Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it’s injected into deep geological structures it doesn’t stay underground.
Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it’s injected into deep geological structures it doesn’t stay underground.
Roots rot too. Otherwise the ground underneath forests would have hundreds of meters of accumulated root mass built up over the millennia.
No, by this logic one just needs to take into account how long is required before you consider something “sequestration.” Ocean sediment, for example, stays down there for hundreds of millions of years before subduction and vulcanism might bring the carbon back up. So it’s not permanent but it’s certainly permanent enough.
Trees last for a couple of decades. And once a forest is established they turn over continuously, so the forest as a whole emits as much carbon as it takes in. As we see here with the boreal forests in the article, the carbon comes back out into the atmosphere quite easily. I personally wouldn’t consider it a very good “sequestration” method.
If you really want to use trees for carbon sequestration, a good approach might be setting up big tree farms and then sinking the harvested wood into anoxic lakes. That’d take the carbon out of circulation for a long enough time that future generations can figure out what to do with it afterward.
Forests in general shouldn’t be seen as a way to “sequester” carbon, trees are just temporary storage for it. They’re nice to have, of course, and serve many benefits. But not that one.
A surprise, to be sure. But a welcome one.
Russia kidnapped a ton of Ukrainian children and distributed them throughout Russia. So Ukraine needs to occupy that territory to protect the Ukrainians living there, clearly.
The Ukrainians are busy sinking ships in the Black Sea, I’d rather let them focus on that. So I’d rather see Putin send his stuff off to a remote theatre and then have it destroyed by others out there.
Could it perhaps be that online communities are in bubbles that focus primarily on his failures and downvote into oblivion any mention of successes he might have had?
…
No, it must be the money that’s wrong.