Recent comments in /f/UpliftingNews

Kradget t1_j6071ow wrote

Reply to comment by DocWsky in Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by heavy-metal-goth-gal

True, but we're going to need to approach this from multiple angles. There's not one thing we can practically do that will just resolve the problem in a human-ish timescale.

So, yes trees, grassland, and wetlands. But also yes renewable energy, higher efficiency transportation, carbon capture, regulation, and improved agricultural practices.

2

Dorocche t1_j60528t wrote

Reply to comment by quarterque in Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by heavy-metal-goth-gal

To be clear, that article is about one single company who simply doesn't plant the trees, and is paid by big corporations so that those corporations can pretend they're carbon neutral.

It's not a reason that you, personally, should feel bad about donating to a tree charity, because that tree charity was probably not Verra. It means that our system for incentivizing corporations to be carbon neutral via planting trees does not work at all.

6

Dorocche t1_j6042xo wrote

Reply to comment by DocWsky in Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by heavy-metal-goth-gal

It's not true at all lol, that's not how trees or carbon work.

Trees don't passively remove carbon dioxide from the air. Trees remove carbon dioxide by growing and turning that carbon into bark, stems, leaves, etc. And they release carbon when they burn or decompose.

Planting a tree sucks up exactly as much carbon as is the size of that tree, and no more once it stops growing. Replacing it with a baby tree will suck up way more carbon, and if we turn it into chairs instead of burning it then those tons of carbon are gone from the atmosphere for the foreseeable future.

3