• Cypher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Old growth forests naturally sequester carbon despite bushfires. New growth takes a long time to get there without additional steps but the later you start the longer it’s going to take.

    • CookieJarObserver
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope thats not how it works its a circle of Carbon unless we humans add it by burning literal carbon we have from the ground (coal) we need to put it back.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope thats not how it works its a circle of Carbon unless we humans add it by burning literal carbon we have from the ground (coal) we need to put it back.

        What is coal? It’s literally dead plant matter that didn’t decay in anaerobic environments and that’s what swamps are.

        While I agree that artificial carbon capture should be researched, as others already said: it has little practical use until all electricity production comes from renewable sources.

        • CookieJarObserver
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are better and more efficient ideas than Industrial Plants needing energy, for example a system using some sort of Alge, wich grows fast, and is easy to store forever when dry.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            for example a system using some sort of Alge

            Wait, you’re making a big fuss over the type of natural photosynthesis we should use? Seriously?

            People commenting against the carbon capture as featured in the article argue about using natural ways instead and “tree” is just a shorthand for some, just as I used the broad term “plants”.

            Now don’t come and start splitting hairs like “But actually, algae are different from plants because the cells that comprise algae are not able to differentiate into different plant parts like stems, roots, and leaves, so I’m arguing for something completely different.”

            • CookieJarObserver
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most plants aren’t suitable for permanent reduction of Carbon we would need way to much area, alge is however very efficient, some also want to use bacteria, but that may be risky.

              And yes, trees are important, but not the best (or if we are honest, Meaningful) way to solve the carbon problem.

              Another option would be to make lots of alcohol from plants and store it somewhere permanently. (ethanol is just a very compact carbohydrate)

              And further there might be industrial ways to take out carbon on mass permanently, we are just not yet shure.

              Anyway, the first priority should be to reduce released of more carbon into the atmosphere.