How can we stop the CO2 that plants store from leaking back into the air?(nautil.us)
nautil.us
How can we stop the CO2 that plants store from leaking back into the air?
https://nautil.us/how-can-we-stop-the-co2-that-plants-store-from-leaking-back-into-the-air-297612/
176 comments
Imagine a gigantic "oil derrick" out at sea that instead of pumping oil out of the ground dragged it out of the air. Gigantic filters, MEA beds, regeneration loops, Sabatier, Fischer-Tropsch, all arranged around a nuclear reactor 100x the power of today's largest. The output is a variety of hydrocarbon fuels, and it's all overseen by a proper bond villain because the spice must flow.
I want to see this movie.
I want to see this movie.
It would be horribly inefficient compared to nearly every other use of that energy imaginable.
The movie might still be good but not because of the plot. But hey, it worked for The Matrix.
The movie might still be good but not because of the plot. But hey, it worked for The Matrix.
Yes, that's why I described it as a movie.
We have a lot of high-carbon energy substitution to do before DCC makes sense anywhere, let alone in the middle of an ocean, but before people trash DCC too hard I wanted to gently remind everyone that 1: industrial processes work better at scale, and 2: nature gives us magic rocks containing obscene amounts of low-carbon energy, so "inefficient" isn't necessarily a condemnation once we get past the energy substitution phase of decarbonization. I applaud the people working to de-risk the technology today so that when the time is right it can get off the ground.
We have a lot of high-carbon energy substitution to do before DCC makes sense anywhere, let alone in the middle of an ocean, but before people trash DCC too hard I wanted to gently remind everyone that 1: industrial processes work better at scale, and 2: nature gives us magic rocks containing obscene amounts of low-carbon energy, so "inefficient" isn't necessarily a condemnation once we get past the energy substitution phase of decarbonization. I applaud the people working to de-risk the technology today so that when the time is right it can get off the ground.
My movie fantasy is to create canals into the Sahara, and use solar-powered water desalination plants to irrigate and re-forest the desert.
Fun fact, the Sahara cycles between desert and grasslands on N,000 year cycles.
https://today.tamu.edu/2016/11/29/6000-years-ago-the-sahara-...
Not sure there is evidence it was a forest, so wouldn't really be a "re-forestation"
https://today.tamu.edu/2016/11/29/6000-years-ago-the-sahara-...
Not sure there is evidence it was a forest, so wouldn't really be a "re-forestation"
It takes a substantial amount of time to condense and process CO2 from the air into droplets of synthetic fuel. It would be an unnecessarily slow dripping mechanism.
Similar to Panchaea from the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
Exactly -- but funded with a straightforward profit motive, not charity / policy / illuminati.
If it were profitable to build a machine to turn air into gasoline, I'd buy gasoline, burn it, and run that machine for free infinite money.
Why buy and burn the gasoline?
I think you are reaching for an "if it were easy, someone would have done it" argument, which is trivially true in the short term but not very informative in the long term because we get better and better at doing things that are not easy. Profitability is a function of execution, feedstock prices, scale, cost of capital, etc. So far air-to-fuel hasn't been profitable, even in contexts that help reduce profitability concerns (e.g. Air-to-Fuel on aircraft carriers), so there is clearly a long road between this "movie" and reality. However, variables vary. If the nuclear industry gets back in gear, air-to-fuel gets de-risked on smaller emissions-capture projects, and we see advances in construction and chemical engineering, who knows?
I think you are reaching for an "if it were easy, someone would have done it" argument, which is trivially true in the short term but not very informative in the long term because we get better and better at doing things that are not easy. Profitability is a function of execution, feedstock prices, scale, cost of capital, etc. So far air-to-fuel hasn't been profitable, even in contexts that help reduce profitability concerns (e.g. Air-to-Fuel on aircraft carriers), so there is clearly a long road between this "movie" and reality. However, variables vary. If the nuclear industry gets back in gear, air-to-fuel gets de-risked on smaller emissions-capture projects, and we see advances in construction and chemical engineering, who knows?
Presumably this machine would work better if I were feeding CO2 straight into it, rather than have it suck it out of the 420 ppm air.
The profit motive can't exist without policy (for example, the policy of not letting thugs take everything you have)
> nuclear reactor 100x the power of today's largest
You would need some sort of a Navy to guard this against sabotage.
You would need some sort of a Navy to guard this against sabotage.
it's bristling with lasers, particle beam, and plasma weapons
That's what the Bond villain is for. They come with henchmen.
[deleted]
>If we could create a carbon capture machine that turned CO2 in cinder blocks using the energy from a nuclear reactor, we'd really be set.
Technically easy, economically and politically difficult. Ultimately I'd suspect it would need to be done at such a massive scale where the overhead of running a nuclear plant safely becomes minimal relative to the underlying costs to mine/refine uranium.
Technically easy, economically and politically difficult. Ultimately I'd suspect it would need to be done at such a massive scale where the overhead of running a nuclear plant safely becomes minimal relative to the underlying costs to mine/refine uranium.
Carbon fiber or diamond would be the best options. Most other materials would require a counter-ion, e.g. calcium carbonate Ca2+(CO3-)2
Hempcrete is super cool, kind of a modernized cob with better moisture tolerance and it's fireproof
Growing trees and turning them into long-life products such as houses, rather than burning them for fuel, is also a good solution. The carbon gets locked away for at least the lifetime of the building.
We could also adapt building design so that some portion of the steel and concrete used in traditional construction could instead use wood-derived materials. This would help a lot since steel and concrete are both very carbon intensive. Steel production alone accounts for 8% of ALL global carbon emissions!
We could also adapt building design so that some portion of the steel and concrete used in traditional construction could instead use wood-derived materials. This would help a lot since steel and concrete are both very carbon intensive. Steel production alone accounts for 8% of ALL global carbon emissions!
Even shorter life products like wooden furniture should be preferable to plastic alternatives. Especially with the disposable way we treat the plastic products, at least if we're throwing away wood furniture we're not pumping up oil to make it first.
throwing away wood products creates methane release from landfills. Those wood products need to be ground up and placed deep underground.
Many landfills these days will capture the methane and sell it, at least in the developed world. So it can displace new methane entering the biosphere from wells.
Throwing away the plastic products is just a longer process of decomposition, but I agree that wood products should be disposed of properly.
In many parts of the world, non-recycled plastic waste is incinerated rather than landfilled.
In Europe, incineration has grown steadily in recent years and more household waste is now incinerated than landfilled.
In Europe, incineration has grown steadily in recent years and more household waste is now incinerated than landfilled.
And that's not good for CO2 levels. We can't be pumping crude oil up, using some of the latent energy to convert the product into a lawn chair for a few years, and then burning it.
At that point you might as well burn your wooden furniture instead.
At that point you might as well burn your wooden furniture instead.
Build. More. Houses.
