SILENTSAM69 t1_jadsz36 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 6:41 PM

Reply to comment by ChrisRR in Britain breaks 'green grid' record with latest 100 per cent clean power milestone by Wagamaga

If by clean they only mean a climate change contributed they are not actually wrong.

Most people don't realise that while plants pull CO2 out of their air they do not remove it from the carbon cycle. Only if the plants were treated as nuclear waste, or even better buried in the ocean would that CO2 actually be removed from the carbon cycle.

The problem is that the CO2 released from fossil fuels is being added to the carbon cycle. It had been buried long ago.

frostbiyt t1_jaezbux wrote on February 28, 2023 at 11:18 PM

If we planted trees, then used the lumber for buildings, wouldn't that essentially be removing that carbon from the carbon cycle, at least in the short term?

SILENTSAM69 t1_jaf3g5w wrote on February 28, 2023 at 11:48 PM

It takes it out of the atmosphere for the short term, but that is still part of the cycle. All organic compounds are part of the cycle. It isn't until it is trapped in rocks that it leaves the cycle.

Creating calcium carbonate is one way to remove it. Geological processes are not very fast though. It would be interesting if we could help speed up that process.

It isn't a popular way to fight climate change,but adding aerosols to the atmosphere would reduce climate change. The aerosols we inadvertantly release actually does reduce climate change now. The problem would be worse if not for it. Adding more internationally is a solution.

Some people say we should not geoengineer the planet. The problem is we already ate doing it unintentionally. It might help if we do it intentionally.

SquatchWithNoHeroes t1_jaesgu9 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 10:30 PM

Yes and no.

Depending on enviroment

Swamp, boggy terrains trap large amounts of CO2. On the other hand, the anaerobic decomposition that often occurs in such enviroments can emit large amounts of methane.

And expanding forests creates a net loss, while cutting them down obviously emits CO2.

All in all, forest can't be simply be grown magically, not all areas are suitable for forests. And I don't see many countries capable of embarking into antidesertification campaigns like China succesfuly.

SILENTSAM69 t1_jaex3to wrote on February 28, 2023 at 11:02 PM

Yeah very true. At least methane is less of a concern considering its cycle is so short lived compared to CO2 taking thousands of years to pull out of the system. I see some getting confused that methane traps more heat, but scientists are less concerned about it. The life cycle of the gas in the atmosphere being a big part of the problem.