←back to thread

173 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
hcarvalhoalves ◴[] No.42129217[source]
A garden actually isn't that great, it has limited CO2 storage capacity once it's in balance.

Productive land, specially timber, is a good way of capturing CO2, because it will end up stored in products.

We tend to naively think we should reforest land and leave it there, and it can be good for other reasons, but is a poor strategy for carbon capture. We need to _aggressively_ go back to using timber and vegetable fibers as construction material, instead of concrete and steel that have an enormous carbon footprint.

replies(1): >>42129780 #
bitwize ◴[] No.42129780[source]
As someone New Orleans-adjacent, I totally support this and think timber use would be even better if we perfected techniques for strengthening wood through high pressure at construction scale.

I for one would love to see wooden skyscrapers with the aesthetic of the movie Her that are as strong as their concrete-and-steel equivalents.

replies(1): >>42144090 #