Subsidize the lumber industry if you have to.
Also, update building requirements to favor sturdier materials. Most homes in the US are made of pine 2x4s that get obliterated by minor tornadoes. The homes of my great grandparents and beyond are all made of cypress 4x4s and 2x6s and higher. They've been hit dead on with tornadoes and terrible hurricanes and the worst that's ever happened to them is some missing shingles. When I was a child in the 70s and early 80s, you would find all sorts of old abandoned sharecropper homes lining River Road that were made of cypress with corrugated aluminum exteriors. The rich would buy these homes up, one by one, strip them of their exteriors and take the frames for use in their new homes. Why? Because it's cheaper than buying the new stuff, and clearly the materials are sturdy.
Subsidize the lumber industry if you have to.
Also, update building requirements to favor sturdier materials. Most homes in the US are made of pine 2x4s that get obliterated by minor tornadoes. The homes of my great grandparents and beyond are all made of cypress 4x4s and 2x6s and higher. They've been hit dead on with tornadoes and terrible hurricanes and the worst that's ever happened to them is some missing shingles. When I was a child in the 70s and early 80s, you would find all sorts of old abandoned sharecropper homes lining River Road that were made of cypress with corrugated aluminum exteriors. The rich would buy these homes up, one by one, strip them of their exteriors and take the frames for use in their new homes. Why? Because it's cheaper than buying the new stuff, and clearly the materials are sturdy.
Destroy fewer and regrow more natural habitats? Why not help the natural cycle first and foremost?
Growth mindset for the biosphere is where it’s at.
Growth mindset for the biosphere is where it’s at.
In case anyone is interested in supporting high-impact actions in that realm:
https://www.junglekeepers.org/
I just got introduced to these folks by our founder who I also just learned is supporting them substantially (Dax Dasilva / Lightspeed):
https://thelogic.co/news/lightspeeds-dax-dasilva-commits-40m...
https://www.junglekeepers.org/
I just got introduced to these folks by our founder who I also just learned is supporting them substantially (Dax Dasilva / Lightspeed):
https://thelogic.co/news/lightspeeds-dax-dasilva-commits-40m...
That would not replace the burned fossil fuels though.
Bury it in the ground before decomposition, not that hard.
Probably worth considering pyrolysis before burying it. By heating the wood and baking it into char you get a few nice benefits:
* You produce biochar, which is almost pure carbon, and therefore you are only sequestering the weight/volume of the carbon, not all the water and other stuff.
* Biochar can be used as a soil amendment to improve microbial cultures and store carbon for hundreds or thousands of years
* You can produce energy in the form of heat or wood gas
* You can produce wood vinegar, which may have some agricultural or industrial uses
I think there's a nascent industry in converting biomass into biochar and sequestering it, but it would be very interesting to see it done with forestland more generally.
* You produce biochar, which is almost pure carbon, and therefore you are only sequestering the weight/volume of the carbon, not all the water and other stuff.
* Biochar can be used as a soil amendment to improve microbial cultures and store carbon for hundreds or thousands of years
* You can produce energy in the form of heat or wood gas
* You can produce wood vinegar, which may have some agricultural or industrial uses
I think there's a nascent industry in converting biomass into biochar and sequestering it, but it would be very interesting to see it done with forestland more generally.
> I think there's a nascent industry in converting biomass into biochar and sequestering it
To expand on that, biochar seems to be the majority of carbon removal delivered commercially to date:
https://www.cdr.fyi/
Of course the entire CDR industry is nascent.
Bio-oil via pyrolysis is another option. Charm Industrial is trying to scale that up.
To expand on that, biochar seems to be the majority of carbon removal delivered commercially to date:
https://www.cdr.fyi/
Of course the entire CDR industry is nascent.
Bio-oil via pyrolysis is another option. Charm Industrial is trying to scale that up.
This is really fascinating, is biochar notably different from, say, charcoal? Or is it a trendier name for what we've already got?
I've looked at pyrolysis for home sustainability and have yet to find a good set of resources for it outside making charcoal.
I've looked at pyrolysis for home sustainability and have yet to find a good set of resources for it outside making charcoal.
I've tried to read up on biochar but actually no treatment was as clear as yours.
Where's a good place to read up on it with an eye to practical applications ?
Where's a good place to read up on it with an eye to practical applications ?
This is Tl;Dr for the article ^^
My understanding is that most cardboard is from trees sustainably grown as a crop, rather than chopping down forests. If that's the case, should we think about not recycling cardboard, and instead bury more cardboard-carbon to cycle it back into the ground?
Cardboard mulching is a great way to minimize the weeds in your garden! It does break down in a few years, but at least some (or most of it) gets sequestered into the ground.
Out of curiosity, what happens when you dump wood in the deep ocean? Does the wood breakdown and does the carbon come back up as CO2 in the atmosphere?
Wood in the ocean will float for a long time, eventually sinking and storing that carbon. It will be broken down over a very long span, and the CO2 will enter the hydrocycle and eventually be released as a gas. Probably on the order of millennia.
That said, it's not clear what impact smothering the ocean floor would have in the habitats there, nor how we would get the wood to sink reasonably rapidly and stay sunk -- we don't want massive logs floating back up and hitting ships.
I (personally) believe we are better served by heating the wood in an oxygen free environment (pyrolysis). This produces a charcoal like substance and energy, we can bury the biochar or use it as a soil amendment to achieve the same result (hundreds to thousands of years of sequestration) and get energy out of the process.
That said, it's not clear what impact smothering the ocean floor would have in the habitats there, nor how we would get the wood to sink reasonably rapidly and stay sunk -- we don't want massive logs floating back up and hitting ships.
I (personally) believe we are better served by heating the wood in an oxygen free environment (pyrolysis). This produces a charcoal like substance and energy, we can bury the biochar or use it as a soil amendment to achieve the same result (hundreds to thousands of years of sequestration) and get energy out of the process.
Wood takes a very long time to saturate enough to properly sink. A partially-floating log in the ocean is sometimes called a "deadhead" log (supposedly named because the bobbing motion of the lighter end of the log resembles a human head, but this feels apocryphal). I cannot find reliable sources for how long it takes for a log to fully saturate with seawater before sinking below the surface. Some sailors have reported seeing the "same" deadhead for over a decade. (While the deadhead is still at- or close-to-the-surface, it is a major hazard for boats. Deadheads have been known to punch through boat keels and destroy propellers and other equipment.)
After the logs become fully submerged and settle, I do not believe that they decompose rapidly, but (again) cannot find reliable sources. The state of Florida has a licensed program for "Deadhead Logging"[0], but much of the content I've found about that program is specific to river ecosystems, not oceans.
A 2020 article entitled "First evidence of microbial wood degradation in the coastal waters of the Antarctic"[1] offers a few nice quotes:
> Wood submerged in saline and oxygenated marine waters worldwide is efficiently degraded by crustaceans and molluscs.
