you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Well, as long as trees magically suck pollution out of the atmosphere in extremely high numbers, and sequester it for at least a few million years, that should be fine

Otherwise, we're probably fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading:

    1. not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon.

    2. carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it's buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2.

    3. this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide.

    4. the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following:

    • Carbonate Compensation Depth (see how it relates to the amount of calcareous ooze being buried in the ocean)
    • Methane Clathrate Hydrate
    • Permafrost Methane
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean.

  • source
  • parent