Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gobblox38 t1_jddfiue wrote

Granted, in the five years since I've learned about carbon sequestration methods this might have changed. Yes, it is possible to put CO2 into a superstate and inject it into sandstone or put it in a liquid state and inject it into basalt. There's problems with both and the best possible scenarios have a 60% net carbon capture.

There's a problem with trees that most people don't consider. A tree is a carbon reservoir for less than a century. When the tree dies and decays, that trapped carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. The last time trees captured carbon on a geologic scale was the carboniferous. Fungus have been eating dead trees since then.

Another issue is that climate change is killing entire regions of trees. Even if we could plant trees fast enough and ensure each one lives, we'd never make a dent in atmospheric carbon.

The plant that stores carbon on a geologic scale is algae. The algae has to die, sink to the ocean floor, and be buried before it can be eaten/decay. The problem with this is that it's such a slow process that it only becomes noticeable on a geologic timescale.

1

yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jddg96o wrote

I wish we had the luxury of worrying about 50 years from now.

1

gobblox38 t1_jddi30f wrote

I, for one, welcome our inevitable doom. May the planet go thorough its usual end mass extinction phase and move on to a new era filled with bizarre (to us) creatures that live in dynamic equilibrium. /s

For real though, I too am worried about what the next few decades will bring.

1