> Our results establish that there is ongoing wood degradation also in the Antarctic, albeit at a vastly reduced rate compared to warmer environments. Historical shipwrecks resting on the seafloor are most likely still in good condition, although surface details such as wood carvings, tool marks, and paint slowly disintegrate due to microbial decay.
[0] https://floridadep.gov/water/submerged-lands-environmental-r...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68613-y
After the logs become fully submerged and settle, I do not believe that they decompose rapidly, but (again) cannot find reliable sources. The state of Florida has a licensed program for "Deadhead Logging"[0], but much of the content I've found about that program is specific to river ecosystems, not oceans.
A 2020 article entitled "First evidence of microbial wood degradation in the coastal waters of the Antarctic"[1] offers a few nice quotes:
> Wood submerged in saline and oxygenated marine waters worldwide is efficiently degraded by crustaceans and molluscs.
> Our results establish that there is ongoing wood degradation also in the Antarctic, albeit at a vastly reduced rate compared to warmer environments. Historical shipwrecks resting on the seafloor are most likely still in good condition, although surface details such as wood carvings, tool marks, and paint slowly disintegrate due to microbial decay.
[0] https://floridadep.gov/water/submerged-lands-environmental-r...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68613-y
We don't need more features "engineering", we need subtractive solutions. There's a lot of money to be made in wrapping trees in some new contraption, not so much money to be made in building sidewalks and getting people out of their CO2 producing cars. Obviously we can do both at once, but we need a lot more thought leadership aimed at subtractive solutions.
How is building sidewalks a subtractive solution? Every mile of new concrete sidewalk emits about as much CO2 as driving a million miles. In some urban areas, you'll eventually make up for that. In places where people are not going to walk much anyway, probably not.
The most expedient way of "getting people out of their CO2 producing cars" is to focus on the "CO2 producing" part, i.e.
1. Get people into electric cars, which even on the current grid cuts your CO2 emissions by over half due to better efficiency, and
2. Convert the electric grid to 100% clean energy.
And it turns out there's a lot of money to be made in doing this too.
The most expedient way of "getting people out of their CO2 producing cars" is to focus on the "CO2 producing" part, i.e.
1. Get people into electric cars, which even on the current grid cuts your CO2 emissions by over half due to better efficiency, and
2. Convert the electric grid to 100% clean energy.
And it turns out there's a lot of money to be made in doing this too.
You know we have to build roads for the cars to drive on right? Wonder what the C02 emissions for a mile of new highway is. You're also not accounting for the construction, transportation, maintenance, and other CO2-producing activities for cars - none of which are necessary for walking. Nevermind the other benefits like attacking obesity and deaths due to car crashes.
> 1. Get people into electric cars, which even on the current grid cuts your CO2 emissions by over half due to better efficiency, then
> 2. Convert the electric grid to 100% clean energy.
These both need to happen, yes. Cars existing is fine, just need to reduce usage for daily activities by 90% or so and also convert most of the grid to clean energy.
> 1. Get people into electric cars, which even on the current grid cuts your CO2 emissions by over half due to better efficiency, then
> 2. Convert the electric grid to 100% clean energy.
These both need to happen, yes. Cars existing is fine, just need to reduce usage for daily activities by 90% or so and also convert most of the grid to clean energy.
> You know we have to build roads for the cars to drive on right? Wonder what the C02 emissions for a mile of new highway is.
Then after that factor in parking lots! Sometimes I think more solutions need to involve "reforest parking lots". In some areas that alone would do far more for walkability than adding sidewalks. Parking lots build heat deserts that radiate heat back up to pedestrians (sometimes alarmingly so), but trees add pleasant shades and cool and hydrate the air around them. Add a bunch more trees and other foliage to existing parking lots and a lot of currently inhospitable suburbs would become a lot more hospitable to pedestrian travel.
Then after that factor in parking lots! Sometimes I think more solutions need to involve "reforest parking lots". In some areas that alone would do far more for walkability than adding sidewalks. Parking lots build heat deserts that radiate heat back up to pedestrians (sometimes alarmingly so), but trees add pleasant shades and cool and hydrate the air around them. Add a bunch more trees and other foliage to existing parking lots and a lot of currently inhospitable suburbs would become a lot more hospitable to pedestrian travel.
Certainly that could be the answer for some or part of them, but we should also be looking at building housing on top of them as well. Heat discourages people from walking but so does the distance between destinations.
This may seem counter to the goal of reducing emissions, but if it means there's less low-density development at the fringes (which involves a lot more roadway, etc per person) then it's really not.
Of course, it's not either/or - there's plenty of underutilized land devoted to parking, we can do both!
This may seem counter to the goal of reducing emissions, but if it means there's less low-density development at the fringes (which involves a lot more roadway, etc per person) then it's really not.
Of course, it's not either/or - there's plenty of underutilized land devoted to parking, we can do both!
> Cars existing is just fine
I disagree with this sentiment. I hate cars, and what they have done to society. They are demonstrably and objectively not “fine”. They are the primary destructive force in society, and can and should die. Quickly.
I disagree with this sentiment. I hate cars, and what they have done to society. They are demonstrably and objectively not “fine”. They are the primary destructive force in society, and can and should die. Quickly.
I disagree on the absolutism in this. Cars can take you places that not many people want to go, and whenever you want, which is one of the coolest things a person can do. You're never going to build transit to all of these places, and it's too far to walk or bike. Used in this way, cars increase human freedom which is one of the most important values for humans to pursue.
The real problem with cars is that we use them for everything. It makes zero sense for us to use cars in dense in cities, or between popular locales, or for short distances. We could probably eliminate more than 90% of car usage. But trying to eliminate cars period is too far.
The real problem with cars is that we use them for everything. It makes zero sense for us to use cars in dense in cities, or between popular locales, or for short distances. We could probably eliminate more than 90% of car usage. But trying to eliminate cars period is too far.
> They are the primary destructive force in society
What a deranged belief to hold. Rationalizing that cars of all things are the root cause of all of society's ills is reductionist and lazy, equally so as to believe that simply removing them would cure those ills.
What a deranged belief to hold. Rationalizing that cars of all things are the root cause of all of society's ills is reductionist and lazy, equally so as to believe that simply removing them would cure those ills.
Strong disagree. Cars are great for freedom of movement. I like having a car and being able to go wherever I want, whenever I want. Good public transportation is fine, so is cycling, electric scooters and walking paths. But I still want my car, and I suspect so do a majority of people. I'll never support banning cars. And just because you hate them doesn't mean you're right.
I don't know about the primary destructive force, but on the whole I agree. A good start would be for the US to stop subsidizing fuel so that overly complex supply chains are more expensive to operate. Also, some kind of last-mile delivery system would be good: I die a little every time I take my 2000 lb car over the hill to get a 2 lb burrito.
