Climate Activists Seek to Save the Planet by Cutting, Burying Trees

[Anomalism]

Really? Why don't we use nuclear. That would help.

I have no issue with the advancement of nuclear energy. Our approach should be multipronged.

 

[80zephyr]

I have no issue with the advancement of nuclear energy. Our approach should be multipronged.

Sadly, you aren't the one making these decisions.

 

[Anomalism]

Sadly, you aren't the one making these decisions.

I agree. That's an unfortunate state of events. Haha

 

[Robert W]

Curious...

What would the right wing approach to the climate be? Just do nothing? Buy a new diesel truck to piss off the libs?

I have been suggesting since the 1990s that to remove carbon dioxide, please use plants. And when the trees are buried at least 6.5 feet deep, they stop releasing CO2 and will hold it forever. We however still need a massive plant plants on Earth for it to matter. This deals with a real problem of course the right way.

 

[ReinyDays]

They increase the Fleet milage requirements so only by selling EV's can they meet them
States ban sales of new ICE vehicles, thus limiting the market, and forcing companies to begin scaling down production of ICE vehicles.

Companies can also raise the mileage of exist piston engined vehicles ... it's cheaper for them to pump out EVs ... that's a choice ...

It's end runs, but the results are the same.

That's certainly true ... California forced the rest of the nation to adapt to their smog requirements ... just like California is forcing the rest of the nation into EVs ... that's how capitalism works, the folks with the money make all the decisions ... poor folk just have to manage ...

Why is all this needed if EV's are superior to ICE vehicles?

Golf cart or Peterbuilt? ... if I've 20 tons across town, I'm belching carbon pollution with the semi rig, there's no other way to move it ... gallon of milk a half mile away, bicycle or the cart if it's raining ...

California is a culture where a man must own a car in order to reproduce ... and he must be able to afford to drive around in his car ... alone ... car pooling is form of birth control ... that's because California women are worth it ... but it is carbon-intensive ... the other feature of California culture that might be lost on you is that everything is made of money ... so $100,000 for a new rig is a bargain ...

The entire future of the world automobile supply will depend on whether California women find EVs sexy or not ... so far ... men who drive Teslas smile a lot ... just saying ...

 

[martybegan]

Companies can also raise the mileage of exist piston engined vehicles ... it's cheaper for them to pump out EVs ... that's a choice ...



That's certainly true ... California forced the rest of the nation to adapt to their smog requirements ... just like California is forcing the rest of the nation into EVs ... that's how capitalism works, the folks with the money make all the decisions ... poor folk just have to manage ...



Golf cart or Peterbuilt? ... if I've 20 tons across town, I'm belching carbon pollution with the semi rig, there's no other way to move it ... gallon of milk a half mile away, bicycle or the cart if it's raining ...

California is a culture where a man must own a car in order to reproduce ... and he must be able to afford to drive around in his car ... alone ... car pooling is form of birth control ... that's because California women are worth it ... but it is carbon-intensive ... the other feature of California culture that might be lost on you is that everything is made of money ... so $100,000 for a new rig is a bargain ...

The entire future of the world automobile supply will depend on whether California women find EVs sexy or not ... so far ... men who drive Teslas smile a lot ... just saying ...

Not when the fleet requirements exceed the achievable values to intentionally make ICE vehicles impossible to meet them.
And that then requires Manufacturers to make smaller cars, which people don't seem to want as much as larger cars.

That isn't capitalism when it comes from government fiat. Are you really that dumb?

The rest of your screed is retarded.

 

[Rigby5]

I think the purpose is to sequester short cycle carbon and transform it into long cycle carbon.

It's the long cycle carbon the actual proponents of Climate Change believe causes the problem. It's the less informed of the nutters that can't tell the difference between the two.

The better solution would be to thin out old wood fuel by chipping it and turning it into agricultural mulch.
Burying it in NV would waste a whole lot of energy and still eventually return to the atmosphere.

 

[martybegan]

The better solution would be to thin out old wood fuel by chipping it and turning it into agricultural mulch.
Burying it in NV would waste a whole lot of energy and still eventually return to the atmosphere.

Mulching it leaves it in the short cycle, to be consumed, burned, decayed again and back to CO2 within a decade at most. (and then back to organic carbon within another decade).

The idea comes from the fact that we are burning carbon long stored underground, so why not bury some short cycle carbon and re-sequester it.

 

[Rigby5]

Your arrogance is so massive that you just assume you know everything about everything.

His point was that it is not worth spewing huge amounts of emissions in order to prevent some CA forest fires that only threaten a few mansions.

 

[Woodznutz]

It seems to go deeper than that for most. Green technology is the left's baby. Many will never be positive about it just for spite.

Green technology will only add to our problems (our economy is largely based on milking problems, not providing solutions). Green technology just adds another layer of problems on top of those we already are unable to solve.

 

[hadit]

Well, in every discussion about the unbelievable progress being made with solar they're typically negative and spiteful as far as I can tell.

