Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Okay, haven't started a topic in a long time. Anyways. Some of you may know that I plan to run as a politician one day soon, and a potential sponsor told me that they'd like to see my entire platform first. Which I then realized my platform was rather limited to things I cared a lot about like education, and failed to include many larger things like foreign policy(even though I wouldn't be involved in it) and, you guessed it, global warming. So, for the most part, my policies revolve around solutions to problems, so naturally, I want this position to be no different. However, I also don't want to lie in my position so I want to get this position peer-reviewed with you guys. My position is that there is a cheap, effective, environmentally safe solution to global warming the government could execute. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101001105205.htm Basically, we could invest around $1,000,000,000(less than 1/500 the military budget) into genetically engineering algae, trees, etc, to be much more effective at reducing greenhouse gases. As of today, I don't think we have the technology, however, I also believe it is rapidly approaching. So, once the technology is there in say 5-10 years, the government could invest in research and development to genetically engineer these plants and then deploy them to the optimal locations to stop global warming. Is this solution feasible from a scientific standpoint, and is this solution feasible from a political standpoint?
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 I am not an econmist, nor a research scientist, but you seem to have things at least partially bass ackwards. You plan to have the govt. invest in R&D to genetically engineer these plants after the "technology is there". Just make sure, when you run, no one ever realises you posted such a careless thought*. *I say careless, because I could spin a response, on your behalf, that would make you look insightful and me like a pedantic fool. But do you really want to rely on spindoctors. (Note that the alternative to careless writing, which betokens careless thinking, is that you are just not very bright. I recommend you go for the careless option.)
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Area54 said: I am not an econmist, nor a research scientist, but you seem to have things at least partially bass ackwards. You plan to have the govt. invest in R&D to genetically engineer these plants after the "technology is there". 2 Think of it like rockets or something. The technology to fly rockets already had to be there. The basic concepts, etc. You still have to invest in research and development to build a new rocket though. Same with genetic engineering. As of now, our skills with genetic engineering are less than perfect. But once the technology gets better and we're able to modify plants easier, we can then spend some money to design a plant that will effectively help stop global warming. Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 That is about the spin I would have put on it, though my version would have been more elegant. What that means is that your OP had these characteristics: Lacked in clarity Incomplete Ambiguous Moreover you failed to recognise that the investment would best be made now to take genetic engineering rapidly to the point where your "grand vision" can be implemented. I doubt you have any idea, to the nearest 100 billion, how much this program would actually take. Your $1 billion is laughable for the full program. It might cover GE development, but planning, modelling, implementing, monitoring, etc. would be vastly greater. You've indicated that may run for political office one day. I'm serving you notice that henceforth I shall attack vigorously and often brutally each of your posts that lack coherence, concision, clarity or intent. We have enough bumbleheads in politics already. We don't need one more.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Area54 said: That is about the spin I would have put on it, though my version would have been more elegant. What that means is that your OP had these characteristics: Lacked in clarity Incomplete Ambiguous Fair enough. 4 minutes ago, Area54 said: Moreover you failed to recognise that the investment would best be made now to take genetic engineering rapidly to the point where your "grand vision" can be implemented. 2 I'm 15. I can't make the investment "now". I'm not in an office, and won't be able to run for at least 6 years, which would be the soonest I could push any kind of agenda like this. Additionally, I'd be in a state legislative position, not a federal one, so this is a placeholder at best to say what my position on global warming is. 6 minutes ago, Area54 said: I doubt you have any idea, to the nearest 100 billion, how much this program would actually take. I don't. I won't pretend I do. That being said, I'd rather start somewhere than nowhere, and as of now this idea beats trying to simply slow down global warming. And for some reason, I highly doubt it'll cost anywhere near 100 billion to figure out how to genetically engineer plants. 8 minutes ago, Area54 said: It might cover GE development, Hence why I said this: Basically, we could invest around $1,000,000,000(less than 1/500 the military budget) into genetically engineering algae, trees, etc, to be much more effective at reducing greenhouse gases. The $1,000,000,000 was intended for genetically engineering the plants, I'm sorry for my bumble head mistake of not pointing out this doesn't include deployment. I figured deployment, due to a large number of different plants, would be impossible to estimate. I.E. genetically engineered trees would be more expensive than genetically engineered saltwater algae to deploy. 