Maybe look into getting an e-bike. They are pretty darn awesome for stuff like this. :)
> I die a little every time I take my 2000 lb car over the hill to get a 2 lb burrito.
so.... dont? :)
so.... dont? :)
I usually don't. I went carless for a decade (not easy where I live). But sometimes I didn't plan ahead enough to cook at home, and my wife comes home exhausted. I just don't have the spine to demand that she bike a few miles for her dinner, nor do I want to bring her something cold. People with kids are in a similar situation.
You can be a purist if you want, but you'll never convince anybody if you can't meet them where they're at.
You can be a purist if you want, but you'll never convince anybody if you can't meet them where they're at.
im not saying you shouldnt do it, im just saying, it is your choice. I would personally not suggest you stop using the car
oops, wrong r-username. Sorry for being a bit in your face about it. I was matching someone else's tone...
>They are demonstrably and objectively not “fine”
Aka "my opinions are the objective viewpoint".
>They are the primary destructive force in society
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Today's mobile society with cars is better than anything else that has ever existed.
Aka "my opinions are the objective viewpoint".
>They are the primary destructive force in society
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Today's mobile society with cars is better than anything else that has ever existed.
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure we'll get many people on board with "ban all cars".
But we probably can get many people on board with something like, own only one car and stop wasting money on new highways and items like that.
I think people can understand a world where they are walking to the grocery store and their car is for some random trip to the lake (one that ideally takes a bit longer with just two lane road and such). I'm not sure they'll be able to understand a world where cars don't even exist.
But we probably can get many people on board with something like, own only one car and stop wasting money on new highways and items like that.
I think people can understand a world where they are walking to the grocery store and their car is for some random trip to the lake (one that ideally takes a bit longer with just two lane road and such). I'm not sure they'll be able to understand a world where cars don't even exist.
Let me start with the remark that I am on team car hater! I have to admit that hey are useful for some things.
1. People are not really able to live in rural areas without owning a car.
2. I can’t think of a viable way of last mile transport for goods. Supermarkets can’t really exist without Lorries.
3. Emergency services.
I think the main issue is personal transport by car, Especially in (semi) densely populated areas.
1. People are not really able to live in rural areas without owning a car.
2. I can’t think of a viable way of last mile transport for goods. Supermarkets can’t really exist without Lorries.
3. Emergency services.
I think the main issue is personal transport by car, Especially in (semi) densely populated areas.
To be fair, they said new sidewalks, not necessarily concrete ones. There are some alternative materials out there. One major hurtle to using them is that the vast majority of places still require concrete in their codes.
Roads were often made of wood blocks, so maybe that’s an option here too?
Someone created a concrete replacement that I think consumes CO2 during curing. There's also brick, stone, etc.
Reproduced your calculation on the 1 million miles, it's surprising but checks out. Then consider how many miles of road we have already made and how much we continue to make to support large vehicles on them. You could designate half of them as car-free and induce alternative transportation if you really wanted to. OTOH, a new electric vehicle costs roughly 250k miles worth of driving to produce, without considering electricity generation.
The lithium needed for those electric cars far exceeds the same strategic resources currently on the planet afaik, electric cars won't work as a viable alternative.
Why does building sidewalks need to take up so much CO2?
And why can’t we use other forms of energy to power these machines w electricity?
And why can’t we use other forms of energy to power these machines w electricity?
The chemical process of producing cement involves heating calcium carbonate to get lime and CO2. Most of the emissions are from this chemical process, not from transportation or operating machinery, although those usually also contribute quite a bit of CO2
Why use cement and not cut stones, which live centuries?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Electric cars emit a lot more than 0g/CO2 per mile, even in a perfect world. We need to get people out of car dependent suburbia, and it's going to be painful for a lot of Americans.
In a perfect world, why would electric cars be emitting any CO2? A carbon neutral electrical production is clearly possible right now with enough investment and we're moving in that direction now because it's profitable. Carbon neutral steel is currently expensive but people are working on that. Likewise with the cement and other materials going into the roads. The big impediment I see is that the plastic that goes into a car isn't easy to replace and will decay after the car breaks down, but if we create it via direct air capture and synthesis that doesn't prevent a carbon neutral car. So what do you see as preventing us from getting to carbon neutral cars?
Building roads costs an incredible amount of carbon
I see this mentioned a lot, but is there any plan?
No, because people fundamentally don't want to do this.
The plan exists now. Downsize your lifestyle drastically and move closer to the downtown of a major-ish city.
But you suggest that to anyone and it's a litany of excuses for why this just won't work for them. The truth is that either they can't or they won't. And for the vast majority of people it's just that they won't.
The plan exists now. Downsize your lifestyle drastically and move closer to the downtown of a major-ish city.
But you suggest that to anyone and it's a litany of excuses for why this just won't work for them. The truth is that either they can't or they won't. And for the vast majority of people it's just that they won't.
> No, because people fundamentally don't want to do this.
This is untrue, because
> The plan exists now. Downsize your lifestyle drastically and move closer to the downtown of a major-ish city.
this is untrue.
The problem isn't a lack of alternatives, the problem is the auto industry lobbying to make alternatives illegal and spending billions to make people believe alternatives don't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
This is untrue, because
> The plan exists now. Downsize your lifestyle drastically and move closer to the downtown of a major-ish city.
this is untrue.
The problem isn't a lack of alternatives, the problem is the auto industry lobbying to make alternatives illegal and spending billions to make people believe alternatives don't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
Yea - also idk why people keep thinking you need to downsize your lifestyle drastically or at all. I live in a decent-sized metro area in a 2500 square foot detached home in an urban neighborhood. It's perfectly normal and fine. People have cars, but they also walk and bike to a lot of places. There are restaurants and shops nearby to walk to. There are lots of young parents with kids and a school nearby too.
Unfortunately people equate good urban planning with this weird dystopian view of a 400sqft apartment and clothes hung out to dry and getting stabbed to death on the street instead of how Americans built in the late 1800s and early 1900s with small businesses, restaurants nearby, parks for everyone to enjoy getting out and gettin some sunshine, and other amenities.
"But it's expensive" - yes because we are market-locked into building nothing like this so scarcity drives up the prices.
Unfortunately people equate good urban planning with this weird dystopian view of a 400sqft apartment and clothes hung out to dry and getting stabbed to death on the street instead of how Americans built in the late 1800s and early 1900s with small businesses, restaurants nearby, parks for everyone to enjoy getting out and gettin some sunshine, and other amenities.
"But it's expensive" - yes because we are market-locked into building nothing like this so scarcity drives up the prices.
> this weird dystopian view of a 400sqft apartment and clothes hung out to dry
This is only dystopian if this is how you view it. I live in a 600 square foot apartment and hang my clothes out to dry. The sun is free!
A 2500’ square foot house is much more dystopian to me personally.
