If we stop emitting greenhouse gases nothing will get better, it will just stop getting worse. We also have to remove all the GHG that we put into the atmosphere.
“Stop getting worse” is a pretty major improvement. And yes, trees work as carbon sequestration.
Most (all?) CCS is not grabbing random carbon from the atmosphere. It’s pulling it out of smokestacks so you can keep burning fuel while claiming it’s green. It is not net negative even if working as intended.
Removing the GHG needs to be done but this is not how you do that. This is a way to say “look, we’re trying so just let us take another hit of that sweet sweet crude OK?”
Plant trees. Simple.
Let the systems balance themselves out. Simple. Not fun but Simple.
CCS for industrial processes and that might one day be good enough to work on a global scale? Maybe but that’s fucking ages away and it’s certainly not this.
There’s no amount of trees you can plant to actually put that genie back in the bottle in a reasonable timeframe. Consider how much highly concentrated plant matter we’ve dug up and then imagine how much we’d have to bury. We could spend centuries doing nothing but planting trees and cutting them down and burying them and still wouldn’t make up that deficit.
Stopping it from getting worse is like half the work of controlling climate change, and restoring biodiversity is the way of removing GHG from the atmosphere, not silicon valley techno bro fans
Which - barring a sudden, rapid series of unprecedented technological advances in our ability to manage the chemical composition of our atmosphere - is the rough equivalent of saying, “unexplode this bomb”
If we stop emitting greenhouse gases nothing will get better, it will just stop getting worse. We also have to remove all the GHG that we put into the atmosphere.
“Stop getting worse” is a pretty major improvement. And yes, trees work as carbon sequestration.
Most (all?) CCS is not grabbing random carbon from the atmosphere. It’s pulling it out of smokestacks so you can keep burning fuel while claiming it’s green. It is not net negative even if working as intended.
Removing the GHG needs to be done but this is not how you do that. This is a way to say “look, we’re trying so just let us take another hit of that sweet sweet crude OK?”
Plant trees. Simple.
Let the systems balance themselves out. Simple. Not fun but Simple.
CCS for industrial processes and that might one day be good enough to work on a global scale? Maybe but that’s fucking ages away and it’s certainly not this.
There’s no amount of trees you can plant to actually put that genie back in the bottle in a reasonable timeframe. Consider how much highly concentrated plant matter we’ve dug up and then imagine how much we’d have to bury. We could spend centuries doing nothing but planting trees and cutting them down and burying them and still wouldn’t make up that deficit.
Better start soon then.
Stopping it from getting worse is like half the work of controlling climate change, and restoring biodiversity is the way of removing GHG from the atmosphere, not silicon valley techno bro fans
Which - barring a sudden, rapid series of unprecedented technological advances in our ability to manage the chemical composition of our atmosphere - is the rough equivalent of saying, “unexplode this bomb”
Trees.