US total energy consumption has been basically plateaued since around 2000 [0]. Meanwhile, GDP is up about 100% in the same time.
HBR had a recent podcast covering the idea of dematerialization that is worth a listen [1]. (They also do transcripts of all podcasts, so you can read instead of listen.)
UN plan to address climate change: $299.9 billion goes to china to fuel their global expansion, with the USA footing 85% of the bill. $50 million to buy seeds. $50 million to plant them.
Climate change would cost less than $100 million to fix if scientists were serious about it. Everything else is special interests.
A. Seems like this is just a really weak discussion rip from the http://terraton.org/ competition that put up money for practical ideas for accomplishing what they're talking about. This article is just hand-waving BS that doesn't even discuss practical approaches being studied today that benefits both farm and environment.
B. India and Ethiopia already did the "plant a record breaking hundreds of millions of trees...yada yada". Here's the problem with that. Said trees are planted as really small saplings. Because that's cheap. If Kenya does this, they need to keep up with watering and barricading against critters that actively feast on saplings. A small percentage (independent estimates are single digits) of the trees through the PR stunts actually survived after a year. Since a lot are planted in drier, non-agriculturally viable areas not conducive to thriving plant/tree growth on their own. That's assuming the numbers were legit to begin with as there's a lot of controversy to that as well.
B2. Did some math. "Kenya, for example plans to plant 2 billion trees on 500,000 hectares(1,235,526 acres)". That's about 1,600 trees per acre. An overcrowded forest, with short trees, high fire risk and high beetle/pest infestation spread is 500 trees per acre. Forests are thinned down from that number to mitigate pest and fire by forestry programs. Plus, less than 250 trees per acre produce far taller trees (more carbon sucking) due to less resource competition.
C. They really provide nothing but finger pointing and "shame on you" in this article.
D. New research is already showing that trees don't capture anywhere near as much of the world's carbon as we thought. Last I saw was about 25%. I think pound for pound algae does a far better job than planting trees. Along with time scale. It takes your average oak/pine/maple about 10 years to actually start pulling the 40 pound a year carbon amount which is the rough rule of thumb needed.
D2. Oh and I just started learning about this the past few weeks. The CO2 we generate from fossil are not the same we breathe out. Trees don't absorb fossil fuel CO2 as well as what we breathe out. Evolutionary speaking, that makes sense to me since that's what a majority of plants are originally use to, animals breathing out.
E. All that being said, I've already read a few of the scientists they talk about in the article in the past. They're smart cats and this article bastardizes the absolute fuck out of their research. Skipping a lot of the interesting work they actually do. But hey, it's Time magazine. Can't expect much from them.
Reversing our shitting on the planet is important to me. Giving attention to stupid ideas that won't work or pointless discussion points doesn't help. This useless finger pointing politics and idealism in fighting climate change needs to end and more attention needs to be given to practical solution finding instead.
> D2. [...] The CO2 we generate from fossil are not the same we breathe out. Trees don't absorb fossil fuel CO2 as well as what we breathe out.
I found a bit more information about plant preferences for carbon isotopes. It seems to be implying that plants absorb fossil fuel CO2 better than atmospheric CO2, since plants prefer the lighter carbon 12C isotope, plants have lower 13C/12C ratios than the atmosphere, and fossil fuel is made out of plants, hence fossil fuel has a similar carbon isotope ratio to plants.
This doesn't support or refute your comment about CO2 we breathe out being easier for plants to consume, but it does suggest that CO2 from burning fossil fuel is easier for plants to consume than general atmospheric CO2.
> Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
> CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
If I can find the paper I'll link it later. I stumbled across it by accident while researching something else. But I read about it a week or so before this video came out briefly mentioning it: https://youtu.be/myxVsYI4WZk?t=531
This is not the article I read, but doing a quick "carbon 13 plant absorbing" search pulled this up as a top place: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/36/2/133.fu... Under controlled conditions, plants favor c12 to c13. But it's an old study(61) and there's been more recent work. Plus on different photosynthesis types. This paper doesn't seem to go through the different types. But yea, should give you a start.
I swear I'm looking for a paper done by Michigan State. But I can't find it. I'll update if I find it.
Hey, I appreciate it, just having a few search terms can go a long way. Like I said, my knowledge in chemistry is practically non-existent, and I basically forgot isotopes exist, so this'll get me going. Thanks!
I'll just post a summary here: Increase carbon capture in soil by restoring lands subjected to desertification due to human (mis)use.
What I didn't get a clear picture of from this article is how... The only clear technical point mentioned was misuse of fertilizer. Ohterwise it's just a general and hand-wavy "poor land management". Hopefully the actual report is much more concrete in approach.
Plant native flora, as well as trees and other deep root flora to keep salt levels down and retain water. Targeted fertilizer and pesticide use (reduce wastage).
We can also quadruple cattle, and rotate grazing land, to simulate the vast herds we wiped out.
Because growth is untouchable.
And we can't decouple GDP and energy growth.
Our great filter if we're unlucky with climate sensitivity and feedback loops.
The sad thing is, we're not even trying.