This is only dystopian if this is how you view it. I live in a 600 square foot apartment and hang my clothes out to dry. The sun is free!
A 2500’ square foot house is much more dystopian to me personally.
I’ve lived in both. Both are fine and serve different communities and different people at different points in their lives. Ideally these different size dwellings are mixed in to the same neighborhood.
I didn’t mean to suggest one is bad (though I think skyscrapers are an anti-pattern as well just less harmful) - just that some Americans will paint any attempts at meaningful urbanization as Hong Kong as opposed to their current size home when the reality is there isn’t a size trade off that needs to be made you just need to do more with how the suburban neighborhood is built/zoned out.
I didn’t mean to suggest one is bad (though I think skyscrapers are an anti-pattern as well just less harmful) - just that some Americans will paint any attempts at meaningful urbanization as Hong Kong as opposed to their current size home when the reality is there isn’t a size trade off that needs to be made you just need to do more with how the suburban neighborhood is built/zoned out.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Blame the auto industry. Blame whoever.
But the plan to live a walkable lifestyle exists. It’s just that people don’t want a walkable lifestyle as much as they say they do or they’d find a way to make it happen.
But the plan to live a walkable lifestyle exists. It’s just that people don’t want a walkable lifestyle as much as they say they do or they’d find a way to make it happen.
> But the plan to live a walkable lifestyle exists. It’s just that people don’t want a walkable lifestyle as much as they say they do or they’d find a way to make it happen.
My dude, it is illegal in almost all of the USA.
Besides that, you missed the point about how most people don't know it's an option because they've never seen anything else. I also think you're a bit confused about the power that individuals have to determine the makeup of their neighborhood. Walkable neighborhoods are expensive because they are highly desirable and rare.
My dude, it is illegal in almost all of the USA.
Besides that, you missed the point about how most people don't know it's an option because they've never seen anything else. I also think you're a bit confused about the power that individuals have to determine the makeup of their neighborhood. Walkable neighborhoods are expensive because they are highly desirable and rare.
Most walkable cities in the United States are super fucking expensive, see https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/ . I live in #1, and it's $1000 a sqft / $11000 a sqm.
If you look beyond the highest prices on that list and compare the cost of a smaller apartment to the cost of a larger suburban home plus car plus filling that home with stuff then walkable living gets a lot more competitive cost-wise.
It’s just that people won’t spend a bit more to get the thing they claim they want. So it’s hard for me to believe that they really want walkable neighborhoods that badly. They want big cars, big houses, and suburbs.
For example, I’m in Portland, OR and rent a 600 square foot apartment for $1,200 a month. I can bike downtown in 20 minutes. I walk or bike everywhere and have no transportation expenses beyond bike maintenance and the occasional bus pass.
It’s just that people like to ignore that so they can avoid changing their lifestyle and put the blame on the system rather than themselves. “This would never work for me… I need… I have to… It’s too expensive…”
It’s just that people won’t spend a bit more to get the thing they claim they want. So it’s hard for me to believe that they really want walkable neighborhoods that badly. They want big cars, big houses, and suburbs.
For example, I’m in Portland, OR and rent a 600 square foot apartment for $1,200 a month. I can bike downtown in 20 minutes. I walk or bike everywhere and have no transportation expenses beyond bike maintenance and the occasional bus pass.
It’s just that people like to ignore that so they can avoid changing their lifestyle and put the blame on the system rather than themselves. “This would never work for me… I need… I have to… It’s too expensive…”
That's because of scarcity. We don't build those anymore. We only build car-dependent American style suburban areas where walking and things to walk to are not permitted. That's 100% the only reason "walkable" places are so expensive.
[deleted]
There's also only so much real-estate available fro major downtowns, and the prices will skyrocket if you could get "everyone" to want to move there.
More like zoning laws, I was shocked at the density drop between "residential/office tower" to "single family houses" in most of the US cities. Local governments are also super worried about mixed use for some reason, they really don't want a corner store so people won't drive in the hood.
Even in walkable cities, the local government are idiots, see the San Francisco zoning map, all the good stuff exists for historical reasons, not because of masterful planning: https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02...
Even in walkable cities, the local government are idiots, see the San Francisco zoning map, all the good stuff exists for historical reasons, not because of masterful planning: https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02...
But that's a solvable problem. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, certainly, but if more people want to live in walkable "major downtowns", we could just, you know, build more walkable "major downtowns", not just inflate the prices of ones we already have. There's nothing really stopping us from building more cities or at least planning more suburban/exurban neighborhoods to be independently walkable and with enough amenities to be city-like other than status quo momentum and what remains of the current "American suburban dream" of single family detached homes and cars over public transportation and walking.
OK but “everyone” doesn’t want to do it. So take advantage of the opportunity before it skyrockets!
In Columbus where I live there are over 200 acres of surface parking lots alone. There is plenty of space for housing. The article is probably paywalled but sometimes Reader View works -> https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/03/16/lots-an...
> Downsize your lifestyle
Or just actually pay what it costs instead of having it subsidised by uncle sam.
Or just actually pay what it costs instead of having it subsidised by uncle sam.
Yes, this is also a great idea. Apply it to meat as well.
But even CO2 producing cars, have you ever heard of a gas-powered leaf blower or chainsaw? Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver.
You aren't going to motivate people to be better for the environment (by, say, buying a more expensive 40MPG vehicle instead of a 35MPG one), when it can so easily be wiped away by a guy just leaving a tool on for a few minutes more. Same situation with banning straws - nobody cares about the 1.6 billion masks in the ocean now (literally).
You aren't going to motivate people to be better for the environment (by, say, buying a more expensive 40MPG vehicle instead of a 35MPG one), when it can so easily be wiped away by a guy just leaving a tool on for a few minutes more. Same situation with banning straws - nobody cares about the 1.6 billion masks in the ocean now (literally).
> 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver
Maybe in terms of particulate pollution, but in terms of CO2 that's absolutely unimaginable.
Maybe in terms of particulate pollution, but in terms of CO2 that's absolutely unimaginable.
NOx might be the bulk of it.
Naw, volatile organics.
Compression ratio isn't great on these things since half the time the gas is terrible -> no pressure, no NOx
But they are two stroke so a little but of gas and oil leak out on every stroke.
Compression ratio isn't great on these things since half the time the gas is terrible -> no pressure, no NOx
But they are two stroke so a little but of gas and oil leak out on every stroke.
Can you cite your source on the leaf blower thing? I'm guessing they're talking about air quality, not CO2 emissions. Obviously, nobody's feeding their leaf blower 40 gallons of gas per hour.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/13/its-time-to-ban-gas-pow...
Air Quality, yes; but I will admit CO2 is not compared.
Air Quality, yes; but I will admit CO2 is not compared.
To determine CO2, you can just look at the amount of fuel consumed. That'll get you close enough.
