I wonder how hard it would be to sequester carbon by burying waste paper instead of recycling it? Tree farms will keep growing trees, so a large part of the job is taken care of. And unlike with...
I wonder how hard it would be to sequester carbon by burying waste paper instead of recycling it?
Tree farms will keep growing trees, so a large part of the job is taken care of. And unlike with actual recycling, the waste stream doesn't need to be particularly pure.
Ive always wondered this lol Like, plastic is mostly long carbon chains, so we’re sequestering carbon by producing it since nothing breaks it down. Of course that doesn’t make any sense, we know...
Ive always wondered this lol
Like, plastic is mostly long carbon chains, so we’re sequestering carbon by producing it since nothing breaks it down.
Of course that doesn’t make any sense, we know that plastic, and our waste in general, is bad for the environment. Its just that viewing the entire climate as carbon centric is such a narrow visual of how it really works.
It seems like the key is having a better way to sequester it so the carbon doesn't decompose and get out? Looks like paper and cardboard will decompose within months. Worse, apparently in a...
It seems like the key is having a better way to sequester it so the carbon doesn't decompose and get out? Looks like paper and cardboard will decompose within months. Worse, apparently in a landfill it will release methane, though perhaps it's not so bad if the landfill gas is burnt.
To sequester carbon you'd want to somehow prevent that.
Actually, the anoxic environment of the landfill can be very good at preserving newsprint. I think recycling is great, like everyone else, but it is quite an energy hog. Whereas making virgin pulp...
Actually, the anoxic environment of the landfill can be very good at preserving newsprint. I think recycling is great, like everyone else, but it is quite an energy hog. Whereas making virgin pulp burns half the tree (a biofuel) for the energy to turn the other half into paper with little in the way of additional energy needed, paper recycling needs a lot of energy to reprocess and dry pulp into paper.
Meanwhile, we could either burn the paper to recover the remainder of its energy and return the carbon that it held into the atmosphere or bury it, as you suggest.
On the smaller scale, hugelkultur is a fine way to grow a garden in drier climates. You bury wood in trenches, cover it with dirt to form a berm, plant all over the berm, and the wood acts as a...
On the smaller scale, hugelkultur is a fine way to grow a garden in drier climates. You bury wood in trenches, cover it with dirt to form a berm, plant all over the berm, and the wood acts as a sponge over the winter/spring and holds the water into summer meaning less watering.
I can't access the article or the archive version at present, but, as I understand it, the problem with bio-sequestration is throughput. There are around 1.5 teratonnes of anthropogenic CO₂ to...
I can't access the article or the archive version at present, but, as I understand it, the problem with bio-sequestration is throughput. There are around 1.5 teratonnes of anthropogenic CO₂ to remediate, and my understanding of bio-remediation is that it has a top speed of around 5 gigatonnes per year. So, yes, you can use biological methods to decarbonize the atmosphere, but it's going to take 300 years to get there. That might work fine, but if the carbon is causing havoc in the meantime, that's a long time to wait for the remediation to take place.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't; every little bit helps and it is the least expensive form of sequestration. But expecting it to perform the bulk of the decarbonization is asking for a lot of patience. Machines took the carbon out fast. You'll need machines if you want to put the carbon back fast.
I wonder how hard it would be to sequester carbon by burying waste paper instead of recycling it?
Tree farms will keep growing trees, so a large part of the job is taken care of. And unlike with actual recycling, the waste stream doesn't need to be particularly pure.
Ive always wondered this lol
Like, plastic is mostly long carbon chains, so we’re sequestering carbon by producing it since nothing breaks it down.
Of course that doesn’t make any sense, we know that plastic, and our waste in general, is bad for the environment. Its just that viewing the entire climate as carbon centric is such a narrow visual of how it really works.
How about sequestering carbon in our own bodies? Save the environment by getting really fat.
Say no more, fam. I'm on it.
Are you suggesting that my affection for cheeseburgers could be a vehicle for positive change in the world?
It seems like the key is having a better way to sequester it so the carbon doesn't decompose and get out? Looks like paper and cardboard will decompose within months. Worse, apparently in a landfill it will release methane, though perhaps it's not so bad if the landfill gas is burnt.
To sequester carbon you'd want to somehow prevent that.
Actually, the anoxic environment of the landfill can be very good at preserving newsprint. I think recycling is great, like everyone else, but it is quite an energy hog. Whereas making virgin pulp burns half the tree (a biofuel) for the energy to turn the other half into paper with little in the way of additional energy needed, paper recycling needs a lot of energy to reprocess and dry pulp into paper.
Meanwhile, we could either burn the paper to recover the remainder of its energy and return the carbon that it held into the atmosphere or bury it, as you suggest.
On the smaller scale, hugelkultur is a fine way to grow a garden in drier climates. You bury wood in trenches, cover it with dirt to form a berm, plant all over the berm, and the wood acts as a sponge over the winter/spring and holds the water into summer meaning less watering.
Mirror: https://archive.is/vSree
I can't access the article or the archive version at present, but, as I understand it, the problem with bio-sequestration is throughput. There are around 1.5 teratonnes of anthropogenic CO₂ to remediate, and my understanding of bio-remediation is that it has a top speed of around 5 gigatonnes per year. So, yes, you can use biological methods to decarbonize the atmosphere, but it's going to take 300 years to get there. That might work fine, but if the carbon is causing havoc in the meantime, that's a long time to wait for the remediation to take place.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't; every little bit helps and it is the least expensive form of sequestration. But expecting it to perform the bulk of the decarbonization is asking for a lot of patience. Machines took the carbon out fast. You'll need machines if you want to put the carbon back fast.