could engage, one that naturally and enthusiastically removes carbon dioxide from the air. There must be an answer, maybe if we plant a seed, metaphorically speaking, a long standing solution will grow to fruition.
That sounds like a lot of work though
That’s the nifty part, members of the Plant Kingdom do all the heavy lifting on this. We just need to assist a bit.
that’s the neat part, we don’t even need to assist just get out of the way. and that’s going to happen sooner than later.
They’re now using these with drones instead of cargo jets. The drones can plant 100k trees a day!
Oh! I know how to do that!
*dies*
The tricky part is keeping the carbon in the plants. My grass clippings will decompose back into CO2 if you just dump it in a pile. A better option would be to dehydrate the clippings and bury it in a cave or something.
I also understand that there would be better plants than grass as well.
What if your grasses decomposed and were put under pressure by rocks inside said cave, slowly transforming into a rich, dark to jet black liquid hydrocarbon substance or something like that?
That would be pretty strange. Millions of years of stored sunlight and carbon, just liquefied and pumped underground on purpose.
Shit, (literally) we can get members of the animal kingdom to do most of the medium lifting too.
“A bit”. Do you realize the sheer number of trees you would have to plant to offset our carbon? And then, eventually, those trees die and the carbon is reintroduced. Trees never have been and never will be the answer to CO2 that was previously sequestered underground over millenia.
LoL, try this: Carbon Offset Tree Planting Calculator: Find How Many Trees to Plant https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-offset-tree-planting-calculator-find-how-many-trees-to-plant/
or if you prefer MIT:
How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions? https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions
““Planting trees where they’ve been lost is often a good idea, and that will take up CO2,” Harvey says. “But a much more efficient thing to do, to have a larger effect for the same effort, is to stop cutting down trees. It’s almost silly to think about planting a huge number of new trees while we’re just burning and destroying them everywhere, releasing carbon at rates that are much higher than what new growth would take up.””
And as other’s have observed, it needn’t only be trees.
I’m a solarpunk who lives in a tiny apartment and bikes everywhere and has 100% renewable energy’l production and heating. Vegetarian also, but lots of dairy
The calculator still said I needed 1.8 earths to offset my lifestyle.
What do they want me to do, keel over and die? My carbon impact is almost zero, and is actually negative with my research and contributions into 3D photovoltaics.
I don’t think “planting 200 trees per year per person” is tenable. I think slapping a huge fuck-off fine on a major polluter is a much easier and effective strategy.
My personal yearly CO² impact is dwarfed by a single container ship travelling just 8 miles burning bunker oil.
Personal responsibility in this case isn’t the answer, social responsibility is. No one human being alone could damage the environment to this extent.
Thanks for what you do. Most anyone on this thread, except the trolls, are not the problem. All I’m suggesting is using the plant kingdom to fix carbon out of the air. No solely that, of course, but at least some of that.
I’m trying to understand what exactly solar punk means. My main transport, a surly ogre is sitting in view not 10 feet from where I sit. I put solar panels on my roof last year, something I’ve been meaning to do for decades. I eat from my garden and local farmers as much as I can. I haven’t flown in a plane since 2019, and may not ever again. I’ve never been on a cruise ship, probably never will. But yeah, one container ship, one private jet, adds up to a lot of carbon real fast.
You can call yourself a solarpunk, you garden, have solar, it counts 👍
Yep, that was my original point. Trees just can’t cut it. They have such a little impact they’re almost not worth even discussing. Far larger gains can be found elsewhere.
So ride bikes? What large gainz are you thinking of? Can’t leave me hanging, Friend.
Yeah, like I said, a ridiculous amount of trees according to that calculator. That calculator said I’m in the top 5% and would take just over 200 trees a year. If we make the assumption that all of the top 5% also need 200 trees a year (it’smuch more likely that number sky rockets as the percentage gets lower), that’s 70,000,000,000 trees a year. To put some scale to that it looks like 14m hectares were lost to deforestation in 2010 and from what I see the most generous number is about 900 trees per hectare. That’s 12,600,000,000 trees. Stopping all deforestation won’t even come close to covering 5% of the CO2. Again, trees never will be enough to make up for the CO2 being pumped out of the ground and into the air.