9 minutes ago, Area54 said: You've indicated that may run for political office one day. I'm serving you notice that henceforth I shall attack vigorously and often brutally each of your posts that lack coherence, concision, clarity or intent. We have enough bumbleheads in politics already. We don't need one more. 1 Notice taken. 50 minutes ago, Area54 said: But do you really want to rely on spindoctors. (Note that the alternative to careless writing, which betokens careless thinking, is that you are just not very bright. I recommend you go for the careless option.) 2 I'm certain if I tried I could put my own spindoctor spin on it as well. That's not the point. I wasn't here to try and convince anyone of anything. I was here asking if this is possible and if it would be feasible. The fact it's not convincing, or that it seems like careless thinking, doesn't really bother me. If anything, it'll give me a more objective opinion. Better yet, someone will either confirm the research that I've already done or point out where there was something I missed.
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 I'll respond to your entire post, rather than item by item. I was aware of your youth. I'm betting on you being able to take the criticism I shall direct your way. You can't make the investment now! So what? Politicians in office are managers. Managers don't do anything. They cause things to be done. You don't need to make the investment now, you need to argue the case for making the investment now. It doesn't matter who you argue it with, you are practicing the argument. You need to learn to read what people write. I carefully phrased my statement thus " 44 minutes ago, Area54 said: Your $1 billion is laughable for the full program. It might cover GE development, but planning, modelling, implementing, monitoring, etc. would be vastly greater. Right there, in the second sentence, I agreed that your $1 billion might get the genetic engineering done. But the full program including modellling, etc would take vastly more. Yes, I know it is a politician's trick to answer the question that they want to answer, not the one that was asked. Do you want to distinguish yourself from rank and file politcos? Then listen to what people actually ask or state, then answer, or address that. If you can't estimate the cost then you don't have a plan, you don't have a vision, you don't have a dream. You have a brain fart and they stink worse than the other kind.
Ken Fabian Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Raider - Interesting but not world changing. I think that reducing emissions by displacing high emissions energy with low emissions alternatives must remain as the primary approach and, given that more new generation of electricity is now solar and wind than coal or gas, with storage technologies improving fast, that side of things is progressing better than a pessimist like myself expected. Those alone will not be enough but they are foundations that can be built on. Forestry, even genetically modified and at large scale, may complement other efforts but is not going to replace emissions reductions - even if we start with confidence that it will be cost effective, have no serious negative consequences, are grown under arrangements that can be relied on to last multi-generations and can be shown to divert carbon into sinks that are effectively permanent. Given we are unlikely to see much agricultural land diverted to forestry doing enough to lock carbon to equal what was released by centuries of forest clearing (to make that agricultural land) would be a remarkable achievement, let alone deal with all the fossil fuel burning as well. Biofuels like farmed algae might become a low emissions alternative to some fossil fuels but widespread sowing of oceans and other bodies of water with competitive new species designed to divert carbon compounds from the food chain is going to raise legitimate concerns and objections. 1
swansont Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 10 hours ago, Area54 said: I am not an econmist, nor a research scientist, but you seem to have things at least partially bass ackwards. You plan to have the govt. invest in R&D to genetically engineer these plants after the "technology is there". Um, no. There are opportunities to push the technology forward that could be helped by the government, to get it to the point where it could be deployed. The government does this all the time; they have sorting categories for the kind of research one is doing. Basic research (6.1), often going to universities, applied research (6.2), advanced technology development (6.3), demonstration and validation (6.4) (and beyond) Investing "after the technology" is there would be 6.3/6.4 funding. Investing to get the technology to that point would be 6.1 and/or 6.2. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1194/MR1194.appb.pdf
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, swansont said: Um, no. Um, yes. 4 minutes ago, swansont said: There are opportunities to push the technology forward that could be helped by the government, to get it to the point where it could be deployed. Precisely the point I was making. Raider was ignoring this facet of funding completely, as he implicitly acknowledged in his repsonse. He was only proposing funding after the technology was developed, not as well as. Thus I described his approach as partially bass ackward, not fully bass ackward. Raider had no difficulty correctly discerning my meaning. If you explain why you didn't I can avoid such ambiguity in future.
