If every family in the Country grew one Bonsai tree ( would we solve Global warming ? )

[dbonsaiw]

I think the point may have been overlooked here. It wouldn't be about the number of trees, that would be inconsequential. It would be about the awareness and appreciation of nature that "doing" bonsai tends to give one. If that were the case, I think a larger portion of the population would be tuned onto issues like deforestation and invasive species.

You give 8+ billion voracious consumers too much credit.

This issue is way more complicated than "plant a tree" or "don't eat meat". There is a trade off for the global industrialization that makes our lives possible. For example, the way we feed 8+ billion people around the globe necessarily involves genetic tampering, transportation, fertilization, deforestation, fossil fuels etc. It's more of a catch-22 than anything else - we need to grow and destroy in order survive, but if we grow and destroy we will ultimately have issues with survival. I'll contemplate it over my drive to work over a burger.

And, btw, how good electric energy is for the environment is entirely dependent upon the ultimate source of this energy. If it's combustion of fuels, it's just as bad as gas powered cars. And many grids are mostly powered by coal and the like.

 

[Gabler]

I've lately reading a lot about soil carbon sequestration and regenerative agriculture. If true, it's great news. I cannot shake the suspicion that there is a lot of handwaving involved in the science, thought.

The hand-waving in science is a big part of the reason for climate change denial. Growing up in a conservative U.S. household, where Global Warming = Al Gore's Propaganda, it was easy to dismiss the wilder doomsday claims as no different than the claims the world would end in 2012. Add on top of that a number of plausible-sounding alternative explanations for temperature changes, like changes in solar activity, and it was difficult to take global warming alarmists seriously at all.

I've since paid attention to the more moderate predictions from decades past and seen they've approximately come true, so the predictive power of climate change science has convinced me it's valid. Nonetheless, I remain wary of economically and/or politically motivated statements that cite climate change science. Electric cars, for example, are clearly far worse for the environment than conventional internal combustion models, even assuming most of the electricity comes from renewable sources. Producing the lithium ion batteries produces more carbon than a typical commuter would driving a gas-powered car for several years. Not to mention, as far as I'm aware, it's impossible to produce electric cars (not to mention phones and laptops) without slave and/or child labor. Most conventional automobile parts manufacturers are at least paid a pittance for their work, but lithium (and other rare earth metal) mining conditions are barbaric and brutal. Electric cars are far from an ethical choice in transportation.

On that note, if you want a carbon-neutral vehicle, buy an older, pre-emissions-regulation diesel, and run it on used cooking oil. An easier, more accessible option would be to buy biodiesel to fill the tank of a newer vehicle. It's funny that an old diesel pickup truck turns out to be more environmentally friendly than a new Prius. As a caveat, I'm not considering smog in cities. I'm talking net carbon emissions. Smog in densely-populated areas is its own issue, but there's not much reason to be driving a car in a city anyway. That's kind of the whole point of having a city. Everything is in walking/biking distance.

Lastly, lest you think I'm virtue signalling, I drive a small gas-powered pickup truck in the city. Reality is both complex and complicated, and there's innumerable barriers to creating an ideal system.

 

[Sansokuu]

I've lately reading a lot about soil carbon sequestration and regenerative agriculture. If true, it's great news. I cannot shake the suspicion that there is a lot of handwaving involved in the science, thought.

A lot of small farmers and ranchers already practice this type of agriculture. Biodynamic farmers (despite all the woo woo) for example. But they are on such a small scale. It's the largescale industrial practices that need an overhaul, but economically, how? (Not to mention pumping the dirt with chemical fertilizers because it is completely bereft of organic matter otherwise). If you want to look into some really interesting stuff, check out what mycelium is capable of in permaculture (particularly the writings of Paul Stamets, pretty much the god of mushrooms).

 

[Sansokuu]

The hand-waving in science is a big part of the reason for climate change denial.

Which is SO FRUSTRATING because decades ago the world decided together that the hole in the ozone layer was a very big problem. Collectively the world came together and found solutions for that problem. But the difference is the hole in the ozone was a very *specific* problem. Hole. In the ozone layer. And without ozone layer xyz happens. CFCs cause this hole. We will all ban it together.