Ok, so you don’t like trees. I get it. I still think they are part of the larger solution. And, what do you like? How are we going to solve this? Cuz, we are going to solve it, dancing joyously all the way.
I didn’t say I don’t like trees, just they aren’t the solution. They’re often used as green washing and delay actually effective things like carbon cap and trade. I don’t know what the solution will be. If it were simple enough for me to solve it, it wouldn’t be a problem we’re facing.
deleted by creator
The article briefly addresses this:
Tree planting has been the most popular nature-based tactic so far — to little success. A growing body of research and investigations has found that offsetting emissions with forestry projects has largely failed. The trees often don’t survive long enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric CO2, for example, and then there’s double counting when more than one group claims the carbon credits.
Expensive is the wrong word here, most of these calculations are not about money, but energy, they are about doing stupid things like using power from burning coal to collect CO2 emitted from it…at a net waste of energy. It literally emits more CO2 than doing nothing (unless all your energy and factories producing solar panels and wind turbines and cars and infrastructure already run on green energy). It is only good for greenwashing in the near to medium future.
It’s a net loss, until you consider: You can pump that CO2 into oil wells to get more oil. That’s what most CO2 collection is used for. The collection part is typically stopped when the oil runs out.
It makes much more sense when you realize the point was never to reduce atmospheric CO2.
If only there was a way to turn CO2 back into a solid form of carbon, release O2, and it could all be powered by the sun, for free.
What a world that would be.
Nobody makes grotesque amounts of money from that, so we’re not allowed to do that one
I am weak in science. Is this sarcasm or does a method really exist? I am extremely curious. Please enlighten me.
Trees. He’s talking about trees.
The problem is trees are short-term (even the long-lived ones) and only a part of the solution because they are a part of the carbon cycle. We need to remove carbon from the carbon cycle.
Another part of the solution is pyrolysis of industrial plant waste into biochar/charcoal. This stable form of carbon can last thousands of years underground and does not need any fancy technology or equipment.
I feel extremely dumb now. I am gonna take my leave.
You missed an opportunity to say ‘gonna take my leaf’ … but alas
And grass, and bushes, and all things green that grow. The phytoplankton in the ocean actually process more CO2 than anything else on the planet. That’s one reason why ocean warming is so concerning.
😂🙏🏽
The article addresses this:
Tree planting has been the most popular nature-based tactic so far — to little success. A growing body of research and investigations has found that offsetting emissions with forestry projects has largely failed. The trees often don’t survive long enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric CO2, for example, and then there’s double counting when more than one group claims the carbon credits.
Trees end up releasing a lot of carbon down the road
We’re releasing a lot of carbon right now.
The neat thing is when a tree dies and starts releasing it again, the trees around it absorb it, and here’s the best part: They plant new trees all on their own.
Doesn’t help through forest fires
But the tree angle is mostly used by polluters to say they are carbon neutral because they planted some trees somewhere so they can continue polluting
Not saying you are one of them, just to not put so much stock in it when we should be aiming for elimination
I mean I’ll agree 100% that carbon credits or whatever they’re called now is bollocks.
But more trees can’t hurt. And they’re nicer than endless fields of corn.
Redwoods live thousands of years. I’m cool with punting this problem 3000 years into the future.
While trees are great and you have a point, we can’t just put trees everywhere without consideration of native species. Much of the U.S. for example is prairie/grasslands that doesn’t have a high tree density and the carbon is cycled much faster. Also of concern (not my concern but somebody’s) is the property value of land used for trees instead of profit.
A acre of hemp regrown every year and a biochar retort could sequester far more carbon than an acre of forest over a given period and can be done on “wastelands”. Biochar IMHO is the only carbon sequestration method that actually makes sense.