swansont Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 57 minutes ago, Area54 said: Um, yes. Precisely the point I was making. Raider was ignoring this facet of funding completely, as he implicitly acknowledged in his repsonse. He was only proposing funding after the technology was developed, not as well as. Thus I described his approach as partially bass ackward, not fully bass ackward. Raider had no difficulty correctly discerning my meaning. If you explain why you didn't I can avoid such ambiguity in future. My apologies. I misread the "you plan" (thinking it was the course of action that you want, rather than referring to Raider's statement) You are indeed correct in your assessment.
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, swansont said: My apologies. I misread the "you plan" (thinking it was the course of action that you want, rather than referring to Raider's statement) You are indeed correct in your assessment. No problems. Back on OP my main concern with his outline plan is that he has no concept of what implementing it would involve. Ken Fabian has pointed out some of the many problems that could be created by such a scheme. My mention of the costs of planning and modelling related, in part, to the cost of anticipating those problems and determining a work around, or corrective action, (or large payment to compensate those whose local ecology gets well and truly screwed.) Raider, global warming is a complex issue and it is rare that complex issues have simple solutions. The Gordian Knot approach rarely works outside of myth. Your proposal is one that is worthy of consideration, but I suggest it won't cut the mustard on a political platform. Keep thinking, but try harder at attacking your own ideas.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: Raider - Interesting but not world changing. I think that reducing emissions by displacing high emissions energy with low emissions alternatives must remain as the primary approach and, given that more new generation of electricity is now solar and wind than coal or gas, with storage technologies improving fast, that side of things is progressing better than a pessimist like myself expected. Those alone will not be enough but they are foundations that can be built on. 1 I never said to stop reducing emissions are anything, and I didn't mean to imply to. Ultimately, however, global warming does need to be reversed from what I've been told. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today it could be too late because of a snowball effect. Reducing emissions in that scenario wouldn't be enough. 9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: Forestry, even genetically modified and at large scale, may complement other efforts but is not going to replace emissions reductions - even if we start with confidence that it will be cost effective, have no serious negative consequences, are grown under arrangements that can be relied on to last multi-generations and can be shown to divert carbon into sinks that are effectively permanent. Given we are unlikely to see much agricultural land diverted to forestry doing enough to lock carbon to equal what was released by centuries of forest clearing (to make that agricultural land) would be a remarkable achievement, let alone deal with all the fossil fuel burning as well. Biofuels like farmed algae might become a low emissions alternative to some fossil fuels but widespread sowing of oceans and other bodies of water with competitive new species designed to divert carbon compounds from the food chain is going to raise legitimate concerns and objections. 1 Fair enough. However, GE bacteria are still another possible solution unless I'm wrong. 1 hour ago, Area54 said: No problems. Back on OP my main concern with his outline plan is that he has no concept of what implementing it would involve. Well, I came here to ask if it was possible, not outline some grand vision plan, and at the moment you just said I didn't have a plan yet. Ken Fabian, however, has given me great feedback on possible problems so all is good. 1 hour ago, Area54 said: My mention of the costs of planning and modelling related, in part, to the cost of anticipating those problems and determining a work around, or corrective action, (or large payment to compensate those whose local ecology gets well and truly screwed.) Well, I'd prefer to ask around and make sure it's possible before I start building a giant plan around something that doesn't work, but if you insist you have to count your chickens before the eggs are laid, then fine, you do you. I will, however, simply fact check my stuff first. Sorry to be such a disappointment. 