We are still screwed: the coming climate disaster

Well, I think it’d be naive to think that we could just do this and then keep burning as much dinosaur blood as we want forever. But it could still be a useful process.

What you’d really want would be for the magnesite being useful for stuff. I have no idea if anyone uses that for something.

The solution is retro.

Scale trees.

Trees are a temporary solution. They do in fact suck up a fair amount of CO2, but they release all of it back into the air as they decompose. So your forest is a CO2 sink for a decade or two, after which time you’d see just as much getting release back out as is absorbed, possibly with an occasional large-scale fire event that sets you back to zero net gain.

I thought the idea with biomass was grow trees, make charcoal from them, bury the charcoal.

Scale trees

Just for context, Scale Trees are an extinct early plant that formed the coal beds we use today, dropping the CO2 concentration from 850ppm to like 200ppm. They were not woody plants and are simpler, stranger things that grew fast but apparently lived before a time that fungi evolved to decompose lignin. You’re probably better off looking at lignin storage in one form or another since the sun and plant are carbon free sources of “work” here.

That said, Australia is greening up pretty well.

Part of it depends on the trees. A big problem with increasing CO2 levels is that it causes trees to grow faster than they used to… but that means that they’re less dense, which means they’re weaker, which means they die faster.

But at the same time, when things die, they don’t just release everything back into the environment. I mean, all that coal and oil we’re burning is dead stuff from millions of years ago.

It all comes back around, man.

You bury all those trees and they become oil that is pumped out of the ground and burned by the cockroach-men some fifty million years hence. All you’ve done is postpone the problem.

Can we pile the carbon-trapping magnesite on top of the nuclear waste, and kill two birds with one stone?

Just fucking absurd.

I completely disagree with but at least understand not prioritizing the environment for certain groups. What I can’t understand are the anti-environment people, like the “Rolling Coal” twats. I know it’s likely an offshoot of “owning the libs” but for fuck sake people. You want to drink toxic water and poison the air to piss off the liberals? And how in the hell is “hey lets not poison our water and air” a liberal issue for voters?

I’m about ready for a giant reset button on this whole humanity thing.

Yeah, not to mention that many Republicans enjoy hunting yet are unable to connect the dots between “shitty environment = no game to hunt”.

Money >>> safe world to live in for the GOP.

I keep waiting for the aliens to arrive. :/

Joe Rogan Tweeted and article about how a Southern Border wall would fuck up migrations and habitats of a bunch of animals and people called him a liberal cuck for it.

Being a hunter who wants to be able to hunt means you’re a communist.

Yeah, I find it stupid that anyone into outdoor activities or hunting could support this administration. They are busy selling of public land (for hiking, camping, possibly hunting), and lowering environmental standards to further weaken our lake and stream ecology.

I think you will see some defections happening in some rural areas as more conservation minded candidates end up running for office. Hunting isn’t a republican thing, it is an American thing. The NRA can fear-monger with “they took mah gunz” but hunters would know that sporting rifles and shotguns are not being targeted by gun control laws, and maybe being a single issue voter about gun control isn’t what is best for their interest and hobbies anymore.

Well, it’s not an accident that the worst environmental situations are found in poor and middle-class communities. The average Texas oil billionaire has plenty of nice clean woodland and range on which to do his hunting, and he can always buy more in Wyoming or Montana or Colorado.

There’s long been an observation that the NRA and the Sierra Club are actually natural allies in a number of environmental topics, and it’s really just culture wars that would separate them.

Well, I mean, that was true in the 80’s, when the NRA was actually about representing gun owners rather than being a Russian money laundering operation / death-cult.

Look, just because the NRA had a Russian informant working with the upper levels of its members doesn’t mean…

I don’t got anything.

This should never have slipped by un-liked somehow.

This is making me want to vote for De Leon in November.

Maybe i should have bought solar since the price of electricity is likely to go thru the roof now.