Trees do it.
Plant more trees.
I’m all for more trees but they eventually decompose and release their captured CO2. Combine it with BECCS and it could actually net in reduced CO2 over the course of centuries. We’ll need a myriad of solutions, unfortunately a lot of capture methods are greenwashing bs.
It takes decades to get significant co2 out of the air with trees.
Algae is what we want. Then toss it down a coal mine.
It takes decades to get significant co2 out of the air with trees.
So we better get it going, then.
I hear it’s better if we start 20 years ago.
2004?
Its Not that hard to understand. Since the industrial revolution we’ve taken energy out of a system that, as a pollutant, generated CO2.
If you want to remove the excess CO2 we generated we’ll have to put back at least the same amount of energy to reverse that process. Adding in typical losses like heat, you can triple or quadruple that.
So let’s say we need four time the energy that humanity had generated since the industrial revolution to get co2 back to pre industrial levels. Great. ALL this energy must come from non CO2 sources like solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, because of not you’re just spending 100 units of CO2 to capture 30…
This already means that currently, carbon capture is a bad idea. Any energy spent on that is energy that generated more CO2 than it will capture and even if it is renewable, or nuclear, it would be better spent on something else and that something else would still spend 100 units CO2 for the 30 you capture.
So this means that step one, before really starting to capture CO2, is getting ALL of your energy generation where possible (airplanes, for example, cannot go electrical). We’re not even at step 0.1, honestly.
We need to get rid of all fossil fuel cars, trucks and power plants before we can even start thinking about fixing this and we’re literally a sliver in that direction, currently.
So can we please PLEASE start with this damn conversion already?
There actually is a much easier way with enhanced weathering. Igneous rocks naturally carbonate as they weather, and pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to make carbonates. This is why when you have a mountain building event it causes global cooling. So what you need to do is expose more igneous rock surface area to the atmosphere by grinding it up and spreading it out. This also costs energy but not nearly as much as carbon capture, and it’s also slower. But we know it works, and there are several pilot studies trying it.
The problem is capitalism. There’s no room for a zero-profit process in the economic system that everyone accepts as necessary. It has to somehow enrich the investor class.
Interesting idea, haven’t heard that one yet, but it does sound like something that a) would require literally mountains of energy and b) would take a way WAY long time, much more than we have available.
Also, just blaming it all on capitalism as a blanket excuse is a but too simple, not?
Actually weathering can happen on the timescale of decades; it’s all a matter of how much surface area of the rock you expose. Nature does this too slowly. In terms of energy input, grinding rocks gets a huge head start with all of the mine tailings we already have. Here is an example:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03609#
In terms of capitalism, for me it’s not too simple. Capitalism is a profit driven model that can’t comprehend long term ecological damage. It becomes a “negative externality” which can then be modelled by economists however they want (which is why they don’t agree about how bad it is). If we had a system based on human well being we would have solved climate change already. It’s simply not profitable to replace the fossil fuel economy with renewable energy sources. It requires a level of investment capitalists can’t comprehend. This is largely why societal change comes from governments which can simply invent money to throw at a problem (think New Deal or Bidenomics).
The complicated part is answering why humans can’t seem to get past capitalism. I think we all agree the system is doomed; we just can’t figure out how to get away from it.
It also doesn’t work.
Yeh, but then the Oligarchy can get the public off it’s back, regardless of the effectiveness. I am sure in a few years when things keep getting worse, they will come up with another “solution” which does not address the root cause.
Algae does it for free on a massive scale.
We’ll put a stop to that!
Are you being sarcastic? I think this defeatist attitude is shit, and people need to focus on real practical cheap solutions rather than doomerism. Algae is the best solution we have, it already does most of the job for us.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/10/231025185159.htm
The key to bringing global net-zero goals into reach may be algae, say researchers. Studies show impressive success of certain microalgae varieties to remove CO2 from the atmosphere then break it down into useful materials.
Are you being sarcastic?
You think?