1 hour ago, Area54 said: Raider, global warming is a complex issue and it is rare that complex issues have simple solutions. The Gordian Knot approach rarely works outside of myth. Your proposal is one that is worthy of consideration, but I suggest it won't cut the mustard on a political platform. Keep thinking, but try harder at attacking your own ideas. As of now, the current solution is to lower carbon emissions. Unless I'm wrong, that's an extremely simple solution. Well, more of a delaying tactic. Whether it cuts on a political platform or not, to me, depends on if it could genuinely help global warming. Not if it sounds "complex" or "simple." I understand that we shouldn't just abandon all the current precautions we're taking, like lowering carbon emissions, but surely it's not going to harm the problem to look into reversing it as well. 1 hour ago, Area54 said: but I suggest it won't cut the mustard on a political platform. The current president simply denies global warming as propaganda. I suggest you rethink what will/won't cut the mustard on a political platform. 2 hours ago, Area54 said: Thus I described his approach as partially bass ackward, not fully bass ackward. 2 My approach, is bass ackward(backwards?) simply because I want to ask if a potential solution is scientifically accurate before launching a campaign including it? Are you serious? Are you seriously trying to tell me, that making sure I'm not talking nonsense first, is backward? One of my biggest problems with politics these days are people convincing people of false things. If this was on my platform, I would actively be trying to convince people that this is a method we should look into. You're telling me, that rather than confirming my hypothesis that GE plants and bacteria could help curb global warming in the future, I should just ignore confirming my opinions and just start telling people it's true? If you have a problem with this so much, then fine. However, do realize I am not going to change how I do things unless you have a criticism that will genuinely help people for the better if I do it. Believing every idea I have to be automatically true without fact-checking, is not going to help people. 9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: widespread sowing of oceans and other bodies of water with competitive new species Yeah, I forgot about that part. Balancing the ecosystem would be necessary. As far as I know, we don't have enough knowledge about the ocean to safely introduce anything, algae/bacteria alike, and know if it would have any drastic consequences, so I'll probably have to abandon that idea in the current way I'm looking at it. What about grass though? When grass dies or is cut, the carbon is released back into the air. GE grass could be engineered to push more carbon to its roots instead. The spread of it would be simple, you'd just sell it as grass seed, and make it possible the new grass would out-compete against the current grass, replacing it. You could also potentially have it a two-step system. Spray all the current grass with a special solution to weaken it, and then plant the GE grass that would then be able to easily replace the current grass. Potentially engineering the grass to have wider blades as well could allow it to draw more carbon as well. Plus, people typically want thicker grass as well so it wouldn't be ugly looking. Unless it was blue or something, but due to how photosynthesis works, I doubt that. 2 hours ago, Area54 said: Precisely the point I was making. Raider was ignoring this facet of funding completely, as he implicitly acknowledged in his repsonse. He was only proposing funding after the technology was developed, not as well as. Thus I described his approach as partially bass ackward, not fully bass ackward. 3 No, I'm suggesting the technology will already be there by the time I take office. Additionally, as I said before, I'm trying to, more then anything, figure out if it's a reasonable/possible solution first. 11 hours ago, Area54 said: Right there, in the second sentence, I agreed that your $1 billion might get the genetic engineering done. But the full program including modellling, etc would take vastly more. Yes, I know it is a politician's trick to answer the question that they want to answer, not the one that was asked. Do you want to distinguish yourself from rank and file politcos? Then listen to what people actually ask or state, then answer, or address that. There seems to be a misunderstanding. I wasn't avoiding the question of it that would be enough to cover it. I was pointing out, that in my OP, I had only stated that the money was for research and that I had never intended for it to cover the full program. You were criticising a position I wasn't defending, and I was pointing that out. As of now, you're the rank and file politico, since you apparently want me to push my positions before fact-checking them. 11 hours ago, Area54 said: You can't make the investment now! So what? Politicians in office are managers. Managers don't do anything. They cause things to be done. You don't need to make the investment now, you need to argue the case for making the investment now. It doesn't matter who you argue it with, you are practicing the argument. Again, regardless of how terrible of an idea you think it is, I will fact check it first. 