Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
Or cut trees down in Canada and dump them in the profusion of lakes they have there. They will sink and the cold water and sediment will trap the carbon for many hundreds of years. (Provided temperature rises don't get silly.) Or cut trees down anywhere and dump them in rivers so they get deposited in aluvial fans on continental shelves. Hay will do too. Or burn wood or hay for electrical energy and a few percent of the carbon will be trapped as ash which can be piled up into artifical hills or whatever you like and serve as another means of trapping carbon. (This would probably be more cost effective than just dumping wood or hay in water.)
|
I don't disagree. But it strikes me as somewhat ironic that only a couple of decades ago we were wanting to conserve all the trees because of deforestation, and here we sit discussing the pros and cons of sacrificing trees just to tie up their carbon.
But all else aside, I want a solution, and one that works. If that means sinking trees, so be it. I still maintain that if we had legislation in place that forced us out of fossil fuels, we would get there faster than any other country on the planet. Look how fast we made it to the moon. All we need is a really good reason to go ahead and bite the bullet. Back then, it was fear of the Russians beating us to it. Nowadays, well. . . . pick a reason. There are tons and tons of reasons why we should abandon fossil fuels. Unfortunately, it looks like most of these reasons are not compelling enough, which is why I advocate legislation. Normally I hate the government. But I want a solution for any kids I might have.