Why not split the difference? Trees are fast carbon cycle but cheap and relatively easy to implement. They capture the carbon for a century or so. Use the century to develop mechanical carbon sequestration and to allow that industry to mature? After all, trees provide a massive benifit beyond carbon sequestration.... it seems like a win win for everyone
Their is an even easier option. Chop the trees down and burry them somewhere where the carbon can't escape, link in an old coal mine.... Then you are locking up the carbon and can grow more trees.
There's a new startup in California trying this approach of harvesting trees and burying them underground: www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/15/1065016/a-stealth-effort-to-bury-wood-for-carbon-removal-has-just-raised-millions/
The thing I can see working, that has the minimum number of downsides, and a vast number of upsides, is mass production of bamboo, that then replaces all sorts of inputs. Using bamboo for lumber, using bamboo for fabric, using bamboo for decorating, and using bamboo for food. Out of the ways I have looked at, it has the least amount of carbon necessary to start doing this on a mass global scale, all sorts of upsides ( weight reduction, antibacterial, cheap, clean, scalable), doesn't really have many downsides ( maybe invasive in some areas) and overall, would be something that would be possible to do even in places that don't have a whole lot of capital.
In order to do that globally wouldn’t we need to mass produce bamboo farms? I’m not familiar with bamboo production and it’s current limitations. If we would, wouldn’t that insinuate clear cutting ecosystems to farm the bamboo? Coming from a behavioral biology background I have to wonder the possible negative consequences if that is the case. Can you site the studies you looked at so I can read them? It seems like an interesting idea though.
We don't have to pump atmosphere and remove the carbon in the atmosphere if we just remove the carbon gas in the oceans; the oceans already sequester like a fifth of the above-ground CO2 right? So if we start scrubbing the oceans with seaweed farms or solar deslaination, piping extracted CO2 to growing operations, then the atmosphere will naturally start to get scrubbed by the increasing capacity of the ocean. Most of the oceans are "empty" except for microorganisms anyway, if we took that vast space and used it for desalination/CO2 removal, we could shade the oceans AND alleviate some of the acidification while also removing CO2 no?
There are a ton of ideas for removing carbon using the ocean! If you want to learn more, there's a recent report by the National Academy all about these ideas: nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26278/chapter/1
Climate denialist here. I have honest questions that need answers. I’m not being facetious, I legitimately want to know/understand. 1.Vostok (look it up) ice core shows temps lead co2 by 600-800 years, during every warming and cooling period over the past 200,000 years. Why do temp trends lead co2 trends, over the past 200,000 years? If co2 caused the change of temps wouldn’t co2 lead and raise before the temps do? 2. If co2 causes warming trends, what caused the elevated co2 levels over every warming trend in the last 200,000 years? 3. If co2 caused warming trends, why did the earth cool 800 years before co2 levels dropped? If co2 warmed the planet, wouldn’t the temps remain high a
Why not split the difference? Trees are fast carbon cycle but cheap and relatively easy to implement. They capture the carbon for a century or so. Use the century to develop mechanical carbon sequestration and to allow that industry to mature?
After all, trees provide a massive benifit beyond carbon sequestration.... it seems like a win win for everyone
Their is an even easier option. Chop the trees down and burry them somewhere where the carbon can't escape, link in an old coal mine.... Then you are locking up the carbon and can grow more trees.
There's a new startup in California trying this approach of harvesting trees and burying them underground: www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/15/1065016/a-stealth-effort-to-bury-wood-for-carbon-removal-has-just-raised-millions/
The thing I can see working, that has the minimum number of downsides, and a vast number of upsides, is mass production of bamboo, that then replaces all sorts of inputs. Using bamboo for lumber, using bamboo for fabric, using bamboo for decorating, and using bamboo for food.
Out of the ways I have looked at, it has the least amount of carbon necessary to start doing this on a mass global scale, all sorts of upsides ( weight reduction, antibacterial, cheap, clean, scalable), doesn't really have many downsides ( maybe invasive in some areas) and overall, would be something that would be possible to do even in places that don't have a whole lot of capital.
Nice idea, but do you have some resources or studies do support it? I’d love to read them.
In order to do that globally wouldn’t we need to mass produce bamboo farms? I’m not familiar with bamboo production and it’s current limitations. If we would, wouldn’t that insinuate clear cutting ecosystems to farm the bamboo? Coming from a behavioral biology background I have to wonder the possible negative consequences if that is the case. Can you site the studies you looked at so I can read them? It seems like an interesting idea though.
I'm being picky, but we should specify photosynthesizers rather than trees
Really beautiful, elegant graphics and clear , informative explanations.
Just reduce emissions in the first place and let the slow and fast cycles do what they do
Great explanation!
as before thank you for informative lesson!
What is the source material referred to in the video as IPCC 2022?
why cant we just cut down the trees, bury them, and grow new ones?
Cryogenically. Store the solid CO2, with the water ice, on Antarctica - lower the oceans at the same time. Might need fusion energy, but hey.
That's how you build a runaway carbon bomb for if the ice ever melts, which would be more likely if the temperatures rise. Not a great plan.
We don't have to pump atmosphere and remove the carbon in the atmosphere if we just remove the carbon gas in the oceans; the oceans already sequester like a fifth of the above-ground CO2 right? So if we start scrubbing the oceans with seaweed farms or solar deslaination, piping extracted CO2 to growing operations, then the atmosphere will naturally start to get scrubbed by the increasing capacity of the ocean. Most of the oceans are "empty" except for microorganisms anyway, if we took that vast space and used it for desalination/CO2 removal, we could shade the oceans AND alleviate some of the acidification while also removing CO2 no?
There are a ton of ideas for removing carbon using the ocean! If you want to learn more, there's a recent report by the National Academy all about these ideas: nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26278/chapter/1
@@Grist Sounds like you have the sources for your next video on the subject! Exciting!
Pull it out of the psychopaths.
Climate denialist here. I have honest questions that need answers. I’m not being facetious, I legitimately want to know/understand.
1.Vostok (look it up) ice core shows temps lead co2 by 600-800 years, during every warming and cooling period over the past 200,000 years. Why do temp trends lead co2 trends, over the past 200,000 years? If co2 caused the change of temps wouldn’t co2 lead and raise before the temps do?
2. If co2 causes warming trends, what caused the elevated co2 levels over every warming trend in the last 200,000 years?
3. If co2 caused warming trends, why did the earth cool 800 years before co2 levels dropped? If co2 warmed the planet, wouldn’t the temps remain high a