▲ 855 ▼ Amazon's New AI Data Center Is So Enormous That It Appears It Will Become the Largest Single Source of Pollution in the United States (futurism.com) submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 147 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] quarkquasar@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading: not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon. carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it's buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2. this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide. the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following: Carbonate Compensation Depth (see how it relates to the amount of calcareous ooze being buried in the ocean) Methane Clathrate Hydrate Permafrost Methane permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago* i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading: not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon. carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it's buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2. this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide. the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following: Carbonate Compensation Depth (see how it relates to the amount of calcareous ooze being buried in the ocean) Methane Clathrate Hydrate Permafrost Methane permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago* i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean. permalink fedilink source parent