- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
carbon dioxide removal technology has always been a sham. The energy required to do so would always be immediately better spent offsetting fossil fuel consumption - It should be obvious that if you’re using fossil fuel to produce energy to remove CO2, you’re making the problem worse.
Burning billions of tons of carbon that took millions of years to sequester isn’t something we can really undo. The most readily apparent way to do so without energy impacts – reforesting the planet – isn’t even an option. The trees that fell to form coal deposits fell in an environment that didn’t include fungus or bacteria that could decompose them. Now they’d rot away, releasing CO2.
The most readily apparent way to do so without energy impacts – reforesting the planet – isn’t even an option. The trees that fell to form coal deposits fell in an environment that didn’t include fungus or bacteria that could decompose them. Now they’d rot away, releasing CO2.
Not all of their stored carbon gets released as CO2 though. Forest soils often store twice as much carbon as all of the vegetation. Considering the vast amount of grazing lands (and lands used for feed crops) that could be reforested, the benefits are substantial. Obviously the emissions need to be greatly reduced as well, but reforestation (along with forest conservation) is not only an option, it’s a necessity.