If everyone on earth planted one tree or air scrubber, what effect would that have on global warming?
>>8628289
>trees
Almost nothing
>air scrubber
Worse
>>8628293
Well what can we do then?
>>8628301
stop burning fossil fuels.
>>8628301
Kill most of the population
>>8628311
Shush, before you make /pol/ mad.
Correction:
We begin implementing alternatives to fossil fuels to help mitigate the effects of climate change and invest in long-term energy solutions.
>>8628320
cuck
>>8628293
What if everyone on earth planted 2 trees?
>global warming
>warming
>warm
>>8628301
nothing. Realise that these temperature variations are part of the earth's ice ages' cycles and you can do nothing about it.
Mankind's footprint is too small to cause any major imbalance or change in earth's climate.
Spend your time creating something meaningful instead of creating the same ol' bait threads on /sci/ everyday.
/thread
>>8628301
Make humans go extinct.
>>8629580
It's more the issue that even a few degree can throw off ecosystems and ruin everything
>>8628289
Basically nothing.
Honestly most of the shit that's been getting pushed by hippies and Democrats the last decade has been bullshit "feel good" measures that do little to actually affect greenhouse emissions.
Shitty half-measures like "carbon credits" won't do a damn thing for the environment, not when China's putting out as much emissions as the next ten countries put together.
If the Democrats were serious about real change, they'd stop opposing nuclear power, for a start.
>>8628293
>>8628289
>>8628301
GMO Eucalyptus Trees.
Grow them.
Harvest them.
Don't burn them or let them rot.
Replant.
Repeat.
That is the best answer for carbon sequestration. It is one of the least wasteful and fastest carbon foot print cycles.
>>8629580
>being this retarded
you are retarded
>>8629604
>a few degrees
>degrees
>plural
this is 0.5C or 1 F, as measured since fucking 1850. Which when considering the methods and instrumentation used to measure this - along side the pitifully small amount of temperature increase we are supposed to believe, means this is retarded.
>>8629614
liberals hate when you put their "data set" into perspective. It's almost like they formulated their entire worldview on a lie or something.
>>8628311
You may want to reword that. We now have the ability to make fuels like fossil fuels from biomass. There are even GMO trees use specifically for creating biofuels and paper. They are made in a way that allows them to "self-destruct" to allow biofuels and paper to be made more efficiently. There's no net gain in the system, just net loss and creation of even more CO2, regardless of how much CO2 the trees scrub.
>>8629613
>Don't burn them or let them rot.
So what the hell do you do with them?
>>8629624
>perspective
>viewing any kind of differences from a million miles away instantly erases them!
>>8629607
>>If the Democrats were serious about real change, they'd stop opposing nuclear power, for a start.
Fukushima and Chernobyl pretty much killed all hope for Nuclear Fission; Nuclear Fusion haven't even got a plant built yet either.
>>8629643
build lots of american houses.
>>8629643
How many items in your house are made of wood? Though, that isn't such a great idea since most of the wooden shit in the US is designed to be thrown away.
They can also be stored to be used in times of need. Japan does that. You sink logs in deep cold waters like deep lakes and take them back up decades later.
>>8629662
If you are using container ships and trains, the carbon footprint is rather minimal.
It is coupled with using the land to raise grazing animals like goats, pigs, and deer and nitrogen-fixing ground cover plants. Not only that, but only the logs are being taken away. The branches and leaves are reused and recycled via fungi in bioremediation cycles. There's quite a lot of stuff involved that doesn't require very much maintenance input like fertilizers.
It is more complicated than that, but if you want to research it that is a good start.
>>8629671
>It is more complicated than that, but if you want to research it that is a good start.
No, it's an idiotic waste of time.
If your only concern is carbon sequestration make charcoal and bury. Then come back in 30 years and repeat. When the forest no longer grows, move someplace else.
>>8628289
Global warming is just a part of our planets natural cycle and as such can not be stopped. We are admittedly accelerating it and we can choose to reduce the acceleration back to natural levels but it will still continue on regardless.
And even if we completely fuck the planet give it a million years and it the environment will either recover or undertake and entirely new direction which mankind will have had no influence on.
Global warming is an issue which only exist as we exist. The planet, life and our environment will continue on regardless of our actions.
Instead of 'stopping global warming' a better question would be how to prepare for it, how to circumvent the side effects and how to better adapt our current lifestyle (agricultural, social and industrial) to the changing environment.
TL:DR
The planet doesn't care about us so lets just have fun whilst we prepare for a changing climate.
>>8629692
>30 years
lol no "GMO Eucalyptus Trees". The tech is down to a 7 year cycle and they are trying to get it down to only 5.5 years, last I read. 30 years would be 4.28 cycles. 4.28 forests grown and cut on the same patch of land. If they get it to 5.5 years then that's 5.45 cycles.
>>8628323
And /pol/ has reared their ugly heads.
>>8629733
Scientific research doesn't fit neatly into my plans. It must be a jewish lie.
>>8629624
someone give this man a noble prize.