Memes

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

I calculated it a while back and we would need to cover entire the landmass of earth with old growth forrest every 10 years to offset ongoing emissions.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 3 days ago (1 child)

I'm interested in your calculations, where...?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 days ago

In some youtube comment somewhere. It's just three numbers, the carbon storage of a hectare mature forrest times the land surface area divided by yearly emissions.

parent

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Meanwhile we are cutting the last of old growth.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

You're saying that like my Big Mac box isnt absolutely necessary for human life

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago

I seriously doubt the old growth being cleared is going into Big Mac boxes at any material rate tbh

parent

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Scientists figured we'd have to cover all of North America, tundra, desert, ALL of it, to offset 10-years of CO2 output. And then we'd have to do it again in every 10-years.

Why does it have to be old growth though? New growth is faster growing species and has more plants at the ground level. I would think a hectare of growing pine would capture more CO2 than a relatively static oak forest. ?

parent

[–] drath@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago

How much more would we need to emit to capture all that, freeze it into a giant cube and fucking YEET that into space? No carbon - no problem.

Not a serious proposal, just curious