Comment

Planting trees doesn’t produce revenue for billionaires and shareholders. This does. Ergo we must produce expensive, over engineered machines to replace trees. Bees are next.

source

Sort:hotnew top

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Trees are inefficient too but we actually already know what we need to do to ramp up the efficiency of the photosynthesis process in trees with genetic tinkering.

The bigger problem is that we have reached a point where trees aren’t enough anymore. The oceans have acidified. There’s just too much co2 to capture at this point.

source
- McWizard@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know trees are no real solution. Yes, they take CO2 to grow, but everything is released again when they die and are consumed by bacteria which just didn’t exist a few million years ago. So they only ever store what the forest is made of and not a bit more. They will rot and never ever become coal again. So while it sounds nice to plant a forest and there are other benefits, when if we planted a forest on every inch of the planet it would not solve our problem. Am I wrong here? Tell me!
  
  source
  - leftytighty@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    The net new total biomass of the forests would all be captured carbon. Yes dead trees may release it again but the total amount of trees would be higher and act as a large buffer.
    
    source
  - the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    That carbon will stay sequestered if the trees are cut down, and the wood is used to build something that lasts for a long time.
    
    source
    starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    A long time isn’t forever. Wood burns and wood rots. How many wooden structures from over a thousand years ago are still around?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Typhoon@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Every bit we capture helps.
  
  source
  - gressen@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Not if it’s a distraction from better solutions.
    
    source