A leaf-blower running for one hour will burn roughly 1/2 gal. of fuel. A 40mpg car going from LA to Denver will burn about 25 gallons of fuel.
That car trip will generate around 50 times as much CO2 as the blower
A leaf-blower running for one hour will burn roughly 1/2 gal. of fuel. A 40mpg car going from LA to Denver will burn about 25 gallons of fuel.
That car trip will generate around 50 times as much CO2 as the blower
Pretty darn close! It should be well within 90% of the right answer. For a car probably about 99.9%
[deleted]
NOT CO2 emissions
Its worse in volatile organics, particulates and NOx. Mostly volatile organics due to the two stroke cycle.
But not because a chainsaw is particularly bad, but because a Camry is exceptionally good.
Why is the Camry good? Because it has a four stroke, fuel injected, computer controlled engine and $300 of catalysts breaking everything down. The smoke of the Camry's emissions is water condensing out.
Its worse in volatile organics, particulates and NOx. Mostly volatile organics due to the two stroke cycle.
But not because a chainsaw is particularly bad, but because a Camry is exceptionally good.
Why is the Camry good? Because it has a four stroke, fuel injected, computer controlled engine and $300 of catalysts breaking everything down. The smoke of the Camry's emissions is water condensing out.
> The smoke of the Camry's emissions is water condensing out.
Not just water. A lot of CO, CO2, particulates and NOx are also emitted, especially at lower engine temperatures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
Not just water. A lot of CO, CO2, particulates and NOx are also emitted, especially at lower engine temperatures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
I was referring to smoke specifically the visually imposing clouds car produce which forms our image of car emissions. Of what you listed, only particulates add to the smokiness of a modern engine and then only when its cold. Unless its broken.
> Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver.
That cannot possibly be true. That's a 16 hour drive through 1000 miles of mountainous terrain, requiring multiple tanks of gas, vs an hour of a small two-stroke engine spinning a little turbine.
That cannot possibly be true. That's a 16 hour drive through 1000 miles of mountainous terrain, requiring multiple tanks of gas, vs an hour of a small two-stroke engine spinning a little turbine.
According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), it's true (except for CO2).
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engi...
@roarcher: They still emit lots of CO2 due to decreased efficiency, but the numbers aren't compared (so I'm not sure what they are), which I apologize for as I got CO2 confused with the other several gases being compared.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engi...
@roarcher: They still emit lots of CO2 due to decreased efficiency, but the numbers aren't compared (so I'm not sure what they are), which I apologize for as I got CO2 confused with the other several gases being compared.
> except for CO2
Considering this entire thread is only about CO2, not air quality, perhaps that would have been worth mentioning in your original comment.
Considering this entire thread is only about CO2, not air quality, perhaps that would have been worth mentioning in your original comment.
A leaf blower is about 11 lbs of CO2 per hour of use.[1]
A car produces about a pound per mile. Let’s say that is +- 30% depending on variables of trip.
[1] https://www.quietcleanpdx.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Gas...
A car produces about a pound per mile. Let’s say that is +- 30% depending on variables of trip.
[1] https://www.quietcleanpdx.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Gas...
[deleted]
> Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver.
That sounds like nonsense.
(FWIW I support banning gas-powered leaf blowers. But your claim is still bogus.)
That sounds like nonsense.
(FWIW I support banning gas-powered leaf blowers. But your claim is still bogus.)
It is bogus, because the OP talks about "efficiency" therefore implying CO2 emissions (since energy is the product of making CO2). The OP has confounded the CO2 emissions and volatiles.
Where leaf blowers' emission fall apart is volatile organics.
Why do you support banning gas powered landscaping equipment? In cities like LA, sure. But how are utilities going to maintain brush around remote power lines without gas powered equipment?
Where leaf blowers' emission fall apart is volatile organics.
Why do you support banning gas powered landscaping equipment? In cities like LA, sure. But how are utilities going to maintain brush around remote power lines without gas powered equipment?
[deleted]
We need it all. Even if we're carbon neutral the CO2 is still in the air. We need a way to remove it. This is especially obvious given how long it's going to take to even get to carbon neutral.
Can we stop with "we don't need solutions like THIS, we need this other solution." We're going head first into a climate crisis. We need all solutions here.
Can we stop with "we don't need solutions like THIS, we need this other solution." We're going head first into a climate crisis. We need all solutions here.
Not all "solutions" are equal. Some are a waste of resources and inefficient for their supposed results.
> We need it all.
No, we don't. Right now we need to cut the 90% of the problem that is caused by the same 3 things.
If you have some solution for a small part of the remaining 10% that is profitable or neutral, go for it.If you are arguing for research, so we can do it later, also, great. But if you want to divert attention from 90% of the problem just so you can improve your favorite 0.01%, just go sit in a corner somewhere until you get reasonable.
No, we don't. Right now we need to cut the 90% of the problem that is caused by the same 3 things.
If you have some solution for a small part of the remaining 10% that is profitable or neutral, go for it.If you are arguing for research, so we can do it later, also, great. But if you want to divert attention from 90% of the problem just so you can improve your favorite 0.01%, just go sit in a corner somewhere until you get reasonable.
We already have a subtractive solution. Birth rate in the industrialized world has plummeted and the demographic wave initiated by industrializaton has crested. We can expect carbon emissions for the next several hundred years to peak soon.
In other words, the problem is solved. Any gargantuan efforts that we apply now are just about trying to get there a decade or two faster. Given the history of worldwide coordination attempts, it's not clear that it is possible or worth it.
In other words, the problem is solved. Any gargantuan efforts that we apply now are just about trying to get there a decade or two faster. Given the history of worldwide coordination attempts, it's not clear that it is possible or worth it.
This is wrong on a lot of levels. Primarily:
1. Every nation with a declining birth rate is shitting their pants about it and trying to raise the birth rate. It is seen as an existential crisis to not grow in population.
2. Birth rates have already been dropping for decades and carbon emissions are continuing to climb because we keep finding new ways to spend money on creating carbon emissions.
1. Every nation with a declining birth rate is shitting their pants about it and trying to raise the birth rate. It is seen as an existential crisis to not grow in population.
2. Birth rates have already been dropping for decades and carbon emissions are continuing to climb because we keep finding new ways to spend money on creating carbon emissions.
So, 2 will get better and no country has figured out now to solve 1 yet. Not even handing out money works.
.cz seems to have figured it out. Maybe Hungary also, though I would need to look.
"One country that has seen a steep rise in its fertility rate is the Czech Republic."
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/07/improve-u...
"One country that has seen a steep rise in its fertility rate is the Czech Republic."
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/07/improve-u...
> carbon emissions are continuing to climb
EPA press release said emissions were decreasing under Trump.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/greenhouse-gas-emissions-co...
EPA press release said emissions were decreasing under Trump.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/greenhouse-gas-emissions-co...
> Birth rate in the industrialized world has plummeted and the demographic wave initiated by industrializaton has crested. We can expect carbon emissions for the next several hundred years to peak soon.
