▲ 140 ▼ U.S. to Fund a $1.2 Billion Effort to Vacuum Greenhouse Gases From the Sky (www.nytimes.com) submitted 3 years ago by alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] UristMcHolland@lemmy.world 15 points 3 years ago (3 children) I would rather them just spend 1.2 billion planting trees. Just plant a shitload of trees, that's it. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gmtom@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago Planting trees has a very minimal impact on the climate in the long term. permalink fedilink source parent [–] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) How efficient at sinking carbon are trees? As in, once the tree decomposes, the carbon gets largely released back into the air. But yeah, "shitload of trees" + "some way of storing them at end of life that doesn't result in carbon back into the atmosphere" seems like a pretty solid plan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Trees are some of the best carbon sinks there are. Far greater than any artificial ones we have so far. Trees last a long time, and when they die you can just plant more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago The real issue is that trees take a long time to get to their maximum sink potential, and require a LOT of water, nutrients, and excellent soil to get there. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago The ocean is the best. But we keep messing that up as well. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deafboy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Trees are great. Except they love to burn. Either as a fuel, or as part of the forest fire. That's why I hate when the corporations do carbon offseting by planting trees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah what's the percentage of all trees burning up? That's kind of a dumb take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean have you been reading the news lately about the multiple massive wildfires throughout the world? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Yes and with a 3rd of the Amazon chopped down. What do we have? Still a fuck ton of trees and need for a fuck ton more. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deafboy@lemmy.world -4 points 3 years ago I don't want to sound like a fatalist, but there is actually no upper limit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago Planting trees has a very minimal impact on the climate in the long term. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) How efficient at sinking carbon are trees? As in, once the tree decomposes, the carbon gets largely released back into the air. But yeah, "shitload of trees" + "some way of storing them at end of life that doesn't result in carbon back into the atmosphere" seems like a pretty solid plan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Trees are some of the best carbon sinks there are. Far greater than any artificial ones we have so far. Trees last a long time, and when they die you can just plant more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago The real issue is that trees take a long time to get to their maximum sink potential, and require a LOT of water, nutrients, and excellent soil to get there. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago The ocean is the best. But we keep messing that up as well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Trees are some of the best carbon sinks there are. Far greater than any artificial ones we have so far. Trees last a long time, and when they die you can just plant more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago The real issue is that trees take a long time to get to their maximum sink potential, and require a LOT of water, nutrients, and excellent soil to get there. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago The ocean is the best. But we keep messing that up as well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago The real issue is that trees take a long time to get to their maximum sink potential, and require a LOT of water, nutrients, and excellent soil to get there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago The ocean is the best. But we keep messing that up as well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Trees are great. Except they love to burn. Either as a fuel, or as part of the forest fire. That's why I hate when the corporations do carbon offseting by planting trees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah what's the percentage of all trees burning up? That's kind of a dumb take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean have you been reading the news lately about the multiple massive wildfires throughout the world? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Yes and with a 3rd of the Amazon chopped down. What do we have? Still a fuck ton of trees and need for a fuck ton more. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deafboy@lemmy.world -4 points 3 years ago I don't want to sound like a fatalist, but there is actually no upper limit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah what's the percentage of all trees burning up? That's kind of a dumb take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean have you been reading the news lately about the multiple massive wildfires throughout the world? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Yes and with a 3rd of the Amazon chopped down. What do we have? Still a fuck ton of trees and need for a fuck ton more. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deafboy@lemmy.world -4 points 3 years ago I don't want to sound like a fatalist, but there is actually no upper limit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean have you been reading the news lately about the multiple massive wildfires throughout the world? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Yes and with a 3rd of the Amazon chopped down. What do we have? Still a fuck ton of trees and need for a fuck ton more. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Yes and with a 3rd of the Amazon chopped down. What do we have? Still a fuck ton of trees and need for a fuck ton more. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deafboy@lemmy.world -4 points 3 years ago I don't want to sound like a fatalist, but there is actually no upper limit. permalink fedilink source parent