Why don't we just take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and

what are trees?

>>9124520
Only young forests help.
Old forests are very inactive, so covering the Earth in trees will only make a difference while they're young and growing.

>>9124528
I see, you could always just chop em down use the wood then replant them no? seems more viable than an industrial solution.

>>9124528

Simple, grow forest untill trees have passed peak growt, burn down forest and repeat.

>>9124493
Iron seeding.

Problem is unknown consequences. We could, very likely in fact due to the nature of cyanobacteria, inadvertently turn the oceans to poison. There are also unknown consequences to layers of rust on the ocean floor. The massive iron seeding necessary to reverse climate change could fuck us just as bad as climate change itself. The simplest solution is to stop using fossil fuels and convert to a safer alternative such as nuclear but that will take time and so we need to start now.

>>9124493
looks like there is work on this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
>A carbon dioxide scrubber is a device which absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2). It is used to treat exhaust gases from industrial plants
>They have also been researched for carbon capture.

>>9124557
they say climate change is also doing the same:
>Climate change alters ocean chemistry leading to ocean acidification
>Much of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere dissolves into the ocean. In fact, the oceans have absorbed about 1/3 of the carbon dioxide produced from human activities. As carbon dioxide in the ocean increases, ocean pH decreases or becomes more acidic. This is called ocean acidification.

>safer alternative such as nuclear
Need to get the word out that its actually safer, so many people stubbornly ignorantly think it's too dangerous.

>>9124493
>take the CO2 out of the atmosphere
>suddenly all plants die

>>9124545
yes. and it's most important to use the wood for stuff. letting the cut wood rot would release the co2 again. if we really wanted to reduce co2 we'd have to to make almost _everything_ out of wood. imagine cars and computers with wooden bodies and cases.

We could pump it into Trump's vacuous, enormous head

>>9124643

Can always use it for biomass fuel, at lest while we predominantly rely on fossil fuels still

>>9124493
Because it takes a lot of energy and resources to do that.

>>9124520
Trees can't do this fast enough

>>9124635
CO2 scrubbers don't scale up well. To remove CO2 from the atmosphere we'd need HUGE CO2 scrubbers, the likes of which this world has never seen.

If we capture from power plant exhaust, then fossil fuel power plants become more expensive than nuclear

Really the best thing to do is stop burning fossil fuels. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a fools errand as long as we're putting CO2 in by burning fossil fuels.

>>9124493
Because it takes energy, and energy production is the source of the problem. It's also not efficient at large scales. If you are producing clean energy then the problem is mostly solved already.

>>9124528
As long as the forest exists it will keep CO2 locked up.

There have been plans for storing CO2 in underground cavities/porous layers or something, but that's just totally retarded.

grow algae in the desert using city waste water. dry it out and then find a use for it that will keep the carbon from becoming CO2 or methane.

>>9124493
Literally trees

>>9124551
>burn down forest
tell me you're joking.

>>9124671
We need to use wood as a building material more often.

I hear it insulates better than clay bricks too.

>>9124655
but that would mean burning it.
it has to stay intact to work as co2 storage.

File: 1437772299184.jpg (38KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 413x395px

>>9124551
Thanks, anon. I needed that laugh.

>>9124493
Implying (((CO2))) is even bad.

>>9124661
>Trees to slow

Clearly we need to modify them genetically so they grow super-fast. It doesn't matter if the tree turns necrotic and dies, or that it's wood is waste, it's purpose in life is to acquire mass as fast as possible. Then we throw the logs into an oceanic trench or something. Let that carbon be a problem for the future roach civilization.

File: Free_photo_Water,_Lake,_Drift_Wood,_Nature_-_Free_2017-08-23_20-16-11.png (660KB, 886x544px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 886x544px

>>9124884
>throw that wood into an oceanic trench
you do realise wood floats?

>>9124729
If we burn down the forests we release even more CO2 so we can help the world even more with young trees.

Can't we just vacuum the CO2 out

File: climate_hoax.jpg (88KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x334px

>>9124493
>Why don't we just take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and lock it away somewhere?

HMMM.. like back into the plants and animals it came from... brilliant!

>>9124493
whats the big problem with CO2 its all natural

We would need to do the reverse of burning fossil fuels in all respect, and you quessed it, it would take energy. We could for example grow biomass, make charcoal out of it and then bury it in the same pits where we dig our coal.

>>9124493
Ah yes, the perfect solution. Humans discover yet another way to cheat the natural order by inventing a way to clean up CO2. Now they can pollute as much as they want forever with no consequence, thus succeeding in humanity's ultimate goal of not learning their lesson.

Wood stores CO2?

BECCS
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage

>>9124493

Why don't we just not put it into the atmosphere to begin with

>>9125252
Always suspected fapping was good for something.