Seems like biochar would be a better solution.
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
48 points (90.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
574 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good lord, what bullshit. On top of the fact that it'll get broken down anyway, you'll just burn a few tons of carbon excavating and filling a hole.
There are several major problems this solves. The forests are overstocked, which is part of what leads to larger and more severe wildfire. These are live trees, and won't break down, but need to be thinned. And if the forest does burn, that dead wood needs to be removed to prevent it from burning again. This wood could break down eventually, but it makes it riskier to replant (for both the people planting, and the new seedlings).
Both of these activities are incredibly expensive, and burying the trees in a vault on site could provide a way to manage all of the wood, and pay for it.
Should wood vaults be the only solution? Probably not. And we should definitely remain skeptical as they are proven out. But proper forest management is challenging, expensive, and is often neglected (at least in the US), and I think it's overall beneficial to explore novel solutions like this.
They should be investing their energy into finding a way to make better use of these small logs instead of wasting them like this.
How is this wasting the wood? The wood is directly available to insects and fungus once it's buried
Hopefully one where they are not burned or decomposed. Still, I think when applied to otherwise decomposing wood, the approach is interesting, as a transitional measure anyway.
100s or 1000s of years of store CO2? I'm not a soil engineer but, this sounds dubious to me.
In much of the western US, subterranean termites will eat buried wood.
Why not just stack the wood in arid places though?
Fire.
Sink it in the deep ocean then, let's see it burn there!!! Wait, what do you mean wood floats? Bah, details!
You have to first carve the wood into wooden ducks. Since wood and ducks both float, this cancels out their buoyancy.
Rocks are plentiful. Strap rocks to the logs.
Yea that makes sense
And did they consult the mushrooms ? Seems in medium term, may help feed a lot of bugs and birds, which is good for biodiversity, but to store carbon, needs to be fungi-proof.