406

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

157 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Bosht@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Density of CO2 produced vs what trees capture is massively unequal. Yes trees can, but not on any tangible scale that would ever keep up with what we are doing to the planet.

[-] excral@feddit.org 8 points 4 days ago

Yeah, agreed. Carbon capture won't save us, not trees nor otherwise. We have to slow down what we are doing to the planet.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Yes, the most that carbon capture can do is temporarily slow down climate change. It turns out the only way you can stop getting carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle is to stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle.

But the problem with oil is that it's really good, and it does a lot of stuff really well

[-] excral@feddit.org 5 points 4 days ago

But the problem with oil is that it’s really good

Oil is good because it's cheap and it's only cheap because we don't pay the full bill. If we'd bill polluters for the full cost it would take to offset the emissions, it would quickly stop being economically viable to use oil in many sectors.

[-] Twanquility@feddit.dk 2 points 4 days ago

Not to mention the area needed, for the amount of trees needed. Trees also decompose, so the storage function is different, but people are quick to assume.

[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

Decomp still sequesters most of the carbon into the soil, which next gen plants uptake some.

Not to mention, a single sq km of algae sequesters tons annually.

And not even mentioning the add on sequesters: New trees bring whole ecosystems, and promote savannah and meadow formation, which also sequesters carbon.