11 hours ago, Area54 said: If you can't estimate the cost then you don't have a plan, you don't have a vision, you don't have a dream. You have a brain fart and they stink worse than the other kind. Before you estimate the cost, you have to have the plan. Before you have the plan, you have to have the concept. Before you have the concept ready, you have to fact check it. I'm sorry for not skipping the fact-checking, planning, and making sure the concept is real before trying to throw estimates out I couldn't possibly have any idea about. Wait. No I'm not. 11 hours ago, Area54 said: I was aware of your youth. I'm betting on you being able to take the criticism I shall direct your way. I can take it, yes. And I'm not against changing how I am based on criticism. That being said, I'm not going to change based on your criticism that I must have a plan to execute something before making sure it's possible. 11 hours ago, Area54 said: Politicians in office are managers. Managers don't do anything. They cause things to be done. Actually, they propose and vote on legislation. That's hardly what a manager does. There are similarities, but not enough IMO to simply say they're basically the same. Please do keep criticizing my posts, however. I do enjoy this, and it will help me make sure I'm not talking BS half the time. But don't get offended if I respond in kind. Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: GE grass could be engineered to push more carbon to its roots instead. The spread of it would be simple, you'd just sell it as grass seed, and make it possible the new grass would out-compete against the current grass, replacing it. You could also potentially have it a two-step system. Spray all the current grass with a special solution to weaken it, and then plant the GE grass that would then be able to easily replace the current grass. Potentially engineering the grass to have wider blades as well could allow it to draw more carbon as well. Plus, people typically want thicker grass as well so it wouldn't be ugly looking. Unless it was blue or something, but due to how photosynthesis works, I doubt that. This typifies where I think you are going wrong. Here are some of the questions you should have asked, but didn't. Given that this approach targets people's lawns and recreational areas such as playing fields and parks, what proportion of the planets surface is covered by such? The increase in root dimensions is a one time return. Roughly how much additional CO2 could be absorbed per acre? As a ball park figure how much impact is this likely to have on atmospheric CO2? To what extent are ecosystems adapted to existing grasses dependent on the character of those grasses? Would they be equally vibrant with the GE grass? If not, what would the larger impact of loss of vibrancy be? Would wider blades restrict access to sunlight for a proportion of blades and thus reduce, perhaps eliminate, the benefit of the wider blades? Since wider blades give us a one time only carbon fix how does the cost of implementation stack up against the benefit? I am not saying you require to have the answers to those questions now, but you should be in a position to state, here is what we need to know, this is how we are going to find it out and thse are the decision nodes that will determine how, or if we implement. Ask any poultrerer, if they wish to remain in business they need to have a fair idea of how many chickens their hens will produce in a week, a month, a year. You might want to spend a day or two studying the structure of a business plan. It would be readily adaptable for the sort of mega-project you envisage here.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: Given that this approach targets people's lawns and recreational areas such as playing fields and parks, what proportion of the planets surface is covered by such? 1 1. Around 35 million acres of land for U.S. lawns alone. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: The increase in root dimensions is a one time return. Roughly how much additional CO2 could be absorbed per acre? Considering I haven't been able to invest in research into making the plant, how could I possibly know this? How I answer this question is very simple: I don't know, I couldn't know, and this is why we'd research it before making the proposal. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: As a ball park figure how much impact is this likely to have on atmospheric CO2? 