Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

That would be pretty cool, provided they didn't become crazy invasive.

From my livingroom window, i can see a few thousand trees. Probably 75% of them are Russian Olive trees, which stink and have large spines that will punch through a leather glove.

I do not live in Russia. These were brought in a few decades ago and planted as decoration. They're EVERYWHERE now.

And they're kinda dangerous. They get to 30-35' tall, then just randomly fall over.

It's called a tree, no?

To be fair, that’s just how succession in forests works. Meadows don’t stay meadows forever.

I've posted what you asked on here since you can't view it.

Nah the amount of vegetation required would be way more than could fit to do anything significant. Plants don't use that much CO2, and I don't think CO2 levels change the structural properties of the plants, it just accelerates growth rate in general.

Doesn't it release all the sucked up carbon?

Scaling this would release more co2 than sequester. Absolute rubbish science.

This process looks promising. I’ve always thought there would be a process of just reversing the process of of global warming. It should be possible to create fossil fuels. The time scale of their creation seems to be the biggest problem to overcome. Creating new coal for instance by putting wood under immense pressures without decay for long periods of time. I ponder what depth the wood would have to be buried at and compacted to attain a result similar to how we find coal today. Using geothermal energy to do much of the hard work. We’d probably need forest the size of entire states to sequester enough carbon to make any real mark on the amount of carbon in our atmosphere.

[removed]

[deleted]

Definitely. But it would be sequestered in the buildings while they are standing.

From my own limited understanding, it seems to focus specifically on those diagnosed with it and a combination of diagnosable criteria and self reported measures.

If you want, I can provide you with specific extracts of it that you may think would best answer your question?

>accept a tiny reduction in economic output

How dare you.

Yeah, this actually seems quite promising, especially for large scale production and that would be taking lots of carbon from the air. A win in my book.

So you're telling me that we spent all that time and money drilling and pumping oil out of the earth in order to refine it into gasoline, so it could be used by a very large number of internal combustion engines to be vaporized into atmospheric carbon, only to then be extracted from the atmosphere using factory-size large fans in response to global warming, and then inserted into wood as a building material?

To add on to u/Bierbart12 's question: Did they control for children with one or more parent with Borderline Personality Disorder?

Just planting trees won't help. They need to actually survive, and once they die, they release the lions share of CO² back into the air. We need long term sequestration like this. We actually have to if we want to prevent a +2°C world.

[removed]

Hmm, I don't believe this study was conducted with a directed intent of including those born and raised by parents with the disorder,

"Borderline Personality Disorder Dimensional Features. Because both diagnostic interview and self-report measures may yield optimal assessment of BPD [81], we also included a dimensional measure of BPD in order to assess and validate the categorical measure of BPD.

For a large subset of the sample, a 15-item self-report scale was included, based on the BPD module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Axis II disorders (SCID-II) [82].

However, every participant did not complete this self-report measure, as it was added after data collection began. Additionally, some participants completed only interviews and did not return their packet of questionnaires including this measure.

Each item of the measure is rated dichotomously (0 = No, 1 = Yes), so that the total possible score ranged from 0–15, with higher scores indicating more features of BPD. For example, items included: “Have you often become frantic when you thought that someone you really cared about was going to leave you?” This scale is consistent with DSM-5 BPD criteria, and has been used in several other studies, with satisfactory internal reliability (α = 0.81) [83, 84]."

Aspects of it may have been included in the participents self report, however I believe that snippet will give you a better understanding of it than I can.

I think I can safely say that the scope of this study doesn't necessarily include that factor however I am far from the best that can interpret this study, I've only posted this since another commenter couldn't access the site.

I've had recent involvement in carbon capture technology for power plants and other large CO2 emitters, and there's still an anti-technology bias there also. I don't personally hold with conspiracy theories, I suspect it's just that those who shout the loudest against emissions and pollutants tend to see 'green' as being equated with pre-industrial approaches.

Mass timber buildings. They're the future. All wood or mostly wood. The large timber actually burn very slowly and give ample time to escape the building. It's much better than steel that just collapses when heated.

Did it factor in children with parents who have narcissistic personality disorder?

As someone with a degree in forestry, you're right. Sorry they're down dootin.

That will rot eventually and re-release the CO² this is sequestration of carbon over the long term.