Agroforestry
Here’s an article on decarbonizing our atmosphere.
The author has identified the central issue here, i.e., it’s all about cost. There are lots of things we can do to reduce the carbon footprint of the energy we generate and consume, if we don’t care what it costs. And in some cases, devices are proposed that will actually make the situation worse, as they have their own carbon footprints, like large fans blowing across substances that absorb CO2 (which constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere).
From the article:
Agroforestry is essentially a forest-mimicking agriculture that involves growing trees, shrubs and vegetables in tight assemblages. It is an ancient technology created by indigenous peoples and popularized in recent decades by newer landowners. Although it’s difficult to pin down how much of the world’s agricultural land contains tree cover, figures range from 100 million hectares to as much as 1 billion hectares, which lock up an estimated 0.75 gigatons of carbon per year. By comparison, there were 32.5 gigatons of global carbon emissions in 2017.
Want too see a great concept in planting trees? Check this out.
It might not be able to completely save the planet, but it will definitely help a lot. If we could get each person to plant 10, It would be perfect to slow down our carbon emissions.
Susan,
Trees needs lots of space, water and nutrient. Trees also need not to grow in stressful environments or they not only don’t breathe of oxygen but if stressed give off CO2,
Trees don’t grow well in a mono-culture and can present a fire risk near human habitation.
Interestingly, different trees have evolved to adapt to different conditions and climates, the same species may exhibit a totally different appearance, fruit, and behaviour when grown in different locations.
I’m afraid it just isn’t as simple as each person planting 10.
Craig,
I’m afraid your description of Agro-forestry sounds like the sort of thing an urban based, alternate life style, eco-enthusiast conceives and expounds to equally clueless fellow students.
Throw in some mumbo-jumbo about mythological “ancient indigenous” cultures and you’re all set to become a modern day ‘Johnny Appleseed’ !
Except the whole notion is as practical as the original ‘Johnny Appleseed’.
While trees under certain conditions do absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere, it’s not a simple or even reliable process. The dynamics involved if practiced on a scale that would result in any discernible positive results are very complex and certainly not achievable by such idealistically naive schemes.
On the other hand, your arrogant dismissal of mechanized atmospheric carbon removal and conversion into fuels baffles me.
The first time you raised this technology, you dismissed the technology as fraudulent and non-existent. Additionally, you claimed the scientists behind the technology were dishonest and operating a scam.
When challenged with irrefutable evidence of the impeccable reputations of the scientists and people behind the technology, along with the physical evidence of several existing large scale working prototypes, you now claim :
” devices that will actually make the situation worse, as they have their own carbon footprints, like large fans blowing across substances that absorb CO2 (which constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere).”
Again, you make these claims based on what evidence ?
In reality, the best of these projects can synthesize fuel from the atmosphere at $88 per ton, (with no mysterious “carbon footprint”).
The resulting fuel is still expensive, but approaching the price at which synthetic fuels can be produced for a commercially competitive $1 per litre, or less.
The technology is very new and immature, but shows a great deal of promise. The plant in Switzerland has recently been modified to accept newly components which show promise of producing fuel at under 60 cents per litre.
The advantage of such technology is it can be measured, is practical and the results can independently verified.
So, your opposition to this technology would appear to more in the spirit of a “luddite”, than a person of science.
I eagerly await you justifying your claim;
” devices that will actually make the situation worse, as they have their own carbon footprints, like large fans blowing across substances that absorb CO2 (which constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere).”
…..although I realize no such justification will be forthcoming, because such justification doesn’t exist and you find it impossible to admit error. (a terrible flaw in a man of science).