[jack9]

> Carbon stays and accumulates

Stop hand waving. Trees use it, algae use it, at the very least. Carbon doesn't stick around with the persistence of mercury. Rate of emission is precisely what matters. The problem is that it outpaces the consumption. There's an opportunity to create an industry of carbon consumption that will only arise after the crisis point (depending on which countries blink first).

[adrianN]

A good chunk of the atmospheric CO2 is only removed by geological processes that take tens of thousands of years. Trees and algea only bind carbon temporarily, it's released when they rot. Only a part of the carbon stays in the soil. The carbon cycle is pretty complex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

[graeme]

To be clear, I think we should reduce emissions. But even if they drop to zero today, we still have a problem. Trees and Algae don't use more carbon than the used to. The carbon cycle is fairly neutral in terms of the net change year over year, absent us.

My point in commenting was to say that climate change is not irrelevant, and emphasize that using less is helpful, but won't solve the problem on its own.

[yorwba]

Trees and algae also release most of that carbon dioxide, especially at the end of their life cycle. If we wanted to use them to return the atmospheric composition to pre-industrial levels, we would have to prevent the decomposition of large amounts of that organic matter (say by burying it in a coal mine) and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[jack9]

> Carbon stays and accumulates

It's puzzling how this factualky inaccurate concept, is poisoning the understanding. If it were remotely true, why talk about it at all? We are already dead and the earth will never recover SMH.

[dlp211]

But they don't use more because there is more.