Dollar for dollar, planting trees works better then current CO2 connectors. Algae could be industrialized as a source of carbon neutral fossil fuel alternative.
Indeed, and using algae based fuels would make it carbon negative because it would in turn store the carbon it releases cyclically. Algae can be dehydrated, compacted, and stored for extremely dense carbon storage. Planting trees is good as well, also for ecological reasons.
I wonder how expensive the damages from climate change will be.
across the US. Big companies including Microsoft and Amazon are also paying startups to capture some of their pollution. And the fossil fuel industry has embraced the technology, even using it to market supposedly more sustainable oil. Apparently, that still isn’t enough.
“More sustainable oil”. Sure dude. Just keep doing the same thing you’ve always done that cause this problem in the first place. But wait…
There are so many limitations to the most studied CDR techniques — including tree plantingand** machines that capture CO2 **— that Romm says the money would be better spent researching other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Oh, so do nothing while things keep getting worse? We need to hemm and haw over the things we haven’t thought of that will also be too expensive?
But why put a Band-Aid on the problem if we aren’t stopping the bleeding?
Well, because it’s not a perfect solution we should do nothing is the gist I’m getting from this whole thing. Other than what we’re already doing - attempting to lower emissions.
Lowering emissions doesn’t increase shareholder value. Try again, and this time think of the shareholders.
/s (obviously)
The taxes levied against CO2 production will never be able to sustain the cost of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Any discussion of rehabilitating from climate change should include rewilding and the restoration of lost wetlands, a major carbon sink for our planet.
We could grow more hemp too, more efficient at carbon removal than trees
If you want to return the climate to preindustrial levels you have to return the co2 level in the atmosphere to pre industrial levels. Your gonna need to figure out carbon capture at some point but seems like it’s second on the list after we stop generating new carbon.
There are enough people working this problem that we can realistically aim for both and capitalize on incremental improvements in each area along the way.
I agree. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that. There’s enough of us that we can diversify our efforts. A set of large teams working on eliminating carbon production, and a set of large teams working on carbon capture.
We don’t really need to pick and choose. There’s literally billions of people on earth.
The point isn’t to fight climate change, it’s to have us chasing hope while they keep cashing in the petrobux.
Aaaaaand here’s Singapore, not complaining about cost: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/blogs/2024/04/seas-the-future-singapores-visionary-leap-into-oceanic-carbon-capture
the problem isn’t that it’s expensive it’s that it requires us to deal with more volume than every other industry combined through history to even start to think about making a difference.
and you’ll notice it talks about the US hitting it’s climate goals … rich nations will need to do a lot of heavy lifting for the rest of the world for it to be worthwhile not just hit their own targets then say “Well, Somalia isn’t pulling it’s weight so we’re all just going to die I guess but at least we did our small part”
This is also related to the ultimate bullshit about any kind of carbon credits.
The only way it makes sense to sell a carbon credit, at least in a world paradigm (such as it is under Paris) where all nations need to get to zero, is to price those credits backwards from the last ton of CO2 you are going to remove. Because all the tons need to be removed. In the most honest, true, legitimate scenario, selling a credit is taking a loan out against yourself which will HAVE to be paid back eventually.
So the cost of a carbon credit, assuming it actually represents the thing it claims to represent (hint: they don’t), should be as expensive as it is per ton of DAC, since DAC is certainly the most expensive way to mitigate emissions.
That means they should be going at something like $500/ton or more in developed nations. Plus the interest on the loan.
In poorer nations, it’s possible that those last tons will be cheaper to remove by nature of their lower costs. Maybe that DAC facility built in Indonesia will have lower operational costs than the one you build in Norway. But in that case, selling the credits from Indonesia to Norway makes even LESS sense because now Indonesia is effectively going to have to pay for that last ton to be removed from Norway… where it’s WAY more expensive.
If we are to actually believe that carbon credits are what they purport to be, they are usury. They are colonialism. I guess we should be glad they’re just regular scams and not that, eh?
