Technologies? No. But the oceans are 42x better at sequestering carbon than the surface, and there are some pretty interesting ideas around promoting phytoplankton blooms and kicking the ocean currents up, that sort of thing.
But trees are rad. We should absolutely have more of them. Besides, they’re proven, as you noted.
But really, humans have to stop emitting as much CO2eq. That’s it. There is no magic sciencey solution.
For a starts, we need to shut down all coal mines and power factories, stop oil, reduce animal exploitation as much as possible, stop fast fashion and reduce AI to scientific uses.
Nothing here is new or controversial, it’s just a bit boring, difficult, and goes against massive entrenched interests. That’s the hard part.
But any approach that is banking on technological breakthroughs maybe helping us capture all the CO2 (and methane, and nitrous oxide, and…) is inane.
yeah, sure, but have any of the other carbon sequestration technologies proven more efficient while being equally scalable?
Technologies? No. But the oceans are 42x better at sequestering carbon than the surface, and there are some pretty interesting ideas around promoting phytoplankton blooms and kicking the ocean currents up, that sort of thing.
But trees are rad. We should absolutely have more of them. Besides, they’re proven, as you noted.
But really, humans have to stop emitting as much CO2eq. That’s it. There is no magic sciencey solution.
For a starts, we need to shut down all coal mines and power factories, stop oil, reduce animal exploitation as much as possible, stop fast fashion and reduce AI to scientific uses.
Nothing here is new or controversial, it’s just a bit boring, difficult, and goes against massive entrenched interests. That’s the hard part.
But any approach that is banking on technological breakthroughs maybe helping us capture all the CO2 (and methane, and nitrous oxide, and…) is inane.
I think there’s argument about whether or not even that’s enough.