• chaosmarine92@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Doing some back of the envelope calculations we have put about 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Latest estimates put the number of trees on earth at around 3 trillion. Looking at how much CO2 a tree takes up puts the average around 600lbs over the first twenty years. So combing all this if we want to plant enough trees to take up all the excess CO2 we would need about 5.3 trillion more trees, or almost double the total number of trees on the planet.

    This is simply not achievable in a fast enough time span to make a difference. Nevermind that I was being super optimistic with all my calculations and the real number needed is likely much higher still.

    It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.

    • Skasi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.

      Instead of wasting energy and effort trying to remove existing CO2 from the air, people should instead spend effort on not releasing more carbon dioxide into the air. It’s similar to things like plastic waste where it’s better not to create any waste than to recycle plastic, or the same as private transport where it’s better to not have or drive a private car or private jet than to drive or fly energy efficient.

      There’s about 0.05% CO2 in the air. So pulling CO2 from the air is as inefficient as it gets. It’s somewhere between moving to Antarctica to bathe in the sun and using the full moon for solar panels.

      The theoretical best place to sun bathe is, unsurprisingly, on the sun! Similarly it’s best to scrub CO2 at the source, meaning the exhausts! Filter it at motors, kilns, chimneys, etc.

      • chaosmarine92@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        We have to do both. If today our emissions went to zero we would still see more warming because of all that CO2 we’ve already released. First priority is to get to net zero so we can stop making the problem worse, then we have to remove all the CO2 we released. We have the technology now to do step one it’s just a matter of scaling it up. While we work on step one we need to do the research on the best way to do step two so when we get to that point we have something ready to go. Pulling CO2 out of the air is going to be inefficient no matter what just from the physics of the problem but it still needs to be done and the energy to do so has to come from renewables.

        • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          One proposed solution is using the excess energy production during peak hours for renewables to sequester carbon which would help but likely only be a small initial step in the right direction.

        • Skasi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I think that’d be too little “bang for your buck” to be worth it. Investments might make matters even worse. After all, at some point building more and more energy generators for less and less efficient things will have severe drawbacks. Those energy generators aren’t built for free, nor are the machines necessary to build them, let alone the inefficient machines used to scrub co2 from the air.

          I believe an active push towards carbon dioxide removal can be a double edged sword and even dangerous, especially if it relies on electricity (as opposed to actions which provide other benefits and help nature recover, like restoring forests, marshes/wetlands, etc.). As long as people want to do it with electricity, the demand for fossile fuels for electricity is bound to increase one way or another. Even if one country wants to do it 100% clean and could produce enough energy for direct air capture and all of its inhabitants are trustworthy, they’re still going to be in competition with other countries - and if country A happens to own all the materials to build things like batteries or wind turbines, then country B will struggle and instead rely on gas or coal plants.

          Some lobbyists might tell you otherwise, but there’s definitely many many more important than things to invest time/effort/money into. Social care, social injustice, public transportation, energy storage/stability, natural disasters, peace, climate refugees, etc.

    • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wonder how many years of carbon accumulation we have burned so far. The oil we have burned is 800 million years of algae? That’s just a wild guess. Extinction is a normal natural process. Most of the species that have existed have gone extinct, we should start trying to come to terms with knowing that it is our turn to join them. Collectively, we have been and will remain unwilling to do what it takes to save ourselves.

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

        we should start trying to come to terms with knowing that it is our turn to join them

        That’s just called “death”. Everything that lives today is descended from an organism that existed before it. The idea that humans would just… stop existing, rather than producing variants that were more acclimated to the subsequent iteration of earth’s biome seems unlikely, particularly given how rapidly we’ve learned to adapt to changing ecological conditions.

        Given that humans - as a species - survived the Ice Age, they’ll likely survive the Heat Age in some form or another.

    • Delta_V@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.

      Exactly this. The oil we burn today needs to be re-made tomorrow and put back into the hole it was pumped out of.

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.

      No it’s not. In fact, it’s impossible. Turning C02 into other stuff takes energy. There’s no perpetual motion machine you can use to burn carbon, turn the carbon back into oil, and gain energy. It’s impossible. The only solution is to reduce our demand for fossil fuels, and increase our excess energy generation enough that we can begin undoing the past 100 years of damage through capture after we’ve already prevented worsening of the problem.

      • chaosmarine92@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nowhere did I say or imply that capturing CO2 is a net positive of energy. It is in fact a huge energy sink. If you aren’t using renewables to power CO2 capture then you’re just making the problem worse.