Global warming/climate change somehow became open to non-scientific interpretation ("see, we had the coldest winter on record! The planet isn't 'warming up'"). And once those myths kept persisting it snowballed out of common sense's and scientist's hands. It's sad to think that when I was in high school I was very much aware of this problem (and any kid taking high school biology) yet 20 years later not much has changed to address the problem.

 

[HorseloverFat]

Until the majority RECOGNIZES a problem, any "forward" steps will be under-executed.

To many (at least in the US).. There IS no problem.

 

[Glaucus]

Humans release 34 billion tonnes each year.

CO2 emissions

How much CO2 does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

We just hit 8 billion people (UN count). So that is 4250 kg of CO2 for each person each year.
The carbon content of CO2 is about 27%, so about 1100 kg.

So that is 1100 kg of carbon atoms. The carbon content of tree matter is 50% water and of the dry matter 50% is carbon atoms. So our 1100 kg or carbon needs to become 4600 kg of tree.

A mature tree can add about 100kg of mass each year.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream...tri_Wcislo_Condit_Nature_2014_nature12914.pdf

So one needs to have 45 mature trees growing per person to sequester back the CO2 from the atmosphere and into solid matter.
Maybe planting 10 times as many young trees would be a good start. Plating about 450 trees for each person would be a good goal.

The problem is the limited amount of space on the planet combined with the fact that we keep burning gas and oil. You cannot really offset CO2 burned when you burn fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate by planting trees.
You can only plant trees once. And where you planted a tree, you cannot grow food, have livestock graze, or build cities or solar panels.

If you plant trees at a density of 1 tree per m2, and you want to plant 450 trees for every person in the US, you need 150 000 square km of space. That is approx. equal to the state of Montana or California.
That's not feasible at all. And remember that once that forest matures, you need to plant a new one. Yeah, you get some build-up in the soil because dead trees decay really slowly.
But you could offset CO2 released by just airline flying, probably. It is a bit greenwashing. But the fact that you pay a company to 'greenwash' your airplane travel is a bit iffy. They are there to make a profit first and foremost.

Best solution would be is to stop cutting down trees. And to stop burning fossil fuels. And to stop farming livestock.

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

We need more algae and diatoms.
Kelp forests and sea grass.
Replant the desert (and keep goat herders and elephants at bay).
Bacteria too.

Smaller organisms work faster than most land plants.

Where did the snow crabs go?

 

[Cajunrider]

We need more algae and diatoms.
Kelp forests and sea grass.
Replant the desert (and keep goat herders and elephants at bay).
Bacteria too.

Smaller organisms work faster than most land plants.

Where did the snow crabs go?

There will be more changes. All living things will have to adapt. We have to find better solutions. Each solution will have to be researched thoroughly and implement properly. For example at the point of use an electric car with a 90+% efficiency engine is definitely better than an internal combustion engine at 50%. However, if the energy supply comes from a fossil fuel power plant running at 39% efficiency and delivering electricity with a 5% transmission loss, we will be losing ground. Right now we don’t have the right power plants, the electric grid for a total conversion to electric cars. I am hoping for a more thoughtful plan of implementing.

 

[Gabler]

Global warming/climate change somehow became open to non-scientific interpretation ("see, we had the coldest winter on record! The planet isn't 'warming up'"). And once those myths kept persisting it snowballed out of common sense's and scientist's hands.

As soon as it turned into a partisan political issue, any hope of prompt, decisive action died. Turning Al Gore into a spokesman for the issue didn't help, and conservatives tend to live in rural, car-dependent areas, so targeting their only available mode of transportation didn't win any sympathy. Tribalism kicked in, and any inference to climate change came across as a direct, personal assault. When people are wrong, it's important to meet them where they are and help them learn at their own pace. If you try to pull them along too fast, they'll dig their heels in, and you'll make no progress at all.

 

[sorce]

Biochar

Sorce