1 1 acre absorbs around 4kg of Co2 per day. 35 million acres, at let's give a ballpark figure of double efficiency, would be around 280,000 tons of co2 every day. You can safely assume that's an additional amount of Co2, because every time we cut the grass, virtually all the co2 automatically releases back into the atmosphere as of now. The GE grass would push it into the soil. The U.S. released 6.8 billion metric tons, so this would take away around 102 million metric tons or a decrease by 1.5%. Say you could increase the carbon efficiency by 400%, you'd take away around 204 million metric tons or a decrease by 3%. As of now, we've successfully engineered plants to do it 10 times more effectively:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/29/harvard-scientist-engineers-a-superbug-that-inhales-co2-produces-energy/#692d0d6a7944 and making fuel out of it as well. So grass doing it 1000% more efficient, with the technology we have today, could remove 510 million metric tons a year or a decrease of 7.5% for the U.S. alone. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: To what extent are ecosystems adapted to existing grasses dependent on the character of those grasses? Would they be equally vibrant with the GE grass? Again, I couldn't possibly know, and as stated before you'd have to invest in research to see what the differences are with the GE grass. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: If not, what would the larger impact of loss of vibrancy be? 1 Again, couldn't possibly know. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: Would wider blades restrict access to sunlight for a proportion of blades and thus reduce, perhaps eliminate, the benefit of the wider blades? 1 Look above. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: Since wider blades give us a one time only carbon fix how does the cost of implementation stack up against the benefit? It wouldn't be a one time fix. Every time we cut the grass, the benefit would be additional. We could also GE the grass to grow slower, which would reduce carbon emissions from cutting it, which is around 20,000,000 tons a year, which could be cut in half to about 10 million a year if you made it grow half as fast. Obviously, you wouldn't want to do this on farms where cows graze, but then you also don't cut the grass there so it's moot. 25 minutes ago, Area54 said: Ask any poultrerer, if they wish to remain in business they need to have a fair idea of how many chickens their hens will produce in a week, a month, a year. You might want to spend a day or two studying the structure of a business plan. It would be readily adaptable for the sort of mega-project you envisage here. Ask any poulterer, you should also make sure you're getting an animal that can actually lay eggs first. Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: It wouldn't be a one time fix. Every time we cut the grass, the benefit would be additional. Patient Area54, be patient. What do you think happens to the carbon in cut grass? You don't need to answer that here. Just be sure you have the right answer, then amend your plan accordingly.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Area54 said: Patient Area54, be patient. What do you think happens to the carbon in cut grass? You don't need to answer that here. Just be sure you have the right answer, then amend your plan accordingly. When we cut the grass, it decays. It then releases all the carbon it collected back into the atmosphere, negating the effect. GE grass would move the carbon towards it roots, where it will not be released back into the atmosphere everytime it is cut. What do you think happens to the carbon in cut grass? Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Just now, Raider5678 said: When we cut the grass, it decays. It then releases all the carbon it collected back into the atmosphere. GE grass would move the carbon towards it roots, where it will not be released back into the atmosphere everytime it is cut. Keep being patient Area54. Which means that you only get a one time hit from moving carbon to the roots. The roots do not grow at the same pace or extent as the grass blades. There is a "saturation point" of root density. The only way to achieve your goal of "moving it to the roots" is to breed grass that digs deeper roots,but these will achieve a saturation point also, and your one time hit is over.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Area54 said: Keep being patient Area54. Which means that you only get a one time hit from moving carbon to the roots. The roots do not grow at the same pace or extent as the grass blades. There is a "saturation point" of root density. The only way to achieve your goal of "moving it to the roots" is to breed grass that digs deeper roots,but these will achieve a saturation point also, and your one time hit is over. You should google soil carbon sequestration, which is something grass already does, just not much. Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
