[pfdietz]

Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are.

It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels.

Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.

[Gibbon1]

I harp on this. Unless I biffed my calcs a solar farm produces 25-50 times as much energy per acre as corn. That alone tells you biofuels is a dead technology.

A solar farm doesn't need to be weeded, ploughed, planted, weeded again, topped, and harvested every year like corn does. You also don't need to ferment it to ethanol then burn it at a 70% loss to power a set of wheels.

Possible also that the vegetation growing between and under the panels sequesters carbon.

[pfdietz]

And the solar farm doesn't transpire quite the enormous quantities of water a field of corn does. So much water goes into the air from a corn field it affects the weather.

I wouldn't say biofuels are a dead technology, but they are niche. They may be useful in a post-fossil fuel age for things that are very difficult to electrify, like long distance air travel and production of organic chemical feedstocks.

[lm28469]

> Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are.

If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.

[pfdietz]

I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates.

If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed.

The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.

[lm28469]

> Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.

And growth accelerates it...

Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner.

> would not avoid eventual massive global warming

Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways

Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers

People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired

[pfdietz]

I find the microplastics bit has all the odor of an unhinged panic. There seems to be quite a lot of dubious science being done. For example, a few years ago there was a study that said we eat up to 5g of microplastics a week. This figure was widely quoted in the press, with images of a credit card (about 5g) held in chopsticks as an illustration. But critical examination of the paper and the methodology concluded it overestimated the rate of ingestion by as much as a factor of a million.

Underlying all this is the moral approach being taken. It is not enough that environmental problems (perceived or otherwise) be solved; humanity must be punished. Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone.

[lm28469]

We find microplastics in foetus brains, if your immediate thought is "meh ok it's probably fine" you're already beyond saving, all of that for what ? Cheap gadgets, some convenience and comfort

> humanity must be punished

We're punishing ourselves right now... look at our food, 75% obese/overweight in the west, 15% of US population on antidepressant, life expectancy going down, testosterone levels dropping 1% per year from the 80s if not before, massive wildlife collapse, nutrients in veggies/fruits massively dropped since the 50s, increasing floods/hurricanes/&c.

> Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone

If you're about to get lung cancer because your smoke 1 pack a day you can always tell your doctor you started drinking green tea to get extra antioxidants, as long as you smoke 1 pack a day you're doomed.

[pfdietz]

> We find microplastics in foetus brains,

That's another study I am skeptical about.