←back to thread

173 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
bitwize ◴[] No.42127852[source]
My wife actually has established a cheap, energy-efficient facility for converting CO2 into useful materials right in our yard.

She planted a garden.

I was thinking about that the other day, how our beautiful trees, flowers, and bushes draw a few minerals from the soil, but are really mainly knitted together from the components of water and CO2.

Yes, yes, I know, planting more trees won't do much about the greenhouse gas problem at scale, but the only thing that will are the three P's: powerdown, permaculture, population control. I do not expect industry to solve the problem industry created in a way that doesn't create more problems.

replies(3): >>42128001 #>>42128061 #>>42129217 #
zelphirkalt ◴[] No.42128001[source]
> Yes, yes, I know, planting more trees won't do much about the greenhouse gas problem at scale, but the only thing that will are the three P's: powerdown, permaculture, population control. I do not expect industry to solve the problem industry created in a way that doesn't create more problems.

But I am always wondering: Couldn't we have planted forests, from which we take the grown trees and put them back down under the earth, in some old mining facilities or dig some tunnels that lead deep down and put that stuff there? Or perhaps build lots of long term use furniture from the trees? Anything, except burning them or letting them rod? Then we would use nature's mechanism for capturing and prevent releasing, by putting it deep down, or making meaningful long term use of it.

And couldn't this be done on a bigger scale as well?

replies(3): >>42128247 #>>42128413 #>>42128453 #
1. nostromo ◴[] No.42128453[source]
Yes, you could grow and bury trees to reverse the carbon cycle. Even just leaving the trees standing is a pretty good carbon sink.

Housing is also a great carbon sink as the wood used in construction is protected from rotting.