297
Taking CO2 out of the air would be an absurdly expensive way to fight climate change
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
297 points (98.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5299 readers
771 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"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 👍
Oh hellz yeah! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk
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.
Well, kind of... Reducing carbon emissions would be far more effective than trying to capture the emissions we currently use.
Yes, and Por Que No Los Dos?
I didn't say you can't do both. The real danger is the green washing. In fact, it's not a danger, it's currently already used to subvert carbon cap and trade regulations. Scams of companies that sell carbon credits for protecting forestry that aren't endangered to begin with. There is little to no oversight of this and is hurting our progress to fixing the issue.
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.