Comment on "cO₂ iS pLaNt FoOd"

CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I calculated it a while back and we would need to cover entire the landmass of earth with old growth forrest every 20 years to offset ongoing emissions.

  source

  • drath@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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

    source
  • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I’m interested in your calculations, where…?

    source

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

      source
  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Meanwhile we are cutting the last of old growth.

    source
  • shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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. ?

    source
• BestBouclettes@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  And even then, when these plants die, they release all the carbon they captured. So you need to take that into account as well.

  source

  • sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Not necessarily! We could theoretically bury that biomass deep underground where the pressure and heat eventually turn it into fossil fuels.

    Not that it’s particularly likely, but it is technically possible!

    source
  • VibeSurgeon@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I mean, not quite, it all depends on what happens to them once they die

    source
• then_three_more@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Aren’t crops (which of course are plants) actually growing faster due to increased co2. Due to this they’re also not able to develop as much nutrients and vitamins etc

  source

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    My understanding is that nutrition has got more to do with selective breeding, soil microbial ecosystems, and depletion of plant micronutrients - we focus on macronutrients (N-P-K) in fertilizer.

    source

    • ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Micronutrients are generally represented in foliar fertilizers or seed treatments, not granular fertilizers. So things like boron, copper, zinc, sulphur, manganese, etc are applied by spray, generally, since there is better uptake via leaves than roots, though much of it will hit the soil for later use.

      We’ve even identified fields where we applied a certain amount of gold, which is used for better disease resistance.

      source
    • shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      OK, this is from an ag class 35-years ago, but I’m sure it holds up: Yes, pumping CO2 at a plant gets significant gains.

      source