Why aren't we reversing carbon emissions by trapping CO2

Why aren't we reducing carbon emissions by invading China and imposing environmental standards on them?

Why aren't we reducing carbon emissions by reducing EPA regulation so industry is cheap enough to move back into the US, where regulations actually exist? It would also get rid of the emissions from goods being transported large distances.

>>8859360
>"we"

Who's "we"? You seem to be too busy being mentally ill on shitty forums.

>>8859374
>reducing
not the point

>>8859387
CO2 is constantly reduced by plants and shit naturally. Anything we think of will be negligible relative to what they do. The problem is emissions being too high.

>>8859408
Plants are carbon neutral because when they decompose the carbon is released back in.

>>8859422
Locking away carbon via trees still does something though just because of the shear mass and how long they hold it.

>>8859360
1- There are better approaches, such as pumping CO2 into basalt deposits.
2- It's fucking expensive.
3- It works a lot better with cheap, CO2 neutral, energy sources, and the environmentalists are quite against nuclear power which is the best and only practical cheap, large-scale source of CO2 neutral energy with current tech.

>>8859449
Only if you're adding new forest, and the forest remains there for a long time.

Let's see.
https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/how-much-carbon-do-different-forests-store-what-size-offsets-your-driving-for-a-year.html
> cool temperate moist forests store the most carbon, 625 tC/ha

For the sake of argument, all forests in national parks in the United States, 190 million acres.

Amount of carbon
= (190 million acre) (625 ton carbon / ha)
= 4.36e13 kg carbon

Amount of carbon in atmosphere: About 5e18 kg.

Difference of 5 orders of magnitude.

So, surprisingly not making that much of a difference, assuming I'm doing my math right, and got correct source numbers. Not a good plan.

File: possible.gif (2MB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x271px

>>8859485
What if we genetically modify tropical hardwood trees to grow fast like bamboo and keep harvesting the wood for furnature?

>>8859360
nah, convert the co2 to graphene super capacitors and oxygen. that way we solve the energy crisis at the same time

File: CC_global carbon cycle.png (7KB, 400x222px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 400x222px

>>8859422
Forests and seas are sinks, not neutral

>>8859374
China is turning around as fast as it can,
it's US that is the idiot here.

>>8859759
Its not going to work. The chinese government has bred a nation of slavering sociopaths. Any group that is scrutinized for its environmental impact will just pass the buck to somebody else. Thats what happened with their attempts to control landfill size: there are now hundreds of unregulated garbage burning operations.

>>8859360
Because that takes way more energy and just puts more co2 into the air

>>8859360
Because everyone knows the unhinged fear of CO2 is bullshit.
>Sent from my private jet on my way to the next global warming conference

>>8859510
Why not just grow lots of bamboo?

>>8859759
Fuck you, americans do alot for the environemnt