Except population is exploding in Asia and Africa and western nations are intent on importing as many of those people as possible.
What’s baffling to me is how much overlap there is between the “we need to reduce CO2 emissions”, “having children is selfish”, and “we need more immigration” crowds. One of these things is not like the other.
Except population is exploding in Asia and Africa and western nations are intent on importing as many of those people as possible.
What’s baffling to me is how much overlap there is between the “we need to reduce CO2 emissions”, “having children is selfish”, and “we need more immigration” crowds. One of these things is not like the other.
The problem is far from solved. It's not enough that carbon emissions will peak soon. They need to come down fast. And we do not have a decade or two.
We've had less than a decade since the 1970s. I'm very confident that in 2030 and 2040 we'll be told we have less than a decade too. Do you have doubts?
Alarmism is a good way of moving people to action but it isn't accurate.
Alarmism is a good way of moving people to action but it isn't accurate.
> Obviously we can do both at once
Who is this "we" [1]?
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
Who is this "we" [1]?
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
Regenerative farming stores carbon in the soil, reduces greatly the need for petrochemical feedstocks as fertilizer, and is nearly as productive as existing industrial techniques... and you get livestock as well. The increased soil depth improves water retention, preventing erosion and resisting drought. Constant soil cover reduces evaporation and lowers soil temperatures.
It's win/win.
It's win/win.
According to my back of the envelope calculation, we would need to sequester about 272,000 trees to offset the training of one LLM like GPT4.
What about one very large containership from asia to the USA?
> How much co2 is produced from container ship?
> However, ships emit only between 10 to 40 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. The carbon footprint of airplanes is 20 to 30 times more than ships.
https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecol....
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/201...
> However, ships emit only between 10 to 40 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. The carbon footprint of airplanes is 20 to 30 times more than ships.
https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecol....
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/201...
If you use 40g per km as commented here, it comes out to about 1 tree. Something seems off.
A while ago I calculated that a 1km sided cube of wood would be the equivalent of 12 years of global co2 emissions (with a caveat that this was a very back of napkin kind of calculation). This is, of course, a massive cube, but smaller than I expected.
Yeah, I worked out roughly how much land these trees would require to grow and it was less than 0.5 square miles. I was surprised.
Full paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4305125
Seems better than BECCS, but otherwise not as good as other options.
Seems better than BECCS, but otherwise not as good as other options.
Given $2 trillion, is it a better idea to spend it on developing nuclear energy, or to grow a bunch of plants to then be dehydrated and wrapped in plastic?
Both. They do different things.
Nuclear provides non-carbon-emitting base load for situations where we don't have enough batteries to ride out dunkelflaute[0] and we haven't hit peak uranium yet. Biomass carbon sequestration buries carbon that we liberated into the air back into the ground.
In order to deal with the problems we caused, we both need to stop causing the problem and fix the damage we did.
[0] German word for "dark wind lull", i.e. no sun and the wind ain't blowing.
Nuclear provides non-carbon-emitting base load for situations where we don't have enough batteries to ride out dunkelflaute[0] and we haven't hit peak uranium yet. Biomass carbon sequestration buries carbon that we liberated into the air back into the ground.
In order to deal with the problems we caused, we both need to stop causing the problem and fix the damage we did.
[0] German word for "dark wind lull", i.e. no sun and the wind ain't blowing.
No. We've already been developing nuclear energy for 72 years. We know everything there is to know about it, and more development is unlikely to yield anything new, which is why nuclear development effectively stopped well over a decade ago. What is maddening is that had we spent a tenth of that investment towards solar development, we wouldn't even be talking about nuclear anymore, and the only reason we didn't was because some military wonk vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. But the bottom line is until someone somehow makes nuclear energy profitable, there's no point in talking about it.
Maybe don't clear the rainforests? Just a thought.
I like the idea of converting it to fuel, make it a business model to pull it out of the environment.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-...
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-...
Turning wood into charcoal would be a way. That doesn't decay easily when burried.
I don't know if you were intentionally joking or not - but I find the though of putting coal back into the ground hilarious!
Like, maybe that's how it got there in the first place. Our ancestors cut down trees for fuel, caused global warming and came up with this great idea to sequester it as coal under the ground. They save the environment, but end up living in caves and huts. 6000 years later we come around, dig up the coal, burn it, cause global warming, and then... decide to sequester it back in the ground as coal again. EDIT: It remains to be seen whether we will also end up living in caves and huts (again)
Like, maybe that's how it got there in the first place. Our ancestors cut down trees for fuel, caused global warming and came up with this great idea to sequester it as coal under the ground. They save the environment, but end up living in caves and huts. 6000 years later we come around, dig up the coal, burn it, cause global warming, and then... decide to sequester it back in the ground as coal again. EDIT: It remains to be seen whether we will also end up living in caves and huts (again)
Charcoal and coal are not the same. Charcoal has an immense surface area per unit volume (950 to 2000 m2/g) and is pure carbon. That surface area makes charcoal great at absorption. Populating charcoal with nutrients and life then adding it to soil permanently improves soil fertility by increasing the nutrient holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, and available microorganism living space.
Gardeners call inoculated charcoal biochar. Historical examples of human created charcoal rich soils are terra preta and African dark earths. Terra preta and African dark earths have highly elevated levels of black carbon (up to 9%) and have remained fertile for at least 400 years. We don't know if these charcoal enriched soils were intentionally made or if they were just community middens. But, these charcoal enriched soils are undoubtedly more fertile than the surrounding soil.
Skill Cult has a great playlist about charcoal and how it can be used in agriculture.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL60FnyEY-eJAfBgRAHKXj...
Gardeners call inoculated charcoal biochar. Historical examples of human created charcoal rich soils are terra preta and African dark earths. Terra preta and African dark earths have highly elevated levels of black carbon (up to 9%) and have remained fertile for at least 400 years. We don't know if these charcoal enriched soils were intentionally made or if they were just community middens. But, these charcoal enriched soils are undoubtedly more fertile than the surrounding soil.
Skill Cult has a great playlist about charcoal and how it can be used in agriculture.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL60FnyEY-eJAfBgRAHKXj...
Both :) It is somewhat funny but might actually work. Plants are great at absorbing CO2, but that is very transient in the nature. One certainly could burry whole logs underground and perhaps it is possible to prevent decay from releasing the captured carbon again as CO2. Charcoal is pure carbon and less likely to decay and much easier to store. And we have the production facilities for that.
One would of course have to compare the several competing mechanisms which actually works best.
One would of course have to compare the several competing mechanisms which actually works best.
This is a distraction. We need to reduce the amount of carbon (and other products of energy conversion) that we cause to be released. Engineering is fun and all, but it's just a tool, not a way of life.