Area54 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: You should google soil carbon sequestration, which is something grass already does, just not much. Oh dear me. It's like a Gish Gallop. Raider, it's still a one time hit. And your original argument was for more roots to store the carbon, not a root system that would enhance soil sequestration. When you can concede you didn't think this through I may re-engage. Until then, thank you.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Area54 said: Oh dear me. It's like a Gish Gallop. Raider, it's still a one time hit. And your original argument was for more roots to store the carbon, not a root system that would enhance soil sequestration. When you can concede you didn't think this through I may re-engage. Until then, thank you. The main point I was making is that not as much carbon would be released from cutting the grass. I wasn't trying to convey where the carbon would go once it got to the roots. Simply stating it was headed to the roots was sufficient for that point. I still have no idea whether you're criticizing the idea, or if you're criticizing me fact-checking it. 8 minutes ago, Area54 said: it's still a one time hit. No, it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration More like a filter. Eventually, it will fill up and it'll stop, yes. After centuries. Hardly a one time hit. 8 minutes ago, Area54 said: When you can concede you didn't think this through I may re-engage. I thought about it, researched the basics behind it, looked up the concepts/current attempts at doing it, decided that it was a potential solution in the future, and asked you guys to fact check what I'd already looked up. You criticized me for wanting to fact check it before building an entire plan around it. I know, it's not of the norm to ask people to fact check you before digging yourself in and refusing to accept you might be wrong, but big deal. 10 minutes ago, Area54 said: Oh dear me. It's like a Gish Gallop. You provided 7 points, I answered them all, and you're accusing me of doing Gish Galloping? I don't follow. Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
rangerx Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Yes. A healthy forest is carbon neutral. It contains trees of all ages, including mixed species which compensate for interruptions in natural cycles. Planting any single species en-mass is little more than mono-culture and we all know how unruly that gets. The simple(r) solution is to stop digging sequestered carbon from the earth then burning it. Also ceasing clear cutting ancient forests. We need to move toward hydro-electric, solar and nuclear power generation. Also manufacture products with greater efficiencies. Put the money there (or not at all, with proper legislation), not on costly, ineffective after-the-fact issues to maintain the status quo, as the OP would have it. 10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: Forestry, even genetically modified and at large scale, may complement other efforts but is not going to replace emissions reductions - even if we start with confidence that it will be cost effective, have no serious negative consequences, are grown under arrangements that can be relied on to last multi-generations and can be shown to divert carbon into sinks that are effectively permanent. Given we are unlikely to see much agricultural land diverted to forestry doing enough to lock carbon to equal what was released by centuries of forest clearing (to make that agricultural land) would be a remarkable achievement, let alone deal with all the fossil fuel burning as well. Biofuels like farmed algae might become a low emissions alternative to some fossil fuels but widespread sowing of oceans and other bodies of water with competitive new species designed to divert carbon compounds from the food chain is going to raise legitimate concerns and objections.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, rangerx said: Put the money there (or not at all, with proper legislation), not on costly, ineffective after-the-fact issues to maintain the status quo, as the OP would have it. Can you point out why this would be without a shadow of a doubt more costly, more ineffective, then the current solutions we are trying to do? 2 minutes ago, rangerx said: We need to move toward hydro-electric, solar and nuclear power generation. Also manufacture products with greater efficiencies. This will reduce it, but many scientists think reducing is no longer enough because we've gone past the tipping point. So a reversal of some sort is almost a must. 3 minutes ago, rangerx said: Planting any single species en-mass is little more than mono-culture and we all know how unruly that gets. 1 I feel like it's a lot more then monoculture if it's designed to be like that. Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678
rangerx Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Raider5678 said: Can you point out why this would be without a shadow of a doubt more costly, more ineffective, then the current solutions we are trying to do? Because sequestering carbon after burning sequestered carbon is a stupid idea.
Raider5678 Posted March 22, 2018 Author Posted March 22, 2018 Just now, rangerx said: Because sequestering carbon after burning sequestered carbon is a stupid idea. So removing carbon after putting carbon in the atmosphere is a stupid idea why?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now