Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SV_BubbleTime 128 days ago
> apart from growing forests and keeping them protected)

I’m in a loop. I must be.

How are people still basic at this? No. Forests are not “carbon capture” devices.

Plant a big forest and “protect” (which means thinning it, unless you are California) and in 100 years most trees have died, rotted, released their carbon.

There is so much wrong with the alarmism here, so much hand waving away of scale when it is inconvenient… that it’s like people are doing more damage than good when they jump up and down over this stuff.

It’s almost like if the jumping up and down and alarmism has a different purpose, a whole separate game removed from the issues at hand.
2 comments
swiftcoder 128 days ago
> in 100 years most trees have died, rotted, released their carbon.

And more trees have grown in their place, capturing an equivalent volume of carbon. Just because the carbon storage isn't static, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

link
krashidov 128 days ago
The carbon in our atmosphere is already in the atmosphere and it won't go away. So there really is nothing more you can do other than take it out of the air and store it somewhere for as long as you can. Trees are a good way to store it until we have better technology/can handle climate change better
link
SV_BubbleTime 128 days ago
No. Pick a timeline that is influential, short or long. If it’s long, trees don’t capture carbon. Not in any scenario of population growth, which inevitably leads to some edgelord reductionist “maybe we should all die then for what we’re doing to Gia!” trite.

This “climate is a 100 years” thing while using ice core samples to make your case is not in support of science. It is in support of politicians.

The latter I’m personally getting sick of. And the people that can separate them, harm the former.

link
swiftcoder 128 days ago
> Not in any scenario of population growth

We're not really in a scenario of population growth - there is a direct correlation between being relatively well off and having less kids. Basically every developed nation hit peak population a long time ago, and the faster we pull other nations out of extreme poverty, the sooner their populations will start falling too

Even the most fatalistic estimates have world population peaking at 10 billion.

link