This is our biggest CO2 problem. Dying trees. Not tankers, factories powered up 24/7, market in the "cheaper to produce than to repair" mode. We need to fix the plants!
Given that CO2 is 0.0421% of our atmosphere, that's a small amount compared to the audacious claim of 4%, 7%, 8% or even 10% claimed by our US congresspeople and in dubious climate change websites.
And human being contribute 3% of that CO2 from their own bodies, yet a few billionaires want us to eat insects and bugs.
But, I am here to tell you about our awesome zero-carbon steady-state base energy sources that gets totally ignored: nuclear, ocean-wave, and hydroelectric.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1647503065...
And human being contribute 3% of that CO2 from their own bodies, yet a few billionaires want us to eat insects and bugs.
But, I am here to tell you about our awesome zero-carbon steady-state base energy sources that gets totally ignored: nuclear, ocean-wave, and hydroelectric.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1647503065...
It’ll only set the economy back 2%.
Why are we trying to stop the plants from doing this exactly? The ever-impending apocalypse?
Why are we trying to stop the plants from doing this exactly? The ever-impending apocalypse?
biochar is a much cheaper and more plausible low-tech technology than burying desiccated biomass in polyethylene.
Build a bridge out of her!
Why would we want to?
Trees gather up a ton (sometimes many tons) of carbon during their lives. When they die and begin to decompose, fungi and bacteria return most of that carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2.
If we could find a way to prevent that, then those trees could be used as machines to pull CO2 out of the air and store it, preventing it from being a greenhouse gas.
If we could find a way to prevent that, then those trees could be used as machines to pull CO2 out of the air and store it, preventing it from being a greenhouse gas.
And what of the effects on the rest of the cycle of life that rely on the fungi and bacteria decomposing the tree?
Interestingly, many forest stands are actually overpopulated with trees. Removal of organic matter helps the existing trees grow taller and more healthy, improves the habitat for other species and animals, and can result in a more biodiverse, healthier forest less vulnerable to parasites and invasives. It can also reduce the severity of forest fires.
Source: I manage forestland in the PNW for the purpose of habitat restoration, and was surprised to learn how removing tree mass from a system can actually improve the overall health and biomass of a system.
Source: I manage forestland in the PNW for the purpose of habitat restoration, and was surprised to learn how removing tree mass from a system can actually improve the overall health and biomass of a system.
Nobody is suggesting doing this to every tree.
yes let's reverse engineer plants instead of cutting down on co2 emissions and weening this country's dependency on cars. complete backwoods solutionizing.
nigrioid(1)
If you burn polysaccharides, you are leaking CO2 back to the air.
This includes wood, paper and straw.
If you burn vegetal fats (oils) you are leaking CO2 back to the air.
So, stop burning stuff.
So, stop burning stuff.
"People underestimate what you can do with engineering."
That seems optimistic. If that's the case, why is it that we still regularly have engineering debacles and failures? Whether it be software, or rockets, or dams, it's not a magic "we can solve anything with engineering and enough money." Engineering is amazing, but it's not magic and engineering mistakes and oversights are a regular occurrence in every field.
And this:
"To pay for this, the people who sell you the gasoline will have to be billed an extra 53 cents. And of course, it’ll appear at the pump. That would amount to around $2 trillion, which sounds like an awful lot of money. But the GNP of the world is about $100 trillion. So it will set the world economy back by 2 percent."
This is elitism on an absurd level. Does he have any idea, how much just "reducing the world economy by 2 percent" would actually do? He's casually talking about the livelihoods of millions as though they are expendable. And 53 cents? I mean, in Silicon Valley it sounds great. But considering the median US income is only $31,000 (not joking); that's a cruel tax. Also, that would be worldwide, and I think it goes without saying that 53 cents a gallon in China or India added to the pump is a non-starter.
That seems optimistic. If that's the case, why is it that we still regularly have engineering debacles and failures? Whether it be software, or rockets, or dams, it's not a magic "we can solve anything with engineering and enough money." Engineering is amazing, but it's not magic and engineering mistakes and oversights are a regular occurrence in every field.
And this:
"To pay for this, the people who sell you the gasoline will have to be billed an extra 53 cents. And of course, it’ll appear at the pump. That would amount to around $2 trillion, which sounds like an awful lot of money. But the GNP of the world is about $100 trillion. So it will set the world economy back by 2 percent."
This is elitism on an absurd level. Does he have any idea, how much just "reducing the world economy by 2 percent" would actually do? He's casually talking about the livelihoods of millions as though they are expendable. And 53 cents? I mean, in Silicon Valley it sounds great. But considering the median US income is only $31,000 (not joking); that's a cruel tax. Also, that would be worldwide, and I think it goes without saying that 53 cents a gallon in China or India added to the pump is a non-starter.
The alternative is an unknown tail risk of unmitigated climate change. The decision isn't "98 or 100% GDP", its take a hit now, or increase risk of ecosystem collapse in the future.
The problem with chasing tail risks is that there are an awful lot of them and our track record at picking the important ones is rather poor.
> unmitigated climate change
So we'll do this to counter an unknown tail risk. I would argue, in my mind, that technology and AI is moving way too fast, and the current solutions to the climate issue are not feasible politically. People don't care. A more optimistic approach would be to wait and see what technology can bring us in the next 20 years or so to solve the problem instead of trying to rush today's inadequate solutions to market. Imagine if we had begun trying to solve the climate crisis in a radical manner 20 years ago, back when we had Windows XP, ludicrously expensive and shorter lasting solar panels, no practical large lithium-ion batteries, etc. It would be impossible. I think it's about as equally impossible today for what we'll have in the future.
So we'll do this to counter an unknown tail risk. I would argue, in my mind, that technology and AI is moving way too fast, and the current solutions to the climate issue are not feasible politically. People don't care. A more optimistic approach would be to wait and see what technology can bring us in the next 20 years or so to solve the problem instead of trying to rush today's inadequate solutions to market. Imagine if we had begun trying to solve the climate crisis in a radical manner 20 years ago, back when we had Windows XP, ludicrously expensive and shorter lasting solar panels, no practical large lithium-ion batteries, etc. It would be impossible. I think it's about as equally impossible today for what we'll have in the future.
Why do you think solar panels and batteries and computers improved so much over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure it wasn't because people said, "This stuff isn't very good, so let's not buy any of it and just wait for 20 years to see if it gets better."
I call this "hope" and I consider myself "hopeful".
The price of gas has been higher than the price of gas today + 53 cents, so from an absolute price perspective it doesn’t seem unreasonable.
Median US income for full time workers is actually $56,287.
Yes, but not everyone is a full-time worker, so that’s not a correction to a claim about the median income of all Americans.
No, it's not a correction. It's additional information that makes it clearer what a full time worker is likely to be on.
If we could create a carbon capture machine that turned CO2 in cinder blocks using the energy from a nuclear reactor, we'd really be set.
just my $0.02