TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

There aren’t enough trees to offset carbon emissions – and there never will be

26 点作者 perfunctory超过 3 年前

5 条评论

credit_guy超过 3 年前
Not so fast. It is true that trees alone can&#x27;t take us all the way to net-zero. But they can contribute, and the contribution could be non-negligible.<p>Right now for example, according to the EPA [1], the US emits about 6.6 GT CO2 equivalent per year, but the land sequesters about 0.8 GT, for a net emissions of 5.8 GT. From the 0.8 GT sequestered, about 0.7 GT come from trees. That&#x27;s about 10% of the gross CO2 emissions.<p>If we can double the sequestration by trees, then we can reduce emissions by a further 10%, and that&#x27;s nothing to sneeze at.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;ghgemissions&#x2F;inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;ghgemissions&#x2F;inventory-us-greenhouse-gas...</a>
RattleyCooper超过 3 年前
The major issue is everyone wants to preach about climate change but nobody actually does much in their personal lives to help solve the problem.<p>For instance, I live in a fairly liberal area and a few of my friends bring up climate change from time to time, but they literally all drive gas-powered SUVs... I&#x27;ve jokingly brought it up with one of them and they basically said &quot;I think we should focus on big corporations bc they pollute way more than 1 person&quot;... I drive a tiny gas-powered car but I also don&#x27;t ride around on my high horse talking about other ppl destroying the planet<p>I&#x27;m at the point where I don&#x27;t really believe what people say when it comes to this kind of stuff, and judge people based on their actions, because it seems like just about everybody is willing to talk, but not many who are willing to walk. And I only say &quot;judge&quot; bc that&#x27;s what people are asking me to do when they opine about how they think bad things are bad. Like, cool, you think definitively bad things are bad... if I had a cookie to give.. &#x2F;rant
评论 #29155064 未加载
hedora超过 3 年前
The article assumes that the trees will be left in place to rot and release CO2 or be cut down and burnt. It also assumes the forests will be planted atop existing ecosystems. In related news, bailing out a sinking boat by dumping the water back into the boat won’t work.<p>Off the top of my head: Build a nuclear powered desalination plant for LA. Redirect their current water supply to some already-ruined desert or abandoned farm land, and use it to irrigate massive tree farms.<p>Cut the farms down every ~ 10 years, and bury the wood in a quarry or other decomposition-hostile environment.<p>This sidesteps all the process bottlenecks mentioned in the article.<p>There’s a question of whether fertilizer is needed (the article suggests not). We already know how to convert energy to fertilizer at industrial scale, thanks to the Haber-Bosch process.
ZeroGravitas超过 3 年前
X can&#x27;t stop Y on its own is a really boring clickbait template.<p>I have complicated views on regreening as part of climate change abatement, but I guess headlines are not a place for nuance.<p>Can someone invent a web based abstract format so we can get the point before we click? Or are we short on electrons?
Gibbon1超过 3 年前
I feel with fossil fuels there is both too much and too little. On one hand current rates of burning are going to totally hose us. On the other supplies haven&#x27;t been sufficient to supply the world with enough energy since around 1970.
评论 #29154982 未加载