▲ 2206 ▼ Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 1121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Have you tried capturing gas? As difficult as radioactive waste tombs are, they're easier than containing a specific type of air lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] EMPig@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Read about breathing if you want to know how to capture gas. Also, about photosynthesis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to buy the land to plant a second Amazon, be my guest. And breathing does the exact opposite of what we want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EMPig@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd rather fill land with trees than with radioactive wastes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You need a lot, lot more trees. Like several orders of magnitude. And growing trees takes longer than even building a nuclear power plant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees "It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research." And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn't joking about a second Amazon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I'd rather this as well, but we don't have that many choices. The slower we act and the more we let perfect be the enemy of good, the more people die. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] EMPig@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Read about breathing if you want to know how to capture gas. Also, about photosynthesis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to buy the land to plant a second Amazon, be my guest. And breathing does the exact opposite of what we want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EMPig@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd rather fill land with trees than with radioactive wastes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You need a lot, lot more trees. Like several orders of magnitude. And growing trees takes longer than even building a nuclear power plant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees "It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research." And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn't joking about a second Amazon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I'd rather this as well, but we don't have that many choices. The slower we act and the more we let perfect be the enemy of good, the more people die. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to buy the land to plant a second Amazon, be my guest. And breathing does the exact opposite of what we want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EMPig@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd rather fill land with trees than with radioactive wastes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You need a lot, lot more trees. Like several orders of magnitude. And growing trees takes longer than even building a nuclear power plant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees "It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research." And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn't joking about a second Amazon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I'd rather this as well, but we don't have that many choices. The slower we act and the more we let perfect be the enemy of good, the more people die. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EMPig@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'd rather fill land with trees than with radioactive wastes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You need a lot, lot more trees. Like several orders of magnitude. And growing trees takes longer than even building a nuclear power plant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees "It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research." And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn't joking about a second Amazon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I'd rather this as well, but we don't have that many choices. The slower we act and the more we let perfect be the enemy of good, the more people die. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You need a lot, lot more trees. Like several orders of magnitude. And growing trees takes longer than even building a nuclear power plant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees "It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research." And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn't joking about a second Amazon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees "It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research." And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn't joking about a second Amazon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I'd rather this as well, but we don't have that many choices. The slower we act and the more we let perfect be the enemy of good, the more people die. permalink fedilink source parent