0 points

Can I just say that for me, the way that people respond to these things is the most demotivating of all. When ever anything is done, as long as it is not the perfect solution it is the wrong solution. We all know that the best solution would be a complete turn around from what current standards are. Stop eating so much meat, take a bike, invest in infrastructure that reflects sunlight. Tax the rich (or eat them), invest in nuclear, etc. People know this and a lot of people try. And for me, any company that also at least tries to do something should be lauded in stead of the flood of negative remarks. I would love it if my kids, who constantly hear that they will have to survive in hell, would sometimes get a glimmer of optimistic or supportive remarks to read as well.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

The problem is, projects like this turn our heads away from the real problems. Politicians and investors will justify not reducing greenhouse gas emissions because we have this new technology which will save us all. Fact is, climate change has already been solved, we know what we have to do since decades. It is not a problem which will be solved by technology, it is a political problem. In addition to that people will say that they are doing enough by investing in carbon capture but will not address the biodiversity crisis which can only be addressed by proposing real environmental policy change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Totally agree. Same with electric cars. Yes, they are not great. But we need to find a way to reduce emissions rapidly. Which means re-using already built infrastructure. Which is, as much as it sucks, roads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Has anyone done the math and figured out if these things are more efficient than trees? I have my doubts but I’m also a pleb so idk how to compare them.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

How do you measure “efficiency” ? By money spent? Then yes, trees are currently cheaper. But trees are complicated (see other comments). Additionally, even if we cover the whole landmass with trees, there is still a catastrophic amount of Co2 left in the atmosphere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

I mean just looking at the amount of concrete in that picture, I get pessimistic. When will this particular site have dug itself out of the carbon “hole” created by its construction?

As for trees: That is really, really hard to measure and even harder to know in advance. Some factors appear to be:

  • different tree species store different amounts of carbon
  • tree plantation or actual forest?
  • prior use of the site (e.g. meadows do store carbon too)
  • development over time (most trees need to grow a couple years before they start storing significant amounts of carbon)
  • failure of sites due to being planted in a bad way (e.g. a lot of Chinese Green Wall sites and quick-buck billion tree projects seem to be affected by this)
permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.5K

    Posts

  • 8.8K

    Comments

Community moderators