Sort of seems like they just want everything the left cares about to fail, and that it's not any deeper than that.

Conservatives are practical and don't expend a lot of emotional energy on things that don't do what they're hyped to do. Take solar power for example. It's not yet more than a small niche market provider of electrical power. When it can deliver steady, reliable power at a cost comparable to that of petroleum and coal, along with a comparable or smaller environmental impact, you will see conservatives get excited about it and advocate using it. Until then, they rightly don't get on board with hysterical government edicts that we have to use it.

 

[Rigby5]

Mulching it leaves it in the short cycle, to be consumed, burned, decayed again and back to CO2 within a decade at most. (and then back to organic carbon within another decade).

The idea comes from the fact that we are burning carbon long stored underground, so why not bury some short cycle carbon and re-sequester it.

Yes, mulching it would not prevent it from returning as atmospheric carbon, but the point is it would reduce the emissions impact we create with all the artificial fertilizers.

But burying trees will NOT prevent it from also returning to the atmosphere.
To sequester old wood, you need to seal it in a slurry with the right bacteria and wait about 100 million years for it to ferment.
Totally impractical.

 

[Rigby5]

Green technology will only add to our problems (our economy is largely based on milking problems, not providing solutions). Green technology just adds another layer of problems on top of those we already are unable to solve.

Depends on if good "green" technology or bad "green" technology.
For example, we could switch to nuclear, bio fuels, hydrogen, etc.
What is bad is lithium batteries that are so heavy that they waste huge amounts of energy to cart around.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, mulching it would not prevent it from returning as atmospheric carbon, but the point is it would reduce the emissions impact we create with all the artificial fertilizers.

But burying trees will NOT prevent it from also returning to the atmosphere.
To sequester old wood, you need to seal it in a slurry with the right bacteria and wait about 100 million years for it to ferment.
Totally impractical.

Bury it deep enough and it doesn't rot quick enough to matter.

 

[Rigby5]

I have been suggesting since the 1990s that to remove carbon dioxide, please use plants. And when the trees are buried at least 6.5 feet deep, they stop releasing CO2 and will hold it forever. We however still need a massive plant plants on Earth for it to matter. This deals with a real problem of course the right way.

Wrong.
No matter how deep you bury the plants, they will still release their CO2 eventually.
The only way to prevent that is to ferment the wood with the right bacteria, in a slurry.
That is what creates the sequestered fossil fuel in the first place.
And the emission of cutting, transporting, and burying trees in NV would produce vast amounts.

 

[Rigby5]

Bury it deep enough and it doesn't rot quick enough to matter.

Depth actually makes no difference at all.
The only way to prevent rot back to CO2 in any reasonable amount of time is to seal it airtight with clay.
You would have to essentially mummify it.
Never going to happen.
Only the surface of NV is dry.
Once you go below the surface, there is moisture enough to cause rot.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nah, none. None in over 100 years in fact. Right clown?

For the fourth time, tell us what the delta is.

You don’t answer because you’re clueless. You can only parrot what your masters feed you.

 

[Crick]

Leftards once again making the Babylon Bee look like a legitimate news organization.

Through his foundation Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Mr. Gates is a part of the $6.6 million seed investor pool backing Kodama Systems in its proposal to remove trees in California's fire-challenged woodlands and bury them in Nevada to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2).

"We must dramatically accelerate forest thinning treatments," the Boston-based firm says on its website. Kodama calls itself a "technology-driven forest restoration service."

Climate Activists Seek to Save the Planet by Cutting, Burying Trees

While Bill Gates invests in a plan to thin out forests and bury the trees to sequester carbon, one ecologist calls it a ‘spectacularly bad idea.’

www.theepochtimes.com

Technology driven!
So is a coal fired steam train.

So Envirowhackos, where’s the data that if we cut down CO2 eating trees and feed them to worms (who turn it into CO2) we save the world?

Why didn't your linked article explain that? Oh, wait. It was the Epoch Times. There's your problem. Now, I can't read an Epoch Times article without giving them my email, which I will not do. So I went looking elsewhere. Do you know what I found? I found that Kodoma Systems harvests and buries WASTE BIOMASS, not live trees.

A stealth effort to bury wood for carbon removal has just raised millions

Kodama has raised more than $6 million from Bill Gates’ climate fund and other investors, as it pursues new ways to reduce wildfire risks and lock away carbon in harvested trees.

www.technologyreview.com

God are you people stupid.

 

[Woodznutz]

The better solution would be to thin out old wood fuel by chipping it and turning it into agricultural mulch.
Burying it in NV would waste a whole lot of energy and still eventually return to the atmosphere.

The 'problem' is CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels, not wood.

 

[Woodznutz]

Depends on if good "green" technology or bad "green" technology.
For example, we could switch to nuclear, bio fuels, hydrogen, etc.
What is bad is lithium batteries that are so heavy that they waste huge amounts of energy to cart around.

The problem is that what is good for the planet is bad for the economy.