• WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Unfortunately, this is one area human imagination and intuition fail. Trees are great, but the math shows they simply aren’t remotely viable as a means of bulk carbon sequestration.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          yes, you are correct, it makes more sense to focus on electrifying our big consumers first.

          however, cleaning up could happen eventually. maybe some politician in the future will sell it as some “jobs program” or sth.

        • Delta_V@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The evolution of micro organisms capable of eating dead trees and emitting CO2 as a metabolic byproduct.

          • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            don’t forget the role that the Great Oxidation Event played in this.

            Basically, earth’s atmosphere was devoid of oxygen from its beginning, and it took billions of years to change that. it wasn’t until life had learned about photosynthesis before large amounts of oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.

            however, oxygen is a necessary prerequisite for most animal/fungus consumers, as they use oxygen to break down the organic materials. that is probably when major fossil fuel production stopped.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Nothing. You’re just asking trees to do something they’re not meant to do. Absorbing a single year of carbon emissions would require half the planet’s land area of trees. And that’s just while the trees are growing and absorbing a lot of carbon. Trees just aren’t efficient enough on a per acre basis to make a dent in carbon emissions, let alone capturing the carbon already in the atmosphere.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          not only that. algae are effectively plants without all the structural (wood) parts. that means, they consume less energy constructing bulky dead material, and put all of their energy towards the growth of the functional parts. that is why they can spread more rapidly and achieve a higher efficiency than plants.