Taking Carbon out of the air takes a lot of energy and/or space, and then storing it safely out of harm's way is difficult. Fortunately, mother nature already figured this out. We call it "coal". Unfortunately some idiots are digging it back up and burning it to produce a tiny fraction of the useful energy that it's going to take to recapture it, stabilise it, and then re-bury it. Increasing planetary tree cover is nice, but is not a feasible offset for the millions of years of carbon sequestration that's be
The Carbon didn't just go from the atmosphere and right into Coal. It was absorbed my Photosynthesizing life, (Plants, Algae, Microorganisms) Over a case of millions of years, when the Life had died it settled to a spot and got burred and compressed before it would release it back into the atmosphere.
Increasing Plat coverage is nice, however it could come in a tradeoff and in competition with Solar Power as well, as well many tree can cause havoc on our necessary infrastructure. When I was a Kid, I was l
Takes up a whole lot less space if you do it in the sea instead of on land. Double plus bonus with marine aquaculture, not only can you suck up carbon with plant growth but calcium carbonate means any shell fish growth sucks up carbon and turns it into a solid mass the shell of shellfish. So farming abalone should become a thing, lots of algae growth and the shells are a massive carbon sink and have high value in all sorts of direct products, buttons and the like and the waste just dumped on driveways or us
Hidden carbon. (Score:2)
Elimination of fossil fuels as a power, and vehicle source. Less use of petrochemicals like plastics.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll do you one better: I bought a plastic sink!
Re: (Score:1)
Then you can do me two better and buy another.
Re: (Score:2)
Yo, dawg...
Re: Hidden carbon. (Score:3)
Taking Carbon out of the air takes a lot of energy and /or space, and then storing it safely out of harm's way is difficult. Fortunately, mother nature already figured this out. We call it "coal".
Unfortunately some idiots are digging it back up and burning it to produce a tiny fraction of the useful energy that it's going to take to recapture it, stabilise it, and then re-bury it.
Increasing planetary tree cover is nice, but is not a feasible offset for the millions of years of carbon sequestration that's be
Re: (Score:3)
The Carbon didn't just go from the atmosphere and right into Coal. It was absorbed my Photosynthesizing life, (Plants, Algae, Microorganisms) Over a case of millions of years, when the Life had died it settled to a spot and got burred and compressed before it would release it back into the atmosphere.
Increasing Plat coverage is nice, however it could come in a tradeoff and in competition with Solar Power as well, as well many tree can cause havoc on our necessary infrastructure. When I was a Kid, I was l
Re: (Score:2)
Takes up a whole lot less space if you do it in the sea instead of on land. Double plus bonus with marine aquaculture, not only can you suck up carbon with plant growth but calcium carbonate means any shell fish growth sucks up carbon and turns it into a solid mass the shell of shellfish. So farming abalone should become a thing, lots of algae growth and the shells are a massive carbon sink and have high value in all sorts of direct products, buttons and the like and